[US_Politics] Y'know, I think that this really is a legitimate information-security concern ...

Jeebizz · 02-21-2017, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

"Absurdity? Now, consider this!"

Herewith I present to you the case of an Alabama man, having been duly convicted of killing his girlfriend's husband more than 35 years ago, who is ... amazingly ... debating the issue of whether it is "constitutional" to execute him by means of a sedative, versus a firing squad.

Ironically lethal injection is seen as more humane, just as how the electric chair was seen as more 'humane' when first introduced. Never mind the failures of executions resulting in having to 'ride the lightning'(Metallica reference) multiple times due to improper procedure, or faulty equipment. Same with lethal injection, either due to poorly followed procedure, or most likely the use of expired drugs (there have been cases, google it) resulting in a not so quick death - although that would be seen as a positive to the victim or victim's family witnessing attempt at execution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

And, believe it or not, thirty-five years later, the Circuit Court is not only "still debating it," but they have not yet come to a decision! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/u...ow-appeal.html

Well that is the Supreme Court - which maybe should be different, it is lower courts i.e. the now talked about 9th Circuit that often weighs on decisions for even a decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

Okay ... okay ... I get it. "You actually can get away with murder," and avail yourself free-of-charge of the hospitality of the State of Alabama, so long as you your lawyers can still manage to come up with ... thirty-five years later(?!?!?) ... nonsense such as the following drivel:

Quote:

“Under this view,” she wrote, “even if a prisoner can prove that the state plans to kill him in an intolerably cruel manner, and even if he can prove that there is a feasible alternative, all a state has to do to execute him through an unconstitutional method is to pass a statute declining to authorize any alternative method. This cannot be right.”

She said she questioned whether the Alabama law in fact barred the use of firing squads, because it authorized “any constitutional method of execution” if either of the two specified methods, lethal injection and electrocution, were declared unconstitutional.

The larger point, she said, was that the appeals court’s decision shut down an important discussion.

“The decision below is all the more troubling because it would put an end to an ongoing national conversation — between the legislatures and the courts — around the methods of execution the Constitution tolerates,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent in the case, Arthur v. Dunn, No. 16-602.

She added that there is scientific and anecdotal evidence to question the use of midazolam in executions.

“Like a hangman’s poorly tied noose or a malfunctioning electric chair,” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “midazolam might render our latest method of execution too much for our conscience — and the Constitution — to bear.”

“Condemned prisoners, like Arthur, might find more dignity in an instantaneous death rather than prolonged torture on a medical gurney,” she wrote.

I'm sorry, but ... I must ask ... "why is this judge still on the bench?!"

And ... "by exactly-what legal theory are such fogies able(!) to," not only "tie the hands of the State of Alabama," but, by extension, "tie the hands of both the US Congress and the US President?"

I assure you: The Russians

(our Cold War Enemy™) the Communist™ Chinese (our Most-Favored Nation™) would not have such "difficulties" in administering the Verdict of Law.

Yes. they surely would have simply, somehow, thirty-five years ago, got it done.

The only problem is that is too extreme - you essentially have a deathsquad of your own - something that Communists would do as well - so in that case you are no different than the monster you claim to be fighting against - but I also realise that is a pure black and white outlook ignoring the very subtleties of grey areas, but I agree the system is being played by the convicted - it might have to be done on either a case-by-case basis to decide unfortunately or the courts have to come up with new rules to safeguard against such actions by death row inmates.

Jeebizz · 02-21-2017, 08:08 PM

H.A. Goodman - FBI SHADOW GOVERNMENT BLAMED FOR CLINTON LOSING: Podesta Blames Clinton's Loss on Deep State

Quote:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/john-...inton-to-lose/

John Podesta: It’s Likely There Were ‘Forces Within the FBI’ That Wanted Clinton to Lose

Yea, so it is the FBI's fault for doing their job and investigating any potential illegal shenanigans by Clinton?

hazel · 02-22-2017, 01:45 AM

Actually I think the judge made a very good point. The reason why the death penalty, if it exists at all, should be administered in the most humane way possible is not that murderers deserve a good end but that society deserves a clear conscience. After the Nuremberg trials, a professional English hangman was sent for, so that the convicted war criminals could be hanged in the English way (which breaks a man's neck causing instantaneous death). They certainly didn't deserve such mercy. If they had got their deserts, they would have been hanged the same way they had hanged others, in nooses of piano wire that slowly strangled them while at the same time sawing off their heads. But the allies wanted to show the German people how civilised people handle this kind of problem.

The current problems with administering the death penalty in America are due to chemical companies refusing to sell to the states the chemicals which were formerly used for executions. So they are using improvised mixtures which often produce horrendously slow and agonising results. The judge is quite right when she says that this is more than society can or should tolerate. If you're going to have a death penalty at all, some more merciful and civilised way has to be found.

jsbjsb001 · 02-22-2017, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

It's very interesting to me how many people in Washington are openly jealous of the fact that this man has made thousands more million-dollar bills than any of them did in their careers as Federal employees.

As I said, this is a very old debate – it pretty much coincides with the adoption of the Constitution – and it goes like this:

The Congress deliberated and, exercising its Constitutional powers to control immigration, chose to grant the President broad prerogatives and powers.
The President chose to exercise those powers.
The Swamp began to boil. Lawsuits were filed, praying The Court for an Edict.
A Federal Court in Boston read the law and agreed with the President.
"Oops! Wrong coast!"
A Federal Court in Washington decided that "those nice people from Yemen are Muslims, and Muslim is a religion, therefore the President shall have no authority to exercise a decision that Congress authorized ... and that Congress could not even authorize such a thing because it might interfere with "the exercise of religion."
And the Constitution neither authorizes the Court to do this, nor in any way contemplates that it might. Indeed, both the word and the legal concept, "unconstitutional," does not exist anywhere.

The very-old Constitutional problem, of course, is that the Court is acting in the role of both Legislature and Executive. It is not "interpreting" the law that Congress made: it is setting the whole thing aside and imposing its own will.

There is a lot of material – in The Federalist, in comments made by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James K. Polk and many, many others – which specifically identifies this risk and speaks very openly against it.

It is entirely true that "the Constitution is inadequate." Granted, it was enacted in Philadelphia in a closed room when air-conditioning had not yet been invented. But no one has seriously "labored on it since." We seem to live in its prenumbra . . . whatever that means.

Well Sundial,

The only relation to $$$ what I was saying had to it was, not having the "travel ban" on country's that Trump has done business in before. I'm NOT talking about how jealous people are of his $$$. Personally I would MUCH rather be happy, than have all the $$$ in the world!

As for the court, WHY and HOW would they make a judgement that is not lawful? And more to the point HOW would they get away with it??

There is a reason why Trump did NOT challenge (like he said he would) the court's ruling, regarding his "travel ban". Why? Because he KNEW that he would LOSE!

Let's look at something called reality, your president (Trump) says that the mainstream media, the courts, at least some of the people in Hollywood are ALL against him and/or trying to bring down his administration.

I'm sorry Sundial, but if I'm reasonable for what I DO and SAY well guess what? SO is Trump, full stop, period!

If you would like to believe different, I'm not losing any sleep over it!

BTW. Here's a link for ya to read; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Welcome to the real world!

ntubski · 02-22-2017, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

Okay ... okay ... I get it. "You actually can get away with murder," and avail yourself free-of-charge of the hospitality of the State of Alabama,

I know this thread is [US_Politics], but in other countries that don't have the death penalty this would be known as serving a life sentence...

Although 35 years of legal challenges seems pretty ridiculous.

Quote:

I assure you: The Russians

(our Cold War Enemy™) the Communist™ Chinese (our Most-Favored Nation™) would not have such "difficulties" in administering the Verdict of Law.

Yes. they surely would have simply, somehow, thirty-five years ago, got it done.

Let me propose that this is not a model that the US should emulate...

sundialsvcs · 02-22-2017, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

As for the court, WHY and HOW would they make a judgement that is not lawful? And more to the point HOW would they get away with it??

There is a reason why Trump did NOT challenge (like he said he would) the court's ruling, regarding his "travel ban". Why? Because he KNEW that he would LOSE!

Part of the problem is that the Constitution says almost nothing about the Courts. This is (almost) ]it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article 3.1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Although the powers of the President and the Congress are carefully proscribed, no discussion of Judicial power is made. About the only thing the say is that there shall be a Supreme Court. There isn't even anything to spell out the authors' intention. Although the printed document will of course cast a shadow upon the table if you hold it up to the light, there is no "prenumbra."

In the end, though, the President must rule by persuasion. He knows he is surrounded by swamp-rats who hate his guts – and, who fear him. He will advance another version of his travel ban, and I think that he is relatively unlikely to respond to the Supreme Court as Andrew Jackson once famously did. (Thus giving us the Trail of Tears.)

This man is surrounded by enemies, but he has very strong support of the people of the country and he is keeping those fires alive. I think he's an idiot, but he's there anyway.

jsbjsb001 · 02-22-2017, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

Part of the problem is that the Constitution says almost nothing about the Courts. This is (almost) ]it:

Although the powers of the President and the Congress are carefully proscribed, no discussion of Judicial power is made. About the only thing the say is that there shall be a Supreme Court. There isn't even anything to spell out the authors' intention. Although the printed document will of course cast a shadow upon the table if you hold it up to the light, there is no "prenumbra."

In the end, though, the President must rule by persuasion. He knows he is surrounded by swamp-rats who hate his guts – and, who fear him. He will advance another version of his travel ban, and I think that he is relatively unlikely to respond to the Supreme Court as Andrew Jackson once famously did. (Thus giving us the Trail of Tears.)

This man is surrounded by enemies, but he has very strong support of the people of the country and he is keeping those fires alive. I think he's an idiot, but he's there anyway.

Well, if you can get enough support from your fellow country men (and women), maybe you could see a change to your constitution. But, as in my country good luck with that! (as you'll more than likely NEED it!)

As far as the presidential orders (or executive orders) are concerned, nobody is disputing that he has the right to make them. It's how far you can go with them that is the issue.

To say something like "This man is surrounded by enemies" smacks of desperation to me personally, sorry. And saying "but he has very strong support of the people of the country and he is keeping those fires alive" well, you obversely don't watch a lot of news or "fake news" (as you would probably call it).

So if you click the links below (just 2 of many out there), you will see a lot of "fake people" saying things like "NOT my president!", a lot of support, really? Does NOT sound like it to me mate, sorry!

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/20/us...-day-protests/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15Z206

sundialsvcs · 02-22-2017, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

To say something like "This man is surrounded by enemies" smacks of desperation to me personally, sorry. And saying "but he has very strong support of the people of the country and he is keeping those fires alive" well, you obversely don't watch a lot of news or "fake news" (as you would probably call it).

No, I'm no "Trumper" and I don't use words like "fake news." (Although I do know what propaganda / slant / yellow-journalism is, as I've pointed out recently, although that's beside-the-point here.)

I think that it is very fair to say that Trump is walking through a hornet's nest as he seeks to "drain the swamp," and I think that he is fully aware of it. He did not pick an easy job. It is, for him, in fact a very dangerous one. He is a brave man.

I wish him the best of success and of health ... even if they decide to throw him out of office, I want him to walk out ... and I have great respect for the Secret Service.

As for "not my President," etc., it's actually pretty easy to get a group of people together and to point a television camera at them. Especially if you want to ram-home the point to the public that "we really should get rid of this change-maker and ... just ... go ... back ... to ... the ... way ... things ... used ought ... to ... be ..."

But, there are hundreds of millions of people who don't rally and protest. These are the main-body of the ocean. The protesters are the surface waves.

(And, good grief, how long has it been since we have by-gawd had protests in America?!) Woo hoo! The people have woken up! "Town Hall meetings" by Representatives all over the country are contentious! Woo hoo!! (It's about time!)

Donald Trump campaigned on promising to be a change-maker ... and there is a vast apparatchik in place right now that does not want to be challenged, let alone changed.

I don't agree with him – didn't vote for him – never would have. And yet, I am obliged to respect him. He is trying in his own way to do what (probably) no President before him has ever attempted. If he manages to survive the experience without being thrown out or ... or ... no: "live long and prosper" ... then, he will go down in history as having been transformational. The Office of the President, and our public regard for it, will never again be the same.

jsbjsb001 · 02-23-2017, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

No, I'm no "Trumper" and I don't use words like "fake news." (Although I do know what propaganda / slant / yellow-journalism is, as I've pointed out recently, although that's beside-the-point here.)

I think that it is very fair to say that Trump is walking through a hornet's nest as he seeks to "drain the swamp," and I think that he is fully aware of it. He did not pick an easy job. It is, for him, in fact a very dangerous one. He is a brave man.

I wish him the best of success and of health ... even if they decide to throw him out of office, I want him to walk out ... and I have great respect for the Secret Service.

As for "not my President," etc., it's actually pretty easy to get a group of people together and to point a television camera at them. Especially if you want to ram-home the point to the public that "we really should get rid of this change-maker and ... just ... go ... back ... to ... the ... way ... things ... used ought ... to ... be ..."

But, there are hundreds of millions of people who don't rally and protest. These are the main-body of the ocean. The protesters are the surface waves.

(And, good grief, how long has it been since we have by-gawd had protests in America?!) Woo hoo! The people have woken up! "Town Hall meetings" by Representatives all over the country are contentious! Woo hoo!! (It's about time!)

Donald Trump campaigned on promising to be a change-maker ... and there is a vast apparatchik in place right now that does not want to be challenged, let alone changed.

I don't agree with him – didn't vote for him – never would have. And yet, I am obliged to respect him. He is trying in his own way to do what (probably) no President before him has ever attempted. If he manages to survive the experience without being thrown out or ... or ... no: "live long and prosper" ... then, he will go down in history as having been transformational. The Office of the President, and our public regard for it, will never again be the same.

From your previous posts, in sounded to me like you were a Trump supporter, so a little confused, as to why you are banging on about your Constitution? As it makes it sound to me personally like you are a "Trumper" as you put it.

As far as the protester's who are against him go, well, protests are taking place in a number of your city's. Not just one or two city's, and/or just a small group of people, that have it in for him. And I do not ever remember the same level of protest against any other US President before.

In the UK, there's a partition with over 1 million signatures demanding his state visit be canceled. Not that it's likely to happen, mind you.

I do have to agree with you, that as you have said "The Office of the President, and our public regard for it, will never again be the same.", as I think you have hit the nail smack bang on the head there!

sundialsvcs · 02-23-2017, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001

From your previous posts, in sounded to me like you were a Trump supporter, so a little confused, as to why you are banging on about your Constitution? As it makes it sound to me personally like you are a "Trumper" as you put it.

As far as the protester's who are against him go, well, protests are taking place in a number of your city's. Not just one or two city's, and/or just a small group of people, that have it in for him. And I do not ever remember the same level of protest against any other US President before.

In the UK, there's a partition with over 1 million signatures demanding his state visit be canceled. Not that it's likely to happen, mind you.

I do have to agree with you, that as you have said "The Office of the President, and our public regard for it, will never again be the same.", as I think you have hit the nail smack bang on the head there!

No, no, I'm no "Trumper," whatever that means. Instead: like it or not – he is the Officeholder, and we'd all better come to terms with that. He got elected on the premise of "drain the swamp." Which puts him directly at odds with every institution that is now entrenched there. Especially, they fear him. What if he looks again at, say, NATO? (Which is definitely your version of a "military industrial complex," now that WW2 has been over for more than seventy years.)

Everybody's got their own little agenda, their own little fiefdom to protect, their own little pile of money to grow, and ... then ... "here comes this guy." So, you organize protests, and you film them. "Everything's just right, just the way it was, and this guy's the problem." Do one million Britishers actually care if this guy shows up and makes a speech to Parliament?

What if he succeeds?

What if Britain pulls out of the EU and needs a trading partner, and meanwhile America has cancelled its "anyone else but our own people, anywhere else but here" policy, goes to the gym and starts putting back on a little muscle? And Britain, a long-time ally of the US, now has its trading partner. What then? People's opinions (and their protests) are extremely fickle. Start giving them their jobs back and putting some money in their pocket so they feel like they're in control of their own destiny (as Britain, for instance, now realizes that it isn't), and suddenly people are talking about "this guy" like he's the best thing to happen to America (and, say, Britain) since the invention of sliced bread. What then?

I am "banging on about the Courts" because they, too, have become part of the problem that has never, ever been addressed: Courts that create law, but which are not elected, can never be dismissed, and are thus accountable to no one. It was known to be a problem with the US Constitution even before the ink was dry.

However – the President must rule by persuasion. He must be an executive. He must point a clear direction forward and then persuade people who don't want to go that way, to go that way because they want to.

I find it very interesting to watch "this guy" because we've never had an experienced executive in this Office before.

jsbjsb001 · 02-23-2017, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs

No, no, I'm no "Trumper," whatever that means. Instead: like it or not – he is the Officeholder, and we'd all better come to terms with that. He got elected on the premise of "drain the swamp." Which puts him directly at odds with every institution that is now entrenched there. Especially, they fear him. What if he looks again at, say, NATO? (Which is definitely your version of a "military industrial complex," now that WW2 has been over for more than seventy years.)

Everybody's got their own little agenda, their own little fiefdom to protect, their own little pile of money to grow, and ... then ... "here comes this guy." So, you organize protests, and you film them. "Everything's just right, just the way it was, and this guy's the problem." Do one million Britishers actually care if this guy shows up and makes a speech to Parliament?

What if he succeeds?

What if Britain pulls out of the EU and needs a trading partner, and meanwhile America has cancelled its "anyone else but our own people, anywhere else but here" policy, goes to the gym and starts putting back on a little muscle? And Britain, a long-time ally of the US, now has its trading partner. What then? People's opinions (and their protests) are extremely fickle. Start giving them their jobs back and putting some money in their pocket so they feel like they're in control of their own destiny (as Britain, for instance, now realizes that it isn't), and suddenly people are talking about "this guy" like he's the best thing to happen to America (and, say, Britain) since the invention of sliced bread. What then?

I am "banging on about the Courts" because they, too, have become part of the problem that has never, ever been addressed: Courts that create law, but which are not elected, can never be dismissed, and are thus accountable to no one. It was known to be a problem with the US Constitution even before the ink was dry.

However – the President must rule by persuasion. He must be an executive. He must point a clear direction forward and then persuade people who don't want to go that way, to go that way because they want to.

I find it very interesting to watch "this guy" because we've never had an experienced executive in this Office before.

Well Sundial,

It very much sounds like your a Trump supporter to me. As for the term "Trumper", well your the one who said it, in the first place, so why don't you tell us what that means, hm?

Also I said you where (and are) banging on about the Constitution, NOT the courts (but yes you are also banging on about them as well, I'll give you that).

I've already stated that I understand why people voted for Trump, whether I once again agree or NOT! And you are absolutely right in thinking that like a LOT of "non-Trumpers" (people who do not support him) out there, I think there are much better people around that could be your President instead.

Personally I think you are a little confused, with all respect.

But once again I'm not losing any sleep over it, sorry!

The only thing I can suggest is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Enjoy!

sundialsvcs · 02-23-2017, 11:28 AM

My feeling is simply that ... "this guy" is the President.

He is unlike any and every other individual who has ever yet held this Office, and this is very specifically what the electorate wanted ... don't ask me why, I don't know ... but it is not what Washington, DC wanted.

Washington is accustomed to Presidents who, well, don't do much of anything except sit by and let things go along as they usually do. I think it's rather fun to watch how this guy works and how he forces other people to react to him.

The Oval Office door is open, and several of his staff know that they can "pop in at any time," and they call him ... "Donald?!"

The electorate didn't elect a professional politician: they elected a business executive who has made a ton of money in real estate and other ventures. They've never done that before. Ever.

Jjanel · 02-24-2017, 04:15 AM

'IT' related Gov't 'mess' (LQsearch showed no mention of 18F, so I'm fyi/fwiw it here)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...hdog-says.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...early-32m.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...le-drives.html

For [rabbit_hole] deeper_delving: github.com/18F OR web-search: "18F.gov" linux|microsoft

wget github..../orgs/18F/people | grep LQmember? [|grep -v Jee..zz]