Previous 11 - 20 Next
Martin: I have no doubt that what you say is true. But, I hope that someone can provide specifics as to the extent of snooping (government and private). "Back-doors" require the collusion of hundreds, if not thousands of engineers, code writers and designers (and yes, bureaucrats). Perhaps we need another Snowden to provide hard data.
"One hundred forty-four people on death row have later been found innocent and freed from prison since 1973." This one statement undermines the credibility of this polemic. First: No one in our justice system is found "innocent". The appropriate finding is "Not guilty", which means that is not sufficient evidence to convict "to a moral certainty" (typical jury instruction verbiage). In these 144 cases, reasonable doubt was later raised to show that this criteria was not met in establishing the original conviction. Few, if any, were actually proven "innocent".
He was ordered to go to Benghazi. His assessment of the safety of the Benghazi Mission is reflected in his numerous requests for additional security. All denied by State Department staff that (apparently) had no knowledge of the current threat situation. Apparently the State Department considered his assignment (to coordinate the shipment of arms to Syrian rebels) to trump the risk. Question: Why had other country's missions been closed and the respective staffs evacuated?
Doug's writing style is not important. The points he makes are. We need more heros, fewer wimps.
"A man wielding an assault rifle"? Whoa!! This term seems to roll of this writer's tongue without any thought or knowledge. Just what gun was he carrying? The writer clearly does not know. I have seen single shot 22's called "assault rifles" by these writers with an agenda. Facts do not matter when there is a chance to demonize guns. Note that a gun is not an "assault rifle" unless it is capable of fully automatic fire.
I do not choose to address this incident (I do not have the facts). But, I observe several conflicts of interest in barristry as now practiced. First, the fundamental conflict between the duties of a judge and a lawyer. Should a lawyer give up his bar license (for life) if he accepts a judgeship? I suggest that he should. Second, if a lawyer is elected to an office that produces laws and/or regulations, should he be required to give up his law license for life? Many of the laws produced seem to be primarily aimed at producing more litigation (how often are laws simplified to the point that an individual can even understand the operation or import of the law?). Again, a fundamental conflict of interest. Food for thought.
In response to:

Questions After a Massacre

Fred688 Wrote: Jun 01, 2014 11:02 AM
"Concealed carry permits, were they more readily available in California and elsewhere, might indeed spark more caution from evil men like the young Mr. Rodgers." Relative to this, Bill Brown, the Sheriff of Santa Barbara County, is adamantly opposed to the issuance of CCWs, to the point of cancelling existing permits. Only the politically connected in Santa Barbara County are able to obtain these permits.
Years ago, Nixon blurted out that he knew certain things about the USSR because he was listening to Khrushchev's car phone conversations. This exposed one of our most successful intelligence collection systems. The Soviets immediately encrypted these communications, cutting off a very valuable collection technique. Now, fast forward to today. Does anyone really think that Merkel was surprised that her conversations were equivalently monitored by the NSA? After all, we share that class of intelligence with her own intelligence system. The only issue here is public awareness of the scope of our collections, particularly with respect to its use against American citizens. In the final analysis, Snowden may, indeed, be a hero.
Mark Skousen needs to move along. Perhaps he is more suited to HuffPost.
Whoever wrote the headline for Ben's article is no friend (of conservatives). Compromise is only a virtue relative to tactics, not principles (and then only as an interim device).
I hate to give this administration any kudus but these rules do have merit. During the ticket purchase transaction is complete, the customer must be advised of all fees and costs (and other onerous conditions). If it takes government intervention to accomplish this, so be it. Now, if we can only get rid of the TSA............ Is the public aware of the fact that the TSA has never intercepted a single individual who had mal-intent wrt a flight?
Previous 11 - 20 Next