Saturday, November 6, 2010

Re: 152 Arrested in Oakland Cop Sentencing Protest

The unfortunate part is that it was necessary (to give the story some
"zing") to mention the cops and the victims race.... what the hell
difference does it make ???


On Nov 6, 11:22 am, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> probation after thirty days... with time served and  good behavior....
> or something like that...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/national/main7029257.shtml
> CBS/AP)  Police arrested 152 protesters who streamed through the
> streets Friday - some breaking windows and knocking down fences -
> after a white ex-transit officer received the minimum two-year prison
> sentence for fatally shooting an unarmed black man on a California
> train platform.
>
> The case against defendant Johannes Mehserle has provoked racial
> unrest at every turn, and police in Oakland, the scene of the killing,
> were on alert for more problems following a sentence many thought was
> too light.
>
> "This is outrageous - This sentence of two years is outrageous," one
> protester told CBS Station KPIX. "For murder, for killing somebody!"
>
> A rally billed as a tribute to Oscar Grant turned into a march through
> the downtown area, where people broke car windows and two windows on a
> bus. After police in riot gear repeatedly blocked and outflanked them,
> several hundred protesters splintered into smaller groups and entered
> residential neighborhoods.
>
> Police helicopters hovered above, shining spotlights on the crowd.
>
> Oakland Police Gear up for Mehrserle Sentencing
> Oakland Police Arrest 83 After BART Shooting Verdict
> Oak. Mayor: "I Don't Want Anybody Killed"
>
> A group of about 100 protesters holding a banner reading "Justice for
> Oscar Grant" was hemmed in with officers on both sides of the street
> before police started making arrests around 8 p.m. Friday, saying the
> assembly was illegal.
>
> The action was taken, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said, after
> one officer had his gun taken from him in a fight and another officer
> was hit by a car and suffered what police described as a non-life-
> threatening injury. "It's one thing breaking windows; it's another
> thing taking a gun from an officer," the chief said.
>
> Police spokesman Jeff Thomason said officers checking the backpacks of
> several of those arrested found hammers, pepper spray, switchblades
> and anti-freeze.
>
> Mehserle's sentence, handed down in Los Angeles, also angered the
> victim's family and friends, who demanded a much harsher punishment.
>
> Wanda Johnson, Grant's mother, shouted, "Oh my!" when Superior Court
> Judge Robert Perry issued the two-year sentence. She burst out of the
> courtroom saying, "He got nothing! He got nothing!"
>
> Grant's uncle, Bobby Cephus Johnson, said outside court: "I do believe
> it's a racist criminal justice system."
>
> Still, he said the family was reacting calmly but added he could not
> comment for others.
>
> "I have no power over what people feel their matter of expression
> should be," he said.
>
> Some of the dozens of people who gathered outside Oakland City Hall
> for a tribute to victim Oscar Grant broke into tears when they learned
> of the judge's decision. Outside the Los Angeles courthouse, a small
> crowd that had earlier shouted "No justice, no peace" reacted
> relatively calmly to the sentence.
>
> Mehserle, 28, had faced a possible 14-year maximum term after being
> convicted of involuntary manslaughter. At the time of the shooting,
> Mehserle was a Bay Area Rapid Transit officer responding to a report
> of a fight.
>
> In making his decision during the highly charged, 3½-hour hearing,
> Perry threw out a gun enhancement that could have added as much as 10
> years in prison and said there was overwhelming evidence that it was
> an accidental shooting.
>
> Perry said race would not factor into his decision and although
> Mehserle had shown "tons of remorse" for killing Grant, he would have
> to account that a "young man needlessly died."
>
> "I did the best I could with this case," Perry told the courtroom. "My
> decisions today will not be well-received by many people. I'm sorry
> for that."
>
> Police said they were prepared in case there was a replay of the
> rioting in Oakland that followed the shooting on New Year's Day 2009.
>
> Mayor Ron Dellums said he understood the pain and disappointment
> sparked by the sentence.
>
> "It is still my hope that people will express their anger, will
> express their disappointment, their outrage, their pain in a manner
> that is nonviolent, in a manner that is not destructive to our
> community," he said at a news conference.
>
> Johnson family attorney John Burris acknowledged a small step was
> taken by the justice system in sentencing Mehserle to two years, but
> he said that was insufficient. Both Burris and Bobby Johnson noted
> that NFL star Michael Vick got a harsher sentence for running a dog-
> fighting ring.
>
> "What you take from that is that Oscar Grant's life was not worth very
> much," Burris said.
>
> He also targeted Perry's comments before sentencing that he was
> saddened by the polarization of the community over the shooting.
>
> "This case does nothing at all to heal, if that was ever any intent,"
> Burris said.
>
> Reaction to the case has drawn comparisons to the infamous 1991 Rodney
> King beating by Los Angeles police officers, which inflamed a racial
> divide and led to the disastrous 1992 riot when the officers were
> acquitted of brutality charges.
>
> Mehserle was convicted in July in the videotaped killing of Grant, 22,
> in Oakland. The case was moved to Los Angeles for trial.
>
> Perry had wide discretion when sentencing Mehserle. Prosecutors sought
> prison time while defense lawyers argued for probation. The judge gave
> Mehserle the minimum possible prison sentence.
>
> Defense attorney Michael Rains immediately filed an appeal with the
> court after the sentencing. After time already served and good
> behavior credits, Mehserle will likely serve an additional six to
> seven months based on California's sentencing guidelines, the lawyer
> said.
>
> Mehserle testified during the trial that he thought Grant had a weapon
> and decided to shock him with his stun gun but instead pulled his .40-
> caliber handgun. Grant was unarmed and face down when he was shot.
>
> Sentencing came after four relatives of Grant and his fiancee pleaded
> with Perry to send Mehserle to prison for 14 years.
>
> Wanda Johnson cried and struggled to give a victim impact statement.
> She said she regrets telling her son to take a BART train to San
> Francisco before the shooting.
>
> "I live every day of my life in pain," she said. "My son is not here
> because of a careless action."
>
> The family continues to maintain that it was murder when Mehserle shot
> Grant.
>
> Mehserle, shackled and wearing a jail jumpsuit, also stood before the
> judge before sentencing and apologized for the shooting, which he
> contended was accidental and not racially motivated.
>
> "I want to say how deeply sorry I am," Mehserle said. "Nothing I ever
> say or do will heal the wound. I will always be sorry for taking Mr.
> Grant from them."
>
> He cried during portions of his 10-minute statement and said he and
> his family have received numerous death threats and he's been "green-
> lighted" - a term in which other jail inmates have the go-ahead to
> kill someone.
>
> Earlier, the judge said he had received more than 1,000 letters urging
> a harsh sentence.
>
> Prosecutors had sought a second-degree murder conviction, saying
> Mehserle became angry at Grant for resisting arrest.
>
> However, jurors were given the choice of lesser charges, including
> voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In reaching a decision on
> involuntary manslaughter, jurors found that Mehserle didn't mean to
> kill Grant, but his behavior was still so negligent that it was
> criminal.
>
> Involuntary manslaughter has a sentencing range of two to four years,
> while the gun allegation carries a term of three, four or 10 years.
>
> The judge rebuked prosecutors for arguing that Mehserle intentionally
> shot Grant, saying there wasn't any evidence to back up that
> allegation. Perry also said he believed the videos showed Grant
> resisted arrest and many people, including Mehserle's fellow officers
> and Grant's friends, contributed to the tragedy.
>
> "All of these people share some responsibility," Perry said.
>
> Early in the day, before the sentencing, there was a scuffle outside
> the Los Angeles courthouse that led to at least one arrest and an
> undercover officer being briefly handcuffed.
>
> Police Lt. John Romero said the undercover police officer was coming
> out of the building when a member of the crowd recognized him and the
> two had a verbal exchange. When it escalated to pushing and shoving
> among the crowd, sheriff's deputies who guard the building moved in.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules

I have a friend that was convicted as a sex offender.... SHE was
pissing behind a dumpster .... no one saw her. She was convicted
because there was indeed a "puddle" and she admitted that she simply
couldn't hold it any more.

Be careful who you lump in together.

On Nov 6, 7:25 am, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh my bleeding heart!!  The recidivism rate CANNOT be ignored even by Florida rednecks.  The children mentioned were killed by men who should have been in prison serving loooooooooooooonger sentences and now you want to support a judge allowing the fox to play in the hen house?  Don't even talk to me Keith.  A pox on TB forever!!!
>
> CW <g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith In Tampa
> To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 08:59
> Subject: Re: Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules
>
> Good Mornng CW!!
>
> "Do the names Jessica Lunsford, Polly Klaas, Samantha Runion, Jennifer Thompson etc., etc., etc. sound the least bit familiar to you???"
>
> Uhm?   They were all little girls who were murdered by guys who were raised in trailer parks up in Ohio?
>
> Okay,  I was attempting to be humorous once again,  and I apologize!
>
> Yes, I know what the recidivism rate is on these kinds of crimes.   That isn't the issue.  
>
> There are many other individuals who have been tagged with the "sexual crimes" tag, that are not of this same mold.  (Geesh, I can tell stories of folks who are no more a sexual deviant or predator than you or I,  but since the Jessica Lundsford laws, they are now deemed as such!)  
>
> IF, we are going to punish these folks by giving them terms of imprisonement; and IF, these individuals  complete these terms of imprisonment, then there must be some place for them to return to.
>
> This was the Judge's point in his ruling.
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Do you have any idea, any idea at all, what the recidivism rate is among these animals?"
>
>   I really hope I never become so stupid that I am sitting around worrying about the rights of these pigs.
>
>   CW
>   On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Uhm.....Call me a Moonbat, but I agree with this judge...
>
>     On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>       Unbelievable!  This goes with the recent one that an illegal who used someone else's SSN to buy a house, vehicle and to work did not commit a crime...Ferg
>
>       Law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional, L.A. judge rules
>       November 4, 2010 |  8:07 am
>
>      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/law-restricting-where-s...
>
>       Saying sex offenders are being forced to choose between prison and homelessness, a Los Angeles judge issued an opinion this week blocking enforcement of provisions a state law restricting how close those offenders can live from parks or schools.
>
>       Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza issued the 10-page ruling after four registered sex offenders petitioned the court, arguing that the legislation known as Jessica's Law was unconstitutional.
>
>       He said the court had received about 650 habeas corpus petitions raising similar legal issues, and that hundreds more were being prepared by the public defender's and alternate public defender's offices.
>
>       "The court is not a 'potted plant' and need not sit idly by in the face of immediate, ongoing and significant violations of parolee constitutional rights," Espinoza wrote.
>
>       Proposition 83, which is better known as Jessica's Law and was overwhelmingly passed by state voters in 2006, imposes strict residency requirements on sex offenders, including requirements forbidding them from residing within 2,000 feet of any public or private school or park where children regularly gather.
>
>       Before the law passed, those residency requirements were imposed only on offenders whose victims were children.
>
>       Civil rights attorneys have argued that provisions of the law make it impossible for some registered sex offenders to live in densely populated cities.
>
>       Nearly all of San Francisco, for example, is off-limits to sex offenders because of the number of parks and schools close to housing. Los Angeles officials also said that there are few places in the city where sex offenders can find housing that meets Jessica's Law requirements.
>
>       The California Supreme Court ruled in February that registered sex offenders could challenge residency requirements in the law if it proves impossible to avoid living near parks and schools.
>
>       State corrections officials said Wednesday that they could not comment on the specifics of Espinoza's ruling, but said they would continue to ensure residency restrictions are imposed in cases where there is a valid reason to continue enforcing them.
>
>       "There are other tools that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can and will continue to use to further public safety, including residency restrictions specific to each offender," said the agency spokesman Luis Patino.
>
>       In his opinion, Espinoza cited comments by Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck that the Jessica's Law restrictions had resulted in "a marked increase of homeless/transient registrants." The judge noted that in 2007, there were 30 sex offenders on active parole in the city of Los Angeles. By September of this year, that number had jumped to 259.
>
>       "Rather than protecting public safety, it appears that the sharp rise in homelessness rates in sex offenders on active parole in Los Angeles County actually undermines public safety." wrote Espinoza, who is the supervising judge of the Los Angeles County criminal courts. "The evidence presented suggests that despite lay belief, a sex offender parolee's residential proximity to a school or park where children regularly gather does not bear on the parolee's likelihood to commit a sexual offense against a child."
>
>       LAPD officials said they were reviewing the court decision and had no immediate comment on its specifics.
>
>       Last month, in a briefing for the Los Angeles Police Commission, Det. Diane Webb, who heads a unit responsible for tracking the whereabouts of sex offenders, said there are about 5,100 registered sex offenders living in the city.
>
>       Of those, about 20%, or approximately 1,020 people, are on parole for felony crimes and are prohibited by state law from living near a school or park where children gather, Webb said.
>
>       She said that some of the city's sex-offender population has come to Los Angeles from surrounding cities that have passed additional sex-offender laws that make it next to impossible for offenders to find a place to live and push them to look elsewhere, but that Los Angeles does not have any additional laws on its books, making it a feasible destination.
>
>        -- Andrew Blankstein
>
>       --
>       Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>       For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>       * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>       * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>       * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>     --
>     Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>     For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>     * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>     * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>     * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>   --
>   Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>   For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
>   * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>   * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>   * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Republicans own unemployment

Romney/Beck 2012!

On Nov 5, 3:01 pm, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Huck sucks!!!
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "euwe" <machgie...@gmail.com>
> To: "PoliticalForum" <politicalforum@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 03:42
> Subject: Re: Republicans own unemployment
>
> Romney/Huckabee 2012!
>
> On Nov 5, 9:11 am, Cold Water <coldwater...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > MITT!!
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Keith In Tampa
> > To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 09:55
> > Subject: Re: Republicans own unemployment
>
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:53 AM, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Palin 2012!
>
> > =============
>
> > I doubt it.....
>
> > (Can you say: "President Newt"??)
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:13 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Euwe, Euwe, Euwe.....
>
> > > Nominal, Nominal, Nominal.....
>
> > > I feel your pain! I know that it sucks for you both, that America caught
> > > on
> > > to the Marxist infiltrated, broken beyond repair Democratic Party, and
> > > that
> > > the, "March Toward A Leninist Utopia" for you and your proletariat
> > > brethren
> > > has now been halted to a crawl. The both of you, along with Joy(less)
> > > Bayhar, Whoopie "Guinan Not A Jew" Goldberg, Nanc Pelosi,
> > > Lil'MarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews, and the several hundred thousand
> > > very
> > > vocal minority of far left extremists are angry, hurt, disillusioned,
> > > and
> > > just flat out mad at thinking Americans for catching on to the Leninist
> > > dream, and flat out rejecting it. (I can only imagine what is going on
> > > over
> > > in Euwetopia, I am in D.C. and have been too busy to go over and look!)
>
> > > At any rate, the both of you know, deep down, that nothing of the sort
> > > that
> > > ya'll just referenced is going to happen! The both of you know, deep
> > > down,
> > > that it was only a matter of time before thinking Americans caught on,
> > > and
> > > "righted the ship"!!
>
> > > It's all good! We'll get rid of the chief Moonbat in two more years, and
> > > get America productive, humming and back to that, "Shining Beacon On The
> > > Hill" and the envy of the world very soon!
>
> > > Positive Vibes!!
>
> > > KeithInD.C.
>
> > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM, GregfromBoston
> > > <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Great line Euwe!
>
> > > > of course, you'll be chanting "inherited", in 2024.
>
> > > > A gimme.
>
> > > > You do know your senate is toast in '12 right?
>
> > > > Work on 1600. Your only hope, and change, and don't that look
> > > > promising?
>
> > > > On Nov 3, 3:55 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am so liberal my shit smells like pot.
>
> > > > > On Nov 3, 1:23 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > No more unemployment benefits extensions.....
> > > > > > Let's see how that flies with all those so-called populists that
> > > > > > voted
> > > > > > Republican.... especially the poor unemployed or underemployed
> > > > > > suckers
> > > > > > who did not know they were being taken for a ride by the Tea Party
> > > > > > bull-crap...
> > > > > > nominal9
>
> > > > > > You're Republican, aren't ewe. Ewe?
>
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:10 pm, euwe <machgie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Their solution? Cut corporate taxes, and do nothing.
>
> > > > > > > I wonder how long before people catch on to THAT scam?
>
> > > > > > > ...this time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community
> > > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
>
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
>
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Steven Bradbury Memoranda On Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: I Am Wanting To Hear Perspectives!!

The point of the enhanced interrogation techniques, at all levels, was to extract accurate information.   Waterboarding is based on a deeply rooted physiological response which makes an individual believe that he is drowning, even if he knows that no harm will come to him.  See Bradbury's 5/10/05 Memorandum at 15. 

 

Based on what I have read, (which is all of the information that has to date been released by the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration) I surmise that during the Level Three enhanced interrogation techniques, of which only three detainees were ever subjected, the most drastic step was "waterboarding" where at no time was the detainee ever subjected to pain,  or any kind of physical harm!!!

 

Does fear constitute "torture"?   I don't think so, and fear is no more defined and described than "Harm" is.  



On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael, 
 
From April 19, 2009, and posted here, to Political Forum:
 
=======
 
Good Afternoon,
 
As probably everyone in the Group is aware, last week, the Obama Administration released several CIA Memorandums outlining and detailing some of the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used back in 2002 and 2003 against homicidal murderers who were intent upon attacking the United States. 
 
Many far left publications, including the New York Times, have labeled these enhanced interrogation techniques as "torture".  I have seen many members of this group, (and most especially members of Euwetopia and Politics Du Jour) also label these enhanced interrogation techniques as "torture".
 
There is a divergence of opinion and what I perceive to be a stark contrast in beliefs between those Americans who I consider to hold far left extremist viewpoints, as compared to those Americans who I deem to be rational thinkers.  Herein lies the very crux of the cultural divide in our Nation.
 
There are actually several Memoranda that were released, and I opine that the two which shed the most light were written by Steven Bradbury, one on May 10th 2005 and one on May 30th 2005.  I have cited portions from the May 10, 2005 Memorandum in this message, which can be found here:
 
 
All of the Memoranda can be found on the ACLU's web site, and the May 30th 2005 Memorandum goes into pretty specific detail with regard to the actual techniques and tactics used:
 
 
The May 10th Memoranda ("The Memorandum") goes into finite detail regarding the procedures utilized against some twenty-eight, (28) detainees/enemy combatants, where some minor form of enhanced interrogation techniques were utlized. See Memorandum at 5-6.    These techniques ranged (among other minor tactics which are listed in the report) from  forcing the detainee to remain nude which might cause embarassment, (there was no sexual abuse or threats of sexual abuse, and the ambient air temperature was always above 68 ° F);  to dietary manipulation which consisted of a bland, commerical liquid diet, but had sufficient caloric intake of over 1,000 Calories a day;  (and the detainee could drink as much water as he pleased); to sleep deprivation, where a detainee might in fact be kept awake for up to 96 hours, (something that I imagine all of us have done at some point in time, I know I have!!)  See Memorandum at 12-15, 31-33.    
 
If these measures failed, then more severe coercive techniques were utilized, such as the "false wall" technique, where a detainee was pushed against a collapsable wall,  more for the noise level effect and the detainee was absolutely never subjected to  pain or any harm done to his person.  The old, "Water Splashing" technique was also utilized, wherein a detainee was splashed with water that was always above 41 ° F, and usually above 50 ° F.  The Detainee was always in ambient air temperatures of above 68 ° F, and there was precautions to insure that the detainee was never allowed to sit in the wet clothing where there was any danger of hypothermia.  See Memorandum at 15, 35. 
 
The final, most drastic step was "waterboarding" where at no time was the detainee ever subjected to pain, or any kind of physical harm!!! Waterboarding is based on a deeply rooted physiological response which makes an individual believe that he is drowning, even if he knows that no harm will come to him.  See Memorandum at 15. 
 
To date, there has only been 3, (Count em':  THREE  !!!) detainees who were ever exposed to the waterboarding technique.  Those three homicidal murderers who were exposed to the waterboarding technique were Abu Zubaydah, Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad, and Rahim al Nashiri.  See Memorandum at 7, 35.   They actually had to bitch slap al Nashiri to shut him up, after one short water boarding episode.....See Memorandum at  8.  (I am kidding here!!) 
 
After reading the report, I don't think any rational person, any thinking American, could conclude that the acts described in the "Bradbury Report" can be construed as torture.  At no time were either Zubdayah, Khalid (Sheikh Mohammed) , or al Nashari; e.g.; the the only three individuals who were waterboarded, ever exposed to any mental or physical harm, nor were they ever remotely placed in danger or harm's way. 
 
Never were any of the total of 28 detainees who were exposed to the lesser enhanced interrogation tactics,  and the three who were exposed to the waterboarding, ever subjected to pain.
 
 At all times during any enhanced interrogation tactics, there was always a medical doctor, and a psychologist present to monitor these homicidal murderers'  physical and mental conditions, and to insure that these detainees were ever subjected to any physcial or mental harm!!  
 
These enhanced interrogation tactics never lasted longer than 30 days, and usually only lasted for a period not exceeding seven days.  (See Memorandum at 7)
 
Just as important.....No, more importantly, the results of the enhanced interrogation tactics DID WORK SUCCESSFULLY!! 
 
After repeated attempts to obtain information from Khalid and Zubdayah regarding al Queida plans to attack our Nation, and prior to any enhanced interrogation tactics by the CIA, Khalid's only response would be, "Soon you will know".   See Memorandum at 9. 
 
After Khalid got doused with a little bit of water, and was finally subjected to (again, medically supervised waterboarding)  Khalid finally revealed the plot to crash a plane into a Los Angeles skyscraper, as well as attacks on Los Angeles International Airport.   That the cell who was planning to carry this attack out, (parts of the cell were located here in the United States)  were apprehended.  Through the enhanced interrogation techniques, it was learned of a plot to set off a dirty bomb in Washington D.C. as well as the structure of al Queida and various cells and structure of al Queida and the Taliban.  See Memorandum at 10-11. 
 
In other words, these techniques saved literally hundreds of thousands  of Americans' lives in Washington D.C. and Southern California. 
 
I would encourage everyone to take thirty minutes and at least read the May 10th Report, especially if you are one that beleives our Nation engaged in "Torture". 
 
Specifically, I want to understand those who believe that we engaged in tortuous activities' train of thought and how you come to this conclusion.   I am not attempting to be facetious, I am literally trying to understand those who hold the view that the enhanced interrogation tactics as somehow constituting torture, and how you all ascertain this belief.
 
I would  love to hear Mark's (The Annointed One!!) Lobo's, Biff's Fritz's, Golem's and many of the Euewtopians' perspectives and opinions on the report, (as well as any other members' thoughts on the Bradbury Report)
 
 
Respectfully,
 
Keith In Tampa


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Steven Bradbury Memoranda On Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: I Am Wanting To Hear Perspectives!!

Michael, 
 
From April 19, 2009, and posted here, to Political Forum:
 
=======
 
Good Afternoon,
 
As probably everyone in the Group is aware, last week, the Obama Administration released several CIA Memorandums outlining and detailing some of the enhanced interrogation techniques that were used back in 2002 and 2003 against homicidal murderers who were intent upon attacking the United States. 
 
Many far left publications, including the New York Times, have labeled these enhanced interrogation techniques as "torture".  I have seen many members of this group, (and most especially members of Euwetopia and Politics Du Jour) also label these enhanced interrogation techniques as "torture".
 
There is a divergence of opinion and what I perceive to be a stark contrast in beliefs between those Americans who I consider to hold far left extremist viewpoints, as compared to those Americans who I deem to be rational thinkers.  Herein lies the very crux of the cultural divide in our Nation.
 
There are actually several Memoranda that were released, and I opine that the two which shed the most light were written by Steven Bradbury, one on May 10th 2005 and one on May 30th 2005.  I have cited portions from the May 10, 2005 Memorandum in this message, which can be found here:
 
 
All of the Memoranda can be found on the ACLU's web site, and the May 30th 2005 Memorandum goes into pretty specific detail with regard to the actual techniques and tactics used:
 
 
The May 10th Memoranda ("The Memorandum") goes into finite detail regarding the procedures utilized against some twenty-eight, (28) detainees/enemy combatants, where some minor form of enhanced interrogation techniques were utlized. See Memorandum at 5-6.    These techniques ranged (among other minor tactics which are listed in the report) from  forcing the detainee to remain nude which might cause embarassment, (there was no sexual abuse or threats of sexual abuse, and the ambient air temperature was always above 68 ° F);  to dietary manipulation which consisted of a bland, commerical liquid diet, but had sufficient caloric intake of over 1,000 Calories a day;  (and the detainee could drink as much water as he pleased); to sleep deprivation, where a detainee might in fact be kept awake for up to 96 hours, (something that I imagine all of us have done at some point in time, I know I have!!)  See Memorandum at 12-15, 31-33.    
 
If these measures failed, then more severe coercive techniques were utilized, such as the "false wall" technique, where a detainee was pushed against a collapsable wall,  more for the noise level effect and the detainee was absolutely never subjected to  pain or any harm done to his person.  The old, "Water Splashing" technique was also utilized, wherein a detainee was splashed with water that was always above 41 ° F, and usually above 50 ° F.  The Detainee was always in ambient air temperatures of above 68 ° F, and there was precautions to insure that the detainee was never allowed to sit in the wet clothing where there was any danger of hypothermia.  See Memorandum at 15, 35. 
 
The final, most drastic step was "waterboarding" where at no time was the detainee ever subjected to pain, or any kind of physical harm!!! Waterboarding is based on a deeply rooted physiological response which makes an individual believe that he is drowning, even if he knows that no harm will come to him.  See Memorandum at 15. 
 
To date, there has only been 3, (Count em':  THREE  !!!) detainees who were ever exposed to the waterboarding technique.  Those three homicidal murderers who were exposed to the waterboarding technique were Abu Zubaydah, Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad, and Rahim al Nashiri.  See Memorandum at 7, 35.   They actually had to bitch slap al Nashiri to shut him up, after one short water boarding episode.....See Memorandum at  8.  (I am kidding here!!) 
 
After reading the report, I don't think any rational person, any thinking American, could conclude that the acts described in the "Bradbury Report" can be construed as torture.  At no time were either Zubdayah, Khalid (Sheikh Mohammed) , or al Nashari; e.g.; the the only three individuals who were waterboarded, ever exposed to any mental or physical harm, nor were they ever remotely placed in danger or harm's way. 
 
Never were any of the total of 28 detainees who were exposed to the lesser enhanced interrogation tactics,  and the three who were exposed to the waterboarding, ever subjected to pain.
 
 At all times during any enhanced interrogation tactics, there was always a medical doctor, and a psychologist present to monitor these homicidal murderers'  physical and mental conditions, and to insure that these detainees were ever subjected to any physcial or mental harm!!  
 
These enhanced interrogation tactics never lasted longer than 30 days, and usually only lasted for a period not exceeding seven days.  (See Memorandum at 7)
 
Just as important.....No, more importantly, the results of the enhanced interrogation tactics DID WORK SUCCESSFULLY!! 
 
After repeated attempts to obtain information from Khalid and Zubdayah regarding al Queida plans to attack our Nation, and prior to any enhanced interrogation tactics by the CIA, Khalid's only response would be, "Soon you will know".   See Memorandum at 9. 
 
After Khalid got doused with a little bit of water, and was finally subjected to (again, medically supervised waterboarding)  Khalid finally revealed the plot to crash a plane into a Los Angeles skyscraper, as well as attacks on Los Angeles International Airport.   That the cell who was planning to carry this attack out, (parts of the cell were located here in the United States)  were apprehended.  Through the enhanced interrogation techniques, it was learned of a plot to set off a dirty bomb in Washington D.C. as well as the structure of al Queida and various cells and structure of al Queida and the Taliban.  See Memorandum at 10-11. 
 
In other words, these techniques saved literally hundreds of thousands  of Americans' lives in Washington D.C. and Southern California. 
 
I would encourage everyone to take thirty minutes and at least read the May 10th Report, especially if you are one that beleives our Nation engaged in "Torture". 
 
Specifically, I want to understand those who believe that we engaged in tortuous activities' train of thought and how you come to this conclusion.   I am not attempting to be facetious, I am literally trying to understand those who hold the view that the enhanced interrogation tactics as somehow constituting torture, and how you all ascertain this belief.
 
I would  love to hear Mark's (The Annointed One!!) Lobo's, Biff's Fritz's, Golem's and many of the Euewtopians' perspectives and opinions on the report, (as well as any other members' thoughts on the Bradbury Report)
 
 
Respectfully,
 
Keith In Tampa

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

What Not to Wear While Driving Drunk


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Woman Is First Man to Play on Women's Team


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Olbermann




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench after spiteful campaign against them

Hello Mustang,
 
I agree that there is a conundrum, and a number of issues (e.g.; problems);  some of which you addressed,  with government involved in "marriage".  See Divorce.
 
Having said that, why is it that you believe, that by somehow making compound mistakes by changing the definition of marriage, this  would somehow resolve or "fix" the current problem(s)?   How would acknowledging homosexuals who have a civil union, (which I openly admit are what many heterosexual marriages are)  would somehow "Fix" everything? 
 
Why is it that you choose to take a definition that is sacred to many, with religious and ecclesiastical connotations, and somehow force this definition upon yourselves, and portray something that has been sacred for millennia, as something that homosexuals now want to embrace and adhere to?   Is this not something that you are attempting to force the rest of society to accept, whether we like it, or don't like it?
 
Metals don't "marry"; that is an analogy.   Metals are either welded or soldered, in the world of metallurgy......
 
   
 


 
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Yep.
If people REALLY want to 'protect marriage' (whatever that means), they would do everything they could to OUST the Government from the entire argument.
The problem is that it is the Government provided advantage that is the 'rub' AND why in the end those 'protecting' will ultimately lose.

Regard$,
--MJ

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner" -- H. L. Mencken.






At 04:14 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
all benefits, rights, protection of tangible and intangible properties; again with a few documents, I can remedy, fix, guarantee, make right, and protect.

A couple years ago, a lesbian couple and their children were about to take a Caribbean cruise leaving from Miami.  They had all the necessary paperwork with them - power of attorney, health care, "Civil Union," etc.  One woman became ill and was hospitalized.  The partner and children were denied any contact with the patient because they were deemed non-relative.  The partner presented all the documentation and she was told "You're in Florida now."  When the woman died, it was without the physical presence and emotional comfort of her family.

If two metals can be married, why can't two people?  Who officiates?  Must it be performed in a House of Worship?  Do the metals need a marriage license beforehand and get a certificate after the ceremony?

If "marriage" is a religious rite, how come it requires a license from the government?  How come certain people are allowed to practice a marriage rite and others are refused the right to the rite? 

Is a common law marriage from one state recognized in all the other states? Would a utility bill in both names be acceptable as proof?  What if opposite gender roommates have recreational carnal knowledge, are they considered married?

The way many heterosexuals do it, holy matrimony with its vows (until death do us part) seems to be the first step to divorce.  Similar to washing hair, they repeat the sacred ritual.


From: Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com>
To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 6:25:36 AM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench after spiteful campaign against them

Other than your support for "Gay Marriage",  I tend to agree with you Greg.  We have discussed this a good bit here, (you were hanging out across the street when we did...<Grin>!)  but in a nutshell, the only thing that I could not change for two individuals who choose to cohabitate as a couple;  today, as the laws currently are, with just a few documents, is the Federal Tax Code.
 
Other than that, all benefits, rights, protection of tangible and intangible properties; again with a few documents, I can remedy, fix, guarantee, make right, and protect.
 
 

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
I happen to support gay marriage.  I also live in Massachusetts, where
it was the courts that validated gay marriage too (but our judges are
not elected).  For the record, it was DEMOCRATS who shat themselves
over that ruling, and attempted to change the state constitution to
overrule it.

The real issue is that states acknowledging gay marriage is basically
meaningless until the fed does, and the fed does NOT.  4 years of a
dem congress, 2 of which with a dem president, and the ever so
tolerant ones haven't lifted a finger on DOMA - a dem law as well -
and that includes Massachusetts' very own, and proudly gay, Barney
Frank.

Right here, we have Dean Hara, married to former congressman Gerry
Studds (D-MA).  Gerry died.  Dean applied for his pension and benefits
from his departed spouse.  The fed said, "Not a fucking dime, you were
never married".

And Barney and his tolerant friends are still mum.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.politicalforum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Ex-Clinton strategist: Obama needs event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters


Mass Bloodshed on American Soil: The Key to a 'Great' Presidency
Posted by William Grigg on November 5, 2010 03:04 PM

Shortly after winning re-election in November 1996, Bill Clinton confided to reporters on Air Force One that his political recovery began with the Oklahoma City bombing: "It broke a spell in the country as people began searching for our common ground again."

That "common ground" was defined by unqualified submission to the central government. Mr. Clinton skillfully exploited the bombing to define "anti-government" sentiment ­ as supposedly displayed in the Republican conquest of the House in the 1994 mid-term elections ­ as something akin to a criminal psychosis. "You can't say you love your country and hate your government," Clinton insisted in a Michigan State University Commencement address following the bombing. Touching on the same theme during a speech to a handpicked audience in Montana, Clinton admonished his devotees not to permit anyone to speak ill of the Regime: "When you hear someone doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down."

That Bill Clinton perceived the Oklahoma City atrocity in terms of its impact upon his own political fortunes offered a useful measure of his capacity for self-preoccupation ­ but he is hardly unique. Indeed, the imperial presidency is designed to attract the kind of people who are eager to exploit, or precipitate, the death of thousands or millions of human beings. Clinton's immediate successor,  after all, cynically used the much larger tragedy of 9-11 to similar ends. In August 2001, George W. Bush's presidency was a floundering, sputtering mess. After the Twin Towers fell, Bush was transformed into a "war president" whose will was law.

According to Mark Penn, former Hillary Clinton campaign strategist, Barrack Obama needs his own OKC-style tragedy to offer him a chance to "reconnect" with the American people.

"Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?" Penn said during a November 4 panel discussion on MSNBC's Hardball program. "And the president right now seems removed. It wasn't until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public." According to Penn,  Obama needs a similar "a similar kind" of opportunity for greatness, even if that means hundreds or thousands of mere Mundanes must die to provide it.

Ex-Clinton strategist: Obama needs event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters


Ex-Clinton strategist: Obama needs event 'similar' to OKC to 'reconnect' with voters
By Stephen C. Webster
Friday, November 5th, 2010 -- 1:14 pm


Talk about a bad analogy: Appearing on television recently, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current public relations executive Mark Penn suggested that President Obama needs a moment "similar" to the tragic terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, in order to "reconnect" with voters.

He didn't even seem to flinch in making the comment.

Penn is currently president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a multi-national public relations firm. He also served in 2008 as chief strategist for then-Senator Hillary Clinton's run for the White House. Before that, Penn advised former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in his third run for the UK leadership post, and served clients such as AT&T, Texaco, Ford, Merck, Verizon, BP, McDonald's and Microsoft.

After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush experienced the highest approval ratings of his presidency, but the same could not be said of President Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing.

On April 19, 1995 -- the same day as the attack in Oklahoma -- President Clinton was sitting on a 46 percent approval rating, according to polling firm Gallup. Following his speech to the nation regarding the attack, a Time/CNN poll on April 27 found his approval had jumped to 60 percent, but it was back down to 42 percent by the end of May according to Gallup.

"Remember, President Clinton reconnected through Oklahoma, right?" Penn said, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Thursday. "And the president right now seems removed. It wasn't until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar -- a similar kind of ... Yeah."

By comparison, President Obama, freshly chastised by voters in the mid-term elections that flipped control of the US House into Republican hands, is in roughly the same place as President Clinton was after the 1994 mid-terms, although his party still controls the US Senate whereas Clinton's Democrats did not.

With an approval rating stuck at 44 percent according to Gallup, indicators as to how well the president's party is faring actually show a clear contrast between 1994 and 2010. Then, congressional Democrats were saddled with a 47 percent disapproval rating according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whereas today they sit at 37 percent disapproval.

All numbers considered, it seems at the very least cynical and at the very worst maniacal to suggest that a mass casualty event is just the thing Obama needs right now.

Following the Oklahoma City attack, Congress acted to implement most of the president's national security proposals, much as representatives did with the USA Patriot Act following Sept. 11, 2001.

Penn's claim is sure to stir up right-leaning conspiracy mills that insist federal agents helped Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on behalf of the Clinton administration. This is especially likely in the wake of President Clinton's analogy in April, comparing irrational tea party rage to the right-wing militia movement many credit with fostering McVeigh's thought process.

This video was broadcast on MSNBC's Hardball on Nov. 4, 2010, as snipped by Think Progress.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8&feature=player_embedded


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/exclinton-strategist-obama-event-similar-okc-reconnect-voters/

How Anyone Can Hijack Your Online Accounts









http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/how-anyone-can-pointandclick-to-hijack-your-online-accounts-20101101-179rg.html

How anyone can 'point-and-click' to hijack your online accounts

Ben Grubb

November 1, 2010

The           Firesheep add-on in action.

The Firesheep add-on in action. Photo: Codebutler.com

Logging in to your Facebook or online email accounts from an unsecured public Wi-Fi network? Think again, as a new add-on for the web browser Firefox allows even the most amateur hackers to hijack your account.

The Firesheep add-on allows anyone to easily break in to Facebook, Twitter and legions of other online accounts of individuals when they log in from unsecured public Wi-Fi found at places such as McDonald's, hotels and cafes.

For example, as a victim is logging in to their Facebook or Twitter account from any web browser, the attacker, using the Firefox add-on, can sniff out their credentials, allowing the attacker to hijack the victim's account without having any physical access to their computer.

Using the add-on, the attacker can then access the victim's account using the unsecured Wi-Fi just by clicking on the account.  

The attacker is then able to pretend to be the victim by taking over their account.

Depending on the type of account, they are able to send emails or Facebook messages to those the victim is in touch with - and view all of the victim's existing messages.

Without special software that encrypts internet traffic it is impossible to avoid these types of attacks.

In the first couple of days of being available the Firesheep add-on was downloaded more than 129,000 times, said its developer, Eric Butler, a freelance web application and software developer based in Seattle.

Firesheep is not an official Firefox add-on. The reason it was released, Butler said, was to demonstrate how many sites were not using proper security practices.

"Websites have a responsibility to protect the people who depend on their services," he said on his blog.

"They've been ignoring this responsibility for too long, and it's time for everyone to demand a more secure web."

Chris Gatford, a security consultant at Hacklabs, said the tool was embarrassing large websites, such as Facebook and Twitter, into moving them to secure their online applications.

"A lot of these web services should be moving to fix these vulnerabilities in light of this," he said.

Gatford said the flaw that the add-on was taking advantage of had "been around for a long time" and that there had been "several tools" that had the ability to do the same thing in the past.

But he said that the Firesheep add-on had made it "much easier" for anyone – not just security professionals or savvy computer users – to hijack people's Facebook, Twitter and various other online accounts being accessed from unsecured Wi-Fi.

"The great thing about Firesheep from a security professional's perspective is that it makes what we call stealing session cookies much easier to do and makes it much easier – and much easier for other people – to point out vulnerabilities in applications that they're using, such as Facebook and Twitter and various other clients," he said.

The tool works by looking at web traffic available on open Wi-Fi access points, Gatford said.

Many websites don't use what is known as HTTP over SSL (HTTPS) by default. It is the lack of HTTPS not being used consistently throughout the online application that is causing a users' credentials to leak, he said.

"Unfortunately when you're not using HTTPS you are exposing these credentials and this is what Firesheep does; it picks up some of these credentials flying around the airwaves, in this particular case the open Wi-Fi access point you are connected to, and alows the attacker point-and-click access to other people's accounts," he said.

Gatford said a lot of web applications were designed to use HTTP instead of HTTPS for "speed and performance" and that this may be one of the many reason why websites that require a log-in weren't using HTTPS.

In a statement to tech blog TechCrunch, Facebook said it was "making progress testing SSL access across Facebook" and said that it hoped to "provide it as an option in the coming months".

Since being available to download, a number of tools have been released to counter Firesheep's ability to hijack people's credentials. One tool, named FireShepherd, works by flooding a network with certain traffic that stops Firesheep's ability to work.






--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

US Department of Justice Prosecutes Infidels for "Hate" Speech Crimes (against a mosque?) - 1 yr sentence









http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/obamas-department-of-injustice-and-sharia-prosecutes-infidels-for-hate-speech-crimes.html

 

November 04, 2010

Obama's Department of [In]Justice and Sharia Prosecutes Infidels for "Hate" Speech Crimes

And so it begins. This is an outrage. An infidel was prosecuted by Obama's Department of Justice and sent to jail for a year for saying in an email that he would "do WHATEVER it takes to eradicate Islam." So what? A year in prison? A $3,000 fine? 

We witnessed a traitorous Department of Justice refuse to prosecute the Black Panther party for voter harassment and intimidation with weapons on Election day. Senior DoJ lawyers resigned in protest.

"Obama has Violated His Oath of Office" in Racist Dept of Justice Decision to Drop New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation Case and Mandate DOJ Policy: "No Voter Intimidation Cases Will Brought Against Black Defendent Where the Victim is White" (read it at Atlas Shrugs)

The Department of Justice sponsored a booth at the Muslim Brotherhood front ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) convention underwritten by, among others, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas-linked CAIR.

Obama's Department of Justice sued a New Jersey county, alleging that it refused to accommodate a Muslim employee's khimar, a religious head covering. The suit seeks monetary damages and also seeks to require Essex County to adopt a policy that accommodates the religious observances and practices of employees.

Further, Obama's Department of Justice dropped the "charges" against the Muslims who blew up the USS Cole.

Obama's Department of Justice is still trying to bring the 911 mastermind to New York City for a civilian trial. And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. The prosecution of Sobolevskiy is by far the worst, and Judge David G. Bernthal, referring to the defendant's crime as "an act of terror," is in need of immediate removal. Nuts.

I do not advocate for violence or ugly email missives, but a year in jail for them? This is something altogether different. The Department of Justice is enforcing sharia and abandoning rule of law.

Washington - Maryland Man Sentenced To 1 Year For Sending Threatening Email to Illinois Mosque Vosizneias.com (hat tip Nik)

Washington -  Ilya Sobolevskiy, a 25-year-old resident of Maryland, was sentenced today to serve 12 months in prison and to pay a $3,000 fine for violating the civil rights of members of an Urbana, Ill., mosque, announced the Justice Department. 

During a guilty plea hearing in August 2010, Sobolevskiy admitted that he sent an email to a member of the Central Illinois Mosque and Islamic Center (CIMIC), in which he threatened, among other things, that he would "do WHATEVER it takes to eradicate Islam."  Officials at CIMIC reported the threat to the FBI, which referred the case to the department's Civil Rights Division.

"One of our most basic rights is the freedom to practice one's faith in peace," said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the Civil Rights Division.

I agree. Tell that to the Coptics, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Christians, living under Islamic law.

Actually our most basic human right is free speech.

"We have no tolerance for threats of violence fueled by bigotry, and we will aggressively prosecute such actions."

"It is a top priority of the FBI to protect the civil rights of the American people. We encourage members of the community to report all allegations of civil rights violations. The FBI will aggressively investigate these matters to ensure that our society remains free," said Stuart R. McArthur, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Springfield Office.

CAIR must be laughing in jihadic glee.

Federal Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal, referring to the defendant's crime as "an act of terror," gave the defendant the maximum sentence permitted by law.

This case was investigated by the Springfield, Ill., division of the FBI, and was prosecuted by department Trial Attorney Patricia Sumner.

So I guess I should turn over my hundreds of "hate" emails. Something tells me that those emailers won't be serving time any time soon.

Washington Post has it here.

UPDATE:  The last name is Sobolevsky. The offense is "Obstruction Of The Free Exercise Of Religious Beliefs" (U.S.C Sec. 247(a)(2)). The case number is 2:10-cr-20062-DGB.

Not only was Sobolevsky sentenced to a year in prison, but also a year of supervised release.

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench after spiteful campaign against them


Yep.
If people REALLY want to 'protect marriage' (whatever that means), they would do everything they could to OUST the Government from the entire argument.
The problem is that it is the Government provided advantage that is the 'rub' AND why in the end those 'protecting' will ultimately lose.

Regard$,
--MJ

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner" -- H. L. Mencken.





At 04:14 PM 11/5/2010, you wrote:
all benefits, rights, protection of tangible and intangible properties; again with a few documents, I can remedy, fix, guarantee, make right, and protect.

A couple years ago, a lesbian couple and their children were about to take a Caribbean cruise leaving from Miami.  They had all the necessary paperwork with them - power of attorney, health care, "Civil Union," etc.  One woman became ill and was hospitalized.  The partner and children were denied any contact with the patient because they were deemed non-relative.  The partner presented all the documentation and she was told "You're in Florida now."  When the woman died, it was without the physical presence and emotional comfort of her family.

If two metals can be married, why can't two people?  Who officiates?  Must it be performed in a House of Worship?  Do the metals need a marriage license beforehand and get a certificate after the ceremony?

If "marriage" is a religious rite, how come it requires a license from the government?  How come certain people are allowed to practice a marriage rite and others are refused the right to the rite? 

Is a common law marriage from one state recognized in all the other states? Would a utility bill in both names be acceptable as proof?  What if opposite gender roommates have recreational carnal knowledge, are they considered married?

The way many heterosexuals do it, holy matrimony with its vows (until death do us part) seems to be the first step to divorce.  Similar to washing hair, they repeat the sacred ritual.


From: Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com>
To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, November 5, 2010 6:25:36 AM
Subject: Re: Gay marriage support knocks 3 Iowa justices off the bench after spiteful campaign against them

Other than your support for "Gay Marriage",  I tend to agree with you Greg.  We have discussed this a good bit here, (you were hanging out across the street when we did...<Grin>!)  but in a nutshell, the only thing that I could not change for two individuals who choose to cohabitate as a couple;  today, as the laws currently are, with just a few documents, is the Federal Tax Code.
 
Other than that, all benefits, rights, protection of tangible and intangible properties; again with a few documents, I can remedy, fix, guarantee, make right, and protect.
 
 

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:19 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
I happen to support gay marriage.  I also live in Massachusetts, where
it was the courts that validated gay marriage too (but our judges are
not elected).  For the record, it was DEMOCRATS who shat themselves
over that ruling, and attempted to change the state constitution to
overrule it.

The real issue is that states acknowledging gay marriage is basically
meaningless until the fed does, and the fed does NOT.  4 years of a
dem congress, 2 of which with a dem president, and the ever so
tolerant ones haven't lifted a finger on DOMA - a dem law as well -
and that includes Massachusetts' very own, and proudly gay, Barney
Frank.

Right here, we have Dean Hara, married to former congressman Gerry
Studds (D-MA).  Gerry died.  Dean applied for his pension and benefits
from his departed spouse.  The fed said, "Not a fucking dime, you were
never married".

And Barney and his tolerant friends are still mum.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.politicalforum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.