News Stories

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by GDB

But as was already stated, the government has acknowledged it to be true. Their response is a combination of "get over it", "it's not as bad as you think", and "it's for your own good". You don't need to know Snowden's background at all for this.

Why not? If Snowden turns out to be a less-than-credible witness, then the US government's clarifications would take on more weight.

How else would you expect a judge to evaluate the case, without also taking into consideration the credibility of the witnesses for both sides?

[GDB]

The government's clarifications don't dismiss anything he said either way. It's been proven that what he said is true. The government is just trying to make people forget or not care.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The US government has already said that the surveillance is needed to pre-empt threats to national security. It has claimed that such spying has allowed it to prevent at least one terrorist threat.

One can question whether terrorism or the measures to prevent terrorism pose a greater threat to national security.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by GDB

The government's clarifications don't dismiss anything he said either way. It's been proven that what he said is true. The government is just trying to make people forget or not care.

The US government doesn't deny the existence of Prism.

What it is hoping for is that Americans accept that it is a necessary evil. And the jury is still out on that decision. Well, maybe not, judging by the kinds of responses dominating the airwaves and headlines.

Here's another working example of why the credibility of a plaintiff is important:

Singapore rules US death a suicide, but suspicions linger

Singapore (July 8, Mon): The Singapore authorities ruled today that the hanging death of American scientist Shane Todd last year was a suicide.

State coroner Chay Yuen Fatt found that there was no foul play and that the 31-year-old engineer died by asphyxia due to hanging.

Dr Todd's family immediately criticised the ruling as predetermined, and vowed to continue a high-profile campaign that has put Singapore’s normally cordial relations with the United States under strain.

Dr Todd was found hanged to death in his Singapore apartment in June last year, days before he was to leave the country for good and return to the US.

His parents in Montana have long rejected the possibility of suicide, instead believing their son died trying to stop a transfer of highly sensitive military-grade technology from his employer, Singapore's Institute of Microelectronics (IME), to Huawei Technologies, suspected by some countries of enabling Chinese espionage with their devices.

Following the suicide finding, the US Embassy in Singapore released a carefully worded statement that avoided any mention of a further investigation into a possible technology transfer. "The inquiry into Dr Todd's death was comprehensive, fair, and transparent," the statement read.

To the Todd family, smooth US-Singapore relations are secondary to what happened to their son, and whether – as he reportedly told them – his life and US national security were at risk. The Todds worry that a conspiracy of complacency will win out over a search for what they consider the truth.

The family's newly unveiled website, www.justice4shanetodd.com, is designed to counter what they see as misinformation from Singaporean officials.

And they plan to lobby lawmakers in Washington, where Montana's two US senators, Mr Max Baucus and Mr Jon Tester, have previously sought to cut some US$500,000 in Defense Department funding to Singapore's IME while questions go unanswered.

"One must ask if Shane really committed suicide, why did the state and IME expend such an enormous amount of time, effort, and money to prove it? What do Singapore, IME, and Huawei have to hide?" the Todds said in a statement.

THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

Due process has been followed, and a transparent investigation — backed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no less — showed that Dr Shane Todd did indeed die of suicide by hanging.

Yet his parents continue to insist there is a conspiracy.

So, it now comes down to their word against that of the governments of Singapore and the United States.

Who do you think is the more credible witness? Your decision would be influenced by your biases. If you're the kind who believes that all governments routinely lie, are corrupt, and are out to kill people who try to expose them, then yes, of course the Todds have been wronged by the evil Singapore and US governments. We must demand further investigation!

Or, you can go through the facts of the case as laid out by the coroner's inquiry and accept that the grieving parents should learn to simply let go and not pursue this any further than necessary.

Whose "truth" would you accept?

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The US government doesn't deny the existence of Prism.

What it is hoping for is that Americans accept that it is a necessary evil. And the jury is still out on that decision. Well, maybe not, judging by the kinds of responses dominating the airwaves and headlines.

Here's another working example of why the credibility of a plaintiff is important:

Singapore rules US death a suicide, but suspicions linger

Due process has been followed, and a transparent investigation — backed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no less — showed that Dr Shane Todd did indeed die of suicide by hanging.

Yet his parents continue to insist there is a conspiracy.

So, it now comes down to their word against that of the governments of Singapore and the United States.

Who do you think is the more credible witness? Your decision would be influenced by your biases. If you're the kind who believes that all governments routinely lie, are corrupt, and are out to kill people who try to expose them, then yes, of course the Todds have been wronged by the evil Singapore and US governments. We must demand further investigation!

Or, you can go through the facts of the case as laid out by the coroner's inquiry and accept that the grieving parents should learn to simply let go and not pursue this any further than necessary.

Whose "truth" would you accept?

I should say something, but then I live on this island so....*innocent whistle*

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

So, in the case of Edward Snowden, how do we know, for example, if he is telling the whole truth? In fact, the indications are that he has yet to reveal everything he purportedly found out.

And, lacking insight into the "big picture", how do we know for sure that Snowden fully understood the context of what he is revealing?

if Snowden left something out, the gov't hasn't came and fill in the rest either.

Why do we take his word at face value, and not give the other side the chance to reply, to explain?

so far the gov't's response is everybody does it.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Due process has been followed, and a transparent investigation — backed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no less — showed that Dr Shane Todd did indeed die of suicide by hanging.

Yet his parents continue to insist there is a conspiracy.

So, it now comes down to their word against that of the governments of Singapore and the United States.

Who do you think is the more credible witness? Your decision would be influenced by your biases. If you're the kind who believes that all governments routinely lie, are corrupt, and are out to kill people who try to expose them, then yes, of course the Todds have been wronged by the evil Singapore and US governments. We must demand further investigation!

Or, you can go through the facts of the case as laid out by the coroner's inquiry and accept that the grieving parents should learn to simply let go and not pursue this any further than necessary.

Whose "truth" would you accept?

Since when did we become another Pakistan?

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

And, lacking insight into the "big picture", how do we know for sure that Snowden fully understood the context of what he is revealing?[/qoute]
if Snowden left something out, the gov't has came and fill in the rest either.

so far the gov't's response is everybody does it.

But that is the incorrect answer. For example, I believe in the right for the U.S to tap Chinese Embassies or French Government HQ, or the Kremlin. People do it all the time (Especial Israel in the U.S)

But they cross the line when they start bugging foreign national civilians. Tapping into Chinese Universities or German Telephone companies all for the sake of tapping. Then we are really literally stepping in Big Brother State.

As for tapping U.S civilians' online information....well, China does it. But since when is U.S using China as a standard for privacy?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GDB

The government has already proclaimed him a filthy traitor guilty of crimes worse than murder. His "rightness" is of no worth when they can easily toss his ass in guantanamo.

You are being optimistic. Obama keeped his promise in one way at least; there hasn't been a single new inmate at Quantanamo since his Presidency. It's because he has been killing the targets instead. So the whistle blower's only modern treatment by the US government is death. Ironic, that it takes more paperwork to order incarceration, than outright execution by missile.

But they cross the line when they start bugging foreign national civilians. Tapping into Chinese Universities or German Telephone companies all for the sake of tapping. Then we are really literally stepping in Big Brother State.

As for tapping U.S civilians' online information....well, China does it. But since when is U.S using China as a standard for privacy?

The issue with Internet Tapping, is that there is no clear line separating spying on citizens, or governments. And there is no difference in method between spying on Americans or foreigners. It's all one giant network, and there is no fence marking boundaries. If you can get info from Microsoft, you can get info from Microsoft on anyone. The promise of limited spying is only that; a promise. There is no actual limitations that can be enforced, especially if it is all done in secret.

[ganbaru]

Liberal Jewish women activists blocked at Western Wall
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9670I420130708

Exclusive: U.S. system for flagging hazardous chemicals is widely flawed
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9670K720130708

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Exclusive: U.S. system for flagging hazardous chemicals is widely flawed
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9670K720130708

So long as the majority (or perhaps, plurality) of people are apathetic on topics like this, the more errors and exploits will occur largely unnoticed.
Because, honestly, who's to care about hazardous chemicals so long as they aren't affected by it?

[Xefi]

American hacked to death over $1.60 cab fare, Thai police say

Source:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...olice-say?lite

A taxi driver hacked an American to death after an argument over a $1.60 fare, Thai officials said late Sunday.

comments: getting killed over a $1.60 cab fare? soooo worth it...

[Haak]

You think that's bad? Get a load of this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23215676

[Zakoo]

Mass genocide during world cup incoming.

[Xefi]

Originally Posted by Haak

You think that's bad? Get a load of this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23215676

from the article:

The player's friends and relatives rushed onto the field, stoned the referee to death and dismembered his body, the department said in a statement.

killing the dood wasn't enough? they have to dismembered his body and stuffs too?
ewwww....gross man. human are so CRAZY these days.

[Lightning_Wing]

Originally Posted by Xefi

killing the dood wasn't enough? they have to dismembered his body and stuffs too?
ewwww....gross man. human are so CRAZY these days.

Well at least it wasn't part of the game, like, you know, gladiators

[TinyRedLeaf]

Japan says it faces increasing threat from China, N. Korea

Tokyo (July 9, Tue): Japan faces increasingly serious threats to its security from an assertive China and an unpredictable North Korea, a defence ministry report said today, as ruling politicians call for the military to beef up its ability to respond to such threats.

The report, the first since hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office vowing to boost Japan's defences, is likely to prompt a sharp response from Beijing, whose ties with Tokyo are strained by a territorial row.

"There are various issues and destabilising factors in the security environment surrounding Japan, some of which are becoming increasingly tangible, acute and serious," the annual defence white paper said.

"China has attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion, which is incompatible with the existing order of international law," the report said, echoing recent comments by Mr Abe and his Cabinet.

"China should accept and stick to the international norms."

A Sino-Japanese dispute over rival claims to tiny East China Sea islets flared up last September after Japan nationalised the isles, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.

Japan has been gradually ratcheting up its expressions of concern about Beijing's military expansion. Last year's defence white paper, issued before the islands flare-up, flagged the risks of the army's role in shaping Chinese foreign policy.

REUTERS

[ganbaru]

Bin Laden's life on the run revealed by Pakistani inquiry
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96714L20130709

U.S. considers pulling all troops from Afghanistan: officials
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96803T20130709

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You're entitled to believe what you want.

I used the example of the Saigon Execution photo to show the parallels between that story and Snowden's allegations of government wrongdoing.

The truth is "twisted" all the time, depending on who you ask. The only solution is to look at as many possible angles as you can before you decide.

And in that light, yes, I need to know the messenger's background and motivation.

It's as simple as that. You're free to disagree if you wish.

The truth is twisted but only on those trying to justify it.

I think you chose a bad examples there. In your example above, the only fact/truth is that police guy shot the unarmed Vietcong suspect without trial in the middle of the street.

Then after he was shot dead, he was "discovered" to be a mass murderers who happened to dig a mass-grave for 7 different polices and their families in the middle of bloody war zone because of.... he want to pay respect to those he killed?? Can the dead guy still deny that charge by then? And his wife conveniently acknowledge his role in the massacre as well without any possible gain other than resentment from general population (assume that she is not water-boarded before admitting those charge). This is an exact case of how the truth can be twisted/rejustified by changing the motivations of the doer. Making the killer to be a lawful angel while silencing the dead guy, before making him the worst scum on Earth



The only way you can draw parallel with this case is if Snowden actually killed every single member of US senator before brought out PRISM and accusing them of spying on their own citizen. Then yes, maybe we needed to look at Snowden motivations because there is no other party to speak against it.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Then after he was shot dead, he was "discovered" to be a mass murderers who happened to dig a mass-grave for 7 different polices and their families in the middle of bloody war zone because of.... he want to pay respect to those he killed??

Quoted verbatim from the story:

According to accounts at the time, when South Vietnamese officers captured Lem, he was more or less caught in the act, at the site of a mass grave. This grave contained the bodies of no less than seven South Vietnamese police officers, as well as their families, around 34 bound and shot bodies in total. Eddie Adams, the photojournalist who took the shot, backs up this story. Lem’s widow also confirmed that her husband was a member of the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong), and that he disappeared before the beginning of the Tet Offensive.

After being captured with the bodies during the Tet Offensive, Nguyen Van Lem was taken to Major General Ngoc Loan. In a street in Saigon, Loan executed Lem with his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson.

The man was a known assassin. He was captured at the site of the mass grave. The general summarily executed him. He wasn't "discovered" to be a mass murderer after the execution.

Was there due process? No. Was it wrong? Yes, such summary executions could constitute a war crime. The key here, is not whether the context behind the execution excuses the potential crime. The end does not justify the means.

No, the crux of the question is, now that you know the full story, would you still look at the general as a hardcore criminal who had absolute disregard for the Geneva Convention?

As an armchair commentator, it's easy to cast blame. I guarantee you, however, if you were there, in the general's shoes, at that moment in time, it wouldn't so easy to make the "right" call.

My point simply is that, not knowing the "big picture", not knowing the full reasons why extensive surveillance like Prism is needed to prevent acts of terrorism, it's impossible for us to fully evaluate its pros and cons.

The US government doesn't deny that Prism exists. But it is trying to defend its necessity. It's up to Americans to decide whether it has gone too far.

And I'm saying that, in truth, such a decision is impossible for ordinary Americans to make fairly. For most people, it's an unacceptable invasion of privacy. But then, we'll never know the reasons that purportedly made such a system necessary, because they are classified secrets. Information that President Obama would have, but is legally unable to divulge. At least, not now.

Let me ask simply: Is spying wrong in principle? Yes or no?

If you said "No, it depends", then the next inevitable question would be, "Well, how much spying is too much?"

That is the question that Americans would have to answer for themselves. It would be nice if foreigners had a say in it, too, but obviously that's not going to happen, even though we are the ones who are actually worse affected.

To me, the answer was never "Yes, spying is categorically wrong" to begin with. Anyone who believes otherwise needs a crash course in realpolitik.