Anonymous Threatens to Expose Rapists in Steubenville Rape Cover-Up

[mundame]

Last year in August in Steubenville, Ohio, at least two and likely more football players raped an underage girl at a party. She was so drunk she was passed out and nearly poisoned by alcohol; they raped her, videoed it, peed on her inert body, and one student did what he supposed was a comic routine about it for the video-camera guy......it doesn't seem so funny now.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/04/justice/ohio-rape-online-video/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

All this was posted on Facebook and Twitter and the mother got copies of it all and insisted arrests be made. Only two of the football players were arrested and charged and their trial is about to start soon.

Anonymous, the hacker group, threatens to expose all the names involved if people don't voluntarily admit what happened at this crime scene. They are saying that because these were football players, of course they were protected by a cover-up in this football-crazy small town.

This sort of crime is common, and I include the cover-up as part of the crime. The interesting thing is the role of Anonymous, which is taking on a job of righting wrongs where they see them. This could be a positive role, IMO. Anonymous has done too much simple breakage of large corporations they try to take down for the fun of it --- Netflix, Yahoo, etc., and that is just a negative annoyance for the public and a cost to the companies. And they have done robbery, breaking into banks and downloading millions of credit card numbers.

But if they stuck to using their considerable hacking ability for exposing cover-ups and misdeeds of all sorts, that could be very interesting, and a positive function for the group. Crime-fighters! Superheroes of the CPU.

They may or may not be correct: but if they publish a lot more info than the town of Steubenville, for instance, wants to let out, people could make up their own minds. I'm for it. A lot of women do google men now before dating them, and if they find out from the Internet that a man was involved in raping an unconscious 16-year-old in 2011, they would be a lot better off to avoid such a character! More information is better, up to a point. Then people can make up their own minds after considering full information. Anyone?

[fj1200]

More information is better, up to a point. Then people can make up their own minds after considering full information. Anyone?

Why does Anonymous get to decide what that point is? And why do they get to decide prior to the conclusion of the legal process?

[darin]

This sort of crime is common, and I include the cover-up as part of the crime.


Logical fallacy. It's "Common". How common? What's your baseline? AND - if the crimes are really covered-up, you wouldnt know about them; nobody/few people would know about them thus making tracking their frequency impossible.


The interesting thing is the role of Anonymous, which is taking on a job of righting wrongs where they see them.

No, what's interesting is the DA decided what could best serve as 'justice' - and folks doing nothing but armchari quarterbacking their decision.




This could be a positive role, IMO. Anonymous has done too much simple breakage of large corporations they try to take down for the fun of it --- Netflix, Yahoo, etc., and that is just a negative annoyance for the public and a cost to the companies. And they have done robbery, breaking into banks and downloading millions of credit card numbers.


...if It costs the company money, it will cost the customers/public money.



But if they stuck to using their considerable hacking ability for exposing cover-ups and misdeeds of all sorts, that could be very interesting, and a positive function for the group. Crime-fighters! Superheroes of the CPU.


...but if their work is illegal it's likely or possibly inadmissible in court. No justice. Yay! For Vigilantism, eh?



They may or may not be correct: but if they publish a lot more info than the town of Steubenville, for instance, wants to let out, people could make up their own minds. I'm for it. A lot of women do google men now before dating them, and if they find out from the Internet that a man was involved in raping an unconscious 16-year-old in 2011, they would be a lot better off to avoid such a character! More information is better, up to a point. Then people can make up their own minds after considering full information. Anyone?

What is 'A lot' of women doing the googling? Do Men do the same? Were the girl's parents prosecuted for letting their minor child attend the party?

[mundame]

Why does Anonymous get to decide what that point is? And why do they get to decide prior to the conclusion of the legal process.


Well, because they CAN. That's the thing with them, with all these new hackers who expose a lot of "secret" data. They can, and they do. The law isn't of interest to them, just what they can do.

The FBI has tried very hard to catch them but failed abysmally, in that now Anonymous is mad and striking back at them.

Remember, this is not a legal group: it's outlaws. But they could turn into an interesting Robin Hood sort of organization, if they expose evil-doing, like in Steubenville (probably). I'd like to see more of that done!

[fj1200]

Well, because they CAN. That's the thing with them, with all these new hackers who expose a lot of "secret" data. They can, and they do. The law isn't of interest to them, just what they can do.

The FBI has tried very hard to catch them but failed abysmally, in that now Anonymous is mad and striking back at them.

Remember, this is not a legal group: it's outlaws. But they could turn into an interesting Robin Hood sort of organization, if they expose evil-doing, like in Steubenville (probably). I'd like to see more of that done!

Because they CAN? With what repercussion? I think ordered society has decided long ago that vigilante justice is not preferred. Especially in the case of minors they shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing. At what point do you become opposed to what they do? When what you hold dear is violated? I mean, it's all in the name of transparency right?

[tailfins]

Logical fallacy. It's "Common". How common? What's your baseline? AND - if the crimes are really covered-up, you wouldnt know about them; nobody/few people would know about them thus making tracking their frequency impossible.



No, what's interesting is the DA decided what could best serve as 'justice' - and folks doing nothing but armchari quarterbacking their decision.



...if It costs the company money, it will cost the customers/public money.



...but if their work is illegal it's likely or possibly inadmissible in court. No justice. Yay! For Vigilantism, eh?




What is 'A lot' of women doing the googling? Do Men do the same? Were the girl's parents prosecuted for letting their minor child attend the party?

You demonstrate a good knowledge of the "mechanics" of a free society.

[mundame]

No, what's interesting is the DA decided what could best serve as 'justice' - and folks doing nothing but armchari quarterbacking their decision.

Yeah, right, self-serving "justice" for Steubenville's precious football players, whether they are rapists or not.




...if It costs the company money, it will cost the customers/public money.

True. I am no advocate for the commercial crimes of Anonymous. This is a group of very talented people who are looking for a role in the world. I was fascinated to see, twice, an advertisement by the --- CIA probably! during football games this holiday season, a very edgy ad showing bad, destructive children and saying they wanted kids like that, good with computers, to apply to work for them!

Smart, very smart approach. Try to get some of these bright boys on our side for a change! The Chinese and Russians are signing them up by the hundreds, apparently. We need to get them on our side, too.




...but if their work is illegal it's likely or possibly inadmissible in court. No justice. Yay! For Vigilantism, eh?

Yeah.......actually. If there is a cover-up, there will not be justice. If Anonymous has info on these worthless nothings (IMO), let them post it for all to see and everyone can make up their own minds. Information is what matters more than jail sentences, so at least we know.



What is 'A lot' of women doing the googling? Do Men do the same?

I should think men probably do that even more than women, if they are smart! In fact, I'm pretty sure of it because there was recently an article in the Wall Street Journal that men on these Match-type groups are insisting on knowing a woman's credit rating!!!!!

And that some really awful things were being exposed that way before the first date......... So no first date. Very efficient. Pretty funny article; this girl was saying indignantly that her credit rating seemed to be a deal breaker, that somehow she had just gotten so behind with her payments and she didn't know how that happened ----

Yeah, and women are googling men. I hear about it and one reads about it in the chick lit all the time now. I sure would these days. I mean, darn. There's so much information out there! Better know it up front than find out the hard way. I don't think you can get credit ratings without asking the person (correct me if I'm wrong) but you can pay to get on those sites that advertise arrest records and so on ------- THAT is exactly what they are for, among other things, like employment checks.

[revelarts]

in this case what Anonymous is doing is the same thing as an Eyewitness of the crime or a Private investigator. Eyewittnesses may talk to the public via the media long before they end up in court. Anonymous is doing them a favor by giving them a warning. It's not illegal to expose criminals misdeeds. How many videos of events have been on youtube that have been used to PROVE guilt or innocents already.
They are bringing evidence to the public. If the legal process doesn't catch up and use the info available the legal process is BROKE.
The Legal system and justice isn't always the same thing.
At this point Anonymous not only has the ability but the responsibility to bring the evidences of the actions to the notice of the people and the courts.
What's the real difference in this and a neighborhood watch? (besides the hacking of course)
this Sport cover up smalltown bigtown keep it quiet BS has gone way too far.
And if the law is to crippled or corrupt to deal with it openly in court as it should then anyone with information that can should step forward to expose the criminals.

[CSM]

A double edged sword. Makes me think of sayings like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Are we really willing to accept (what some view as) a good deed by an outlaw group as exhonoration of all the bad they do?

[mundame]

Because they CAN? With what repercussion? I think ordered society has decided long ago that vigilante justice is not preferred. Especially in the case of minors they shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing. At what point do you become opposed to what they do? When what you hold dear is violated? I mean, it's all in the name of transparency right?


Yeah, it's all in the name of transparency. Well said. I am prejudiced in favor of transparency to some extent ---- I loved the Julien Assange thing.

Remember that Anonymous is an outlaw group. The FBI is hunting them day and night. We're not talking about a legal action, here.

At what point do I become opposed to what they do? Good question. If they exposed the names and addresses of all AK-47 owners.......that could happen. What about that? it's basically what the NY paper did.

I'm no friend of the AK-47 anymore because every crazy uses it in his mass killings. However, to publish owners' addresses is an invitation to thieves, obviously.

But what does it matter what I'm for or against? Anonymous is an outlaw group that may be trying to turn into Robin Hood. They could do some good by outing cover-ups and rapists who are not being charged because they can throw a football well. There's too much of that goes on, in financial matters that are covered up, too.

I like it. Hurray, Anonymous.

[darin]

Yeah, right, self-serving "justice" for Steubenville's precious football players, whether they are rapists or not.

Justice = so each gets what they deserve. Those who are not rapists do not deserve attention based on somebody's speculation of guilt.



Yeah.......actually. If there is a cover-up, there will not be justice. If Anonymous has info on these worthless nothings (IMO), let them post it for all to see and everyone can make up their own minds. Information is what matters more than jail sentences, so at least we know.
-

No way to verfity validity or fidelity of information sourced from a cyber terrorist group. We pay people to get information for the public; if they are not doing their jobs its up to the people to fire them. If the people do not fire them, we get the justice we deserve - for better or worse.



I should think men probably do that even more than women, if they are smart! In fact, I'm pretty sure of it because there was recently an article in the Wall Street Journal that men on these Match-type groups are insisting on knowing a woman's credit rating!!!!!

I ain't sayin' she's a gold digga...she aint messin' with no broke nigga...



I don't think you can get credit ratings without asking the person (correct me if I'm wrong) but you can pay to get on those sites that advertise arrest records and so on ------- THAT is exactly what they are for, among other things, like employment checks.

SSN is required. Illegal use of SSN is a crime, AFAIK.

[mundame]

A double edged sword. Mkaes me think of sayings like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Are we really willing to accept (what some view as) a good deed by an outlaw group as exhonoration of all the bad they do?


We don't have a choice.

What they do is all outlaw; they are being hunted all the time. There is no question of accepting --- it's just happening, like it or not. Shall we accept Muslim honor killing? Accept plural marriage of 12-year-olds? Accept mass killings in schools?

It's not a question of accepting: things just happen, that's all, and we can't stop it. When the FBI and Interpol catch them, that will stop it.

If they do catch them, which I doubt. Nobody stops mass murders or Muslim honor killings or pederast marriages, after all.

Nice to see a little something weighing in on the pro-woman side, for a change. Even if it is a crime, or at least exposure of data. (It's not clear it's a crime in this case, actually.)

[revelarts]

A double edged sword. Makes me think of sayings like "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Are we really willing to accept (what some view as) a good deed by an outlaw group as exhonoration of all the bad they do?

Private investigators do abot the same, many try to get info via legal means but it'd be niave to think they don't go further.

the other things Anonymous has done, IMO are on the same level as the original Tea party and some anit-nuke prostesters. the damage has been more political than monetary.

Some here advocate torture , it's illegal but they somehow find some scrap of twisted logic to justify it's continuance. and support those that do it. . Anonymous hasn't crossed that line.

[tailfins]

Yeah, and women are googling men. I hear about it and one reads about it in the chick lit all the time now. I sure would these days. I mean, darn. There's so much information out there! Better know it up front than find out the hard way. I don't think you can get credit ratings without asking the person (correct me if I'm wrong) but you can pay to get on those sites that advertise arrest records and so on ------- THAT is exactly what they are for, among other things, like employment checks.

Actually it's illegal to use those sites for business transactions. It's illegal to use arrest records for employment checks, a FCRA compliant resource such as Lexis-Nexis must be used to check for current, active CONVICTIONS, not arrests. Those chicks have time to read chick lit because they are alone. Who wants to even go near a woman who has the mindset of every male they even chat with as a "suspect"?

[mundame]

Justice = so each gets what they deserve. Those who are not rapists do not deserve attention based on somebody's speculation of guilt.


OOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooh, I don't know about that. The guy who did the stand-up comic routine about it? Oh, yeah, that guy definitely needs his name and age and whatever else identifies him put around the Internet. Women at least need to stay well away from that bad guy. And all the others who perhaps DID also rape her but weren't charged? The evidence for that definitely needs to be publicized. And ---- what about this ---- all the people at that party who saw it but did not stop it? Hmmmmmm. Let's put their names on a public list, works for me.




No way to verfity validity or fidelity of information sourced from a cyber terrorist group. We pay people to get information for the public; if they are not doing their jobs its up to the people to fire them. If the people do not fire them, we get the justice we deserve - for better or worse.

I'm not satisfied with government officials doing cover-ups. I want transparency and if that's what Anonymous is offering, good for them.



I ain't sayin' she's a gold digga...she aint messin' with no broke nigga...

Yes, well.....she did seem indignant that her looks and clothes, usually so useful in these endeavors, were going to waste as soon as they found out about her surprisingly low credit rating. :rolleyes:



SSN is required. Illegal use of SSN is a crime, AFAIK.

!! That's how they are doing a lot of it, then. Anonymous has stolen pretty much everybody's credit cards in the USA and also our SSNs, from their bank raids. So the news keeps reporting. Privacy, there's a laugh.

[mundame]

Some here advocate torture , it's illegal but they somehow find some scrap of twisted logic to justify it's continuance. and support those that do it. . Anonymous hasn't crossed that line.


Right, it's good to torture, but it's bad to expose a cover-up of rapists???

Wait...wait....could there be something wrong with this reasoning?

[CSM]

We don't have a choice.

What they do is all outlaw; they are being hunted all the time. There is no question of accepting --- it's just happening, like it or not. Shall we accept Muslim honor killing? Accept plural marriage of 12-year-olds? Accept mass killings in schools?

It's not a question of accepting: things just happen, that's all, and we can't stop it. When the FBI and Interpol catch them, that will stop it.

If they do catch them, which I doubt. Nobody stops mass murders or Muslim honor killings or pederast marriages, after all.

Nice to see a little something weighing in on the pro-woman side, for a change. Even if it is a crime, or at least exposure of data. (It's not clear it's a crime in this case, actually.)

Perhaps I misunderstood your stance. I am not willing to cheer for an outlaw group who does ONE good thing and TEN bad things. I have to wonder why, if there is suspicion of a cover up by local officials, the citizens did not demand an investigation by the State Attorney General or even federal law enforcement. I would not trust the bandit that robbed my house to provide protection for my garage, if you know what I mean. Additionally, yes, things "just happen" and in this case, they happen over the internet. There are ways to protect yourself from hackers. People are usually too lazy to do it. For the sake of convenience, folks will post personal information on the internet; some even perform bank and credit card transactions on the internet. I used to, unitl some identity thief got to me. I no longer do that. Corporations COULD hire some of these gifted folks BEFORE they become criminals to beef up security. I suspect some do.

Obviously, we cannot STOP every illegal or criminal act; no amount of legislation will do that. We can however, hold criminals responsible, provide deterence and impose consequences on the perpetrators comensurate with the crime. I accept the fact that "stuff happens"; I do not accept that there is no defense against "stuff".

[darin]

Oh - and for the record? If that were my daughter? I'd have to struggle not filling those phuck-heads full of .40 Caliber hollow-points.

[tailfins]

OOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooh, I don't know about that. The guy who did the stand-up comic routine about it? Oh, yeah, that guy definitely needs his name and age and whatever else identifies him put around the Internet. Women at least need to stay well away from that bad guy. And all the others who perhaps DID also rape her but weren't charged? The evidence for that definitely needs to be publicized. And ---- what about this ---- all the people at that party who saw it but did not stop it? Hmmmmmm. Let's put their names on a public list, works for me.

If after careful examination of evidence collected and examined by proper rules of evidence, the perpetrators are convicted of their respective crimes, they won't have to worry about being on the internet. They will be locked up. I am in favor of the perpetrators having full access to competent and qualified legal counsel. If you support anything less, you don't support a free society.

[mundame]

Who wants to even go near a woman who has the mindset of every male they even chat with as a "suspect"?



Only men who 1) hate smart women, and 2) have something disgraceful to hide in their past.


When I was dating googling wasn't happening yet, but looking back on it, I sure can think of some guys I wish I had googled! There was that awful Serb who was probably on meds, or should have been-----There was that Texan with the dirty stories. There was the guy some women warned me was a stalker, and they were right! I was able to get rid of him after only a few phone calls, though, by never going out with him. Apparently once you went out with him once, he glued on.

I mean, I know we have to kiss a lot of frogs, but Google can weed out at least the toads!! Use it, use it.

[mundame]

If after careful examination of evidence collected and examined by proper rules of evidence, the perpetrators are convicted of their respective crimes, they won't have to worry about being on the internet. They will be locked up. I am in favor of the perpetrators having full access to competent and qualified legal counsel. If you support anything less, you don't support a free society.



Naaaaaaaaaaaah, they won't be locked up. They'll get "community service" or probation or at worse a few weeks or months in jail.

After which they'll be out and hunting for some nookie.

The smart nookie will Google them and stay as far away from them as possible.

If Anonymous makes a good case, which they say they have, for more of these losers having been guilty of bad acts in this rape, then Googling will cast a wider net and more bad guys will be avoided by vulnerable women. Which is good; I'm for it.

[NightTrain]

I really don't see where Anonymous could really do anything in this scenario. I really doubt a crooked DA uploaded the original video to a server for safekeeping and produced a modified one that served his purposes.

I think Anonymous (or a couple of computer savvy kids in that town) made the claim to gain National scrutiny on what they feel is a cover-up... in which case, it worked brilliantly.

[tailfins]

Naaaaaaaaaaaah, they won't be locked up. They'll get "community service" or probation or at worse a few weeks or months in jail.

After which they'll be out and hunting for some nookie.

The smart nookie will Google them and stay as far away from them as possible.

If Anonymous makes a good case, which they say they have, for more of these losers having been guilty of bad acts in this rape, then Googling will cast a wider net and more bad guys will be avoided by vulnerable women. Which is good; I'm for it.

In Vermont maybe, but not in Ohio. The perp will likely get 10+ years if convicted and be known in prison as a Chomo (google the term). Anonymous actually increases the chances of a conviction being overturned by interfering with a fair trial.

[revelarts]

If after careful examination of evidence collected and examined by proper rules of evidence, the perpetrators are convicted of their respective crimes, they won't have to worry about being on the internet. They will be locked up. I am in favor of the perpetrators having full access to competent and qualified legal counsel. If you support anything less, you don't support a free society.

i support Anonymous exposing the city the courts and the criminals and bystanders
AND i support their right to legal counsel, the best they can get. And any evidence they can get in their favor.
But cover-up and closed door hush hush deals are not a right.

[tailfins]

i support Anonymous exposing the city the courts and the criminals and bystanders
AND i support their right to legal counsel, the best they can get. And any evidence they can get in their favor.
But cover-up and closed door hush hush deals are not a right.

What if the actions by Anonymous cause a mistrial and get the case dismissed?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

i support Anonymous exposing the city the courts and the criminals and bystanders
AND i support their right to legal counsel, the best they can get. And any evidence they can get in their favor.
But cover-up and closed door hush hush deals are not a right.

Perhaps you miss that foreign entities have no right to interfere in our internal workings in our Judicial system.
Its far, far more a matter of National sovereignty than is that of morality Rev.. -Tyr

[mundame]

What if the actions by Anonymous cause a mistrial and get the case dismissed?

Improbable --- the trial itself would proceed with the usual rules of evidence. The legal system is used to trials with lots of publicity: O.J. Simpson, the rapist Laker Kobe Bryant, all the rest.

But it doesn't matter, IMO. The important thing is that the public KNOW who did bad things, so they can be avoided by people they could hurt, at least if those people are paying proper attention.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Improbable --- the trial itself would proceed with the usual rules of evidence. The legal system is used to trials with lots of publicity: O.J. Simpson, the rapist Laker Kobe Bryant, all the rest.

But it doesn't matter, IMO. The important thing is that the public KNOW who did bad things, so they can be avoided by people they could hurt, at least if those people are paying proper attention.

I am all for the truth being outed. However a group like Anonymous picks and chooses which info to out! That's just as dangerous to our freedoms and justice as is that of many of those things they out. Perhaps even more so since many see Anonymous as some knight in white armor leading a charge to save justice and what is right. Nothing could be further from the truth as they have a political agenda and its nothing about justice being served. -Tyr

[tailfins]

Improbable --- the trial itself would proceed with the usual rules of evidence. The legal system is used to trials with lots of publicity: O.J. Simpson, the rapist Laker Kobe Bryant, all the rest.

But it doesn't matter, IMO. The important thing is that the public KNOW who did bad things, so they can be avoided by people they could hurt, at least if those people are paying proper attention.

And if the public "knows" who "did" bad things, except for the pesky reality that they didn't actually do what they were accused of?

[taft2012]

Logical fallacy. It's "Common". How common? What's your baseline? AND - if the crimes are really covered-up, you wouldnt know about them; nobody/few people would know about them thus making tracking their frequency impossible.



If you happen to be an angry yenta feminist who spends the entire day drinking tea watching the Lifetime Network, then yes, this *IS* indeed an everyday occurrence.

[revelarts]

What if the actions by Anonymous cause a mistrial and get the case dismissed?
see mundane's comment.
mistrial is unlikely unless it's a apart of a white wash to exonerate the perps.


Perhaps you miss that foreign entities have no right to interfere in our internal workings in our Judicial system.
Its far, far more a matter of National sovereignty than is that of morality Rev.. -Tyr

They would be acting only as parties supplying evidence. Just as if we asked a foreign company state or person to supply purchasing records for supplies used to commit a crime in the U.S.. it's just evidence, not legal tampering. Any Party no mater what their national origin can come forward and supply evidence of a crime.

national sovereignty is not a t stake

[CSM]

...
But it doesn't matter, IMO. The important thing is that the public KNOW who did bad things, so they can be avoided by people they could hurt, at least if those people are paying proper attention.

Hmmm...Isn't that the same reasoning that a certain newspaper used as justification for publishing an interactive map of citicens licensed to carry? Slippery slope!

I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. Not torture, not using criminals to catch criminals, not the suppression of individual rights for the good of the minority, nor the suspension of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land for the sake of international appeasement ....

I am not saying all these things are equivalent. I merely saying that, according to my personal beliefs and the moral principles by which I try to live my life, two wrongs do NOT make a right. By all means apprehend and convict the rapists; just do not use a criminal element violating other people's rights to do it.

[mundame]

I am all for the truth being outed. However a group like Anonymous picks and chooses which info to out! That's just as dangerous to our freedoms and justice as is that of many of those things they out. Perhaps even more so since many see Anonymous as some knight in white armor leading a charge to save justice and what is right. Nothing could be further from the truth as they have a political agenda and its nothing about justice being served. -Tyr

It's true they are an outlaw group, and you make a good point, I think, that some of their agenda might not be what we like! I don't think they are pro-Muslim in anything they've ever said that I've heard, but the other group, run by Assange, was frankly anti-American, so you make a good point that we might not like the whole menu.

However ---- can it be true that information --- that's true information, not propaganda, of course --- can be "dangerous to our freedoms and justice" as you stated? I'm thinking I like the sayings that "information wants to be free" and "show the light and people will find the way," a masthead we may not have with us much longer.

But I believe in all that: the more information the better. That people need to know what is really going on. That's why I liked poor Assange, and Anonymous, at least in their Robin Hood costume. I'm not so much in favor of their bank robber guise.

[revelarts]

I am all for the truth being outed. However a group like Anonymous picks and chooses which info to out! That's just as dangerous to our freedoms and justice as is that of many of those things they out. Perhaps even more so since many see Anonymous as some knight in white armor leading a charge to save justice and what is right. Nothing could be further from the truth as they have a political agenda and its nothing about justice being served. -Tyr

Your right they do pick and choose and it is dangerous. they are selective an political in theire choices.

but i think you'll agree the US media is exactly the same. EXACTLY. they pick and choose what stories get play and which do Not. CNN and FOX NYTIMES all are very political.

it's a mixed bag and the public has to take info where we can get it.
the 5th estate the media is failing, Anonymous is not the best fix but it's another channel where some real info can flow past the gatekeepers.

just pick the meat and leave the bones IMO.

[mundame]

Hmmm...Isn't that the same reasoning that a certain newspaper used as justification for publishing an interactive map of citicens licensed to carry? Slippery slope!


Yes, that's the slippery slope, all right. Here's another: suppose Anonymous compiled all your posts, or better, all my posts, and published the ......more colorful of them on the Internet attached to our real names and addresses? That is possible, after all: it's exactly what they are doing with the incautious rapists and party kids. The kids put out a lot of stupid stuff, which was all taken down quickly ----- but not before it was collected by Anonymous.



I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. Not torture, not using criminals to catch criminals, not the suppression of individual rights for the good of the minority, nor the suspension of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land for the sake of international appeasement ....

I am not saying all these things are equivalent. I merely saying that, according to my personal beliefs and the moral principles by which I try to live my life, two wrongs do NOT make a right. By all means apprehend and convict the rapists; just do not use a criminal element violating other people's rights to do it.

Mostly, I agree with you: certainly on torture.

I do believe information wants to be free, however, and in all the values of the Enlightenment around freedom of speech and inquiry and information and belief. So I think this is an interesting development. An independent information source. The media is failing us: look at the awful Zimmerman case that was propaganda and misinformation from the beginning. The justice system is failing us in too many cases, possibly in Steubenville. Robin Hood hackers are an interesting new idea and I want to see it played out awhile.

Anyway, no one can stop it.

[revelarts]

Hmmm...Isn't that the same reasoning that a certain newspaper used as justification for publishing an interactive map of citicens licensed to carry? Slippery slope!

I do not believe that the ends justifies the means. Not torture, not using criminals to catch criminals, not the suppression of individual rights for the good of the minority, nor the suspension of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land for the sake of international appeasement ....

I am not saying all these things are equivalent. I merely saying that, according to my personal beliefs and the moral principles by which I try to live my life, two wrongs do NOT make a right. By all means apprehend and convict the rapists; just do not use a criminal element violating other people's rights to do it.

I appreciate your consistency,
may i make a suggestion though.
prostitution is illegal in many places. if a prostitute sees a murder or a robbery. should she come forward as witness?
i say yes. her being a criminal doesn't change the fact that she has valuable info.
And the court EVERY DAY make deals with lesser criminals to catch the larger ones, or different ones.
it's not the best of worlds but it's the one we've got.
It not what i'd prefer or promote as the best but it's better than the alternative in this case i believe.

[CSM]

Yes, that's the slippery slope, all right. Here's another: suppose Anonymous compiled all your posts, or better, all my posts, and published the ......more colorful of them on the Internet attached to our real names and addresses? That is possible, after all: it's exactly what they are doing with the incautious rapists and party kids. The kids put out a lot of stupid stuff, which was all taken down quickly ----- but not before it was collected by Anonymous.




Mostly, I agree with you: certainly on torture.

I do believe information wants to be free, however, and in all the values of the Enlightenment around freedom of speech and inquiry and information and belief. So I think this is an interesting development. An independent information source. The media is failing us: look at the awful Zimmerman case that was propaganda and misinformation from the beginning. The justice system is failing us in too many cases, possibly in Steubenville. Robin Hood hackers are an interesting new idea and I want to see it played out awhile.

Anyway, no one can stop it.

To me, it is all a matter of perspective. It is intiguing to think that Robin Hood will stride in to save the day; personally, I have a lot of skepticism of such a group. If Anonymous had a history of exposing wrongdoing instead of a history of criminal intent, I MIGHT be persuaded. That is not the case. I would add that if "no one can stop it" then there is no point in ANY effort being made ... one way or the other.

We, as a society, have created the circumstance where such a consideration even enters the thought process and that (to me) is a very sad and dangerous thing. I cannot help but believe that if our society placed great value on integrity, truth and self-responsibility such things as cover-ups, hypocritical views and acceptance of the unacceptable would be a far more rare circumstance than it is now. This country's population has seen fit to abandon those concepts for the sake of a supposedly safer, politcally correct, idealistic and conscienceless existence.

Believe in Robin Hood if you like; it is indeed your perogative. Just beware for your own welfare when Robin Hood decides YOU deserve exposure!

[CSM]

I appreciate your consistency,
may i make a suggestion though.
prostitution is illegal in many places. if a prostitute sees a murder or a robbery. should she come forward as witness?
i say yes. her being a criminal doesn't change the fact that she has valuable info.
And the court EVERY DAY make deals with lesser criminals to catch the larger ones, or different ones.
it's not the best of worlds but it's the one we've got.
It not what i'd prefer or promote as the best but it's better than the alternative in this case i believe.

Do not misconstrue what I am saying. By all means, if the prostitue has information and comes forward as a witness, then good on the prostitute. The fact that he/she does so is NOT justification (IMO) for supporting prostitution (I have other justification for that!) if it is deemed illegal. What bothers me in this discussion is the perception that somehow, this criminal group is now to be viewed as some sort of white knight in shining armor riding in on a stallion to save the poor townspeople from the evil magicians. I would also point out that this group is not offered nor proposed any deal; they have threatened to expose all involved, innocent or not, and have not offered their information to ANYONE with the responsibility or authority to investigate the crime (the suspected cover-up OR the alleged rape) at any level. My skepticism runs rampant.

[cadet]

To me, it is all a matter of perspective. It is intiguing to think that Robin Hood will stride in to save the day; personally, I have a lot of skepticism of such a group. If Anonymous had a history of exposing wrongdoing instead of a history of criminal intent, I MIGHT be persuaded. That is not the case. I would add that if "no one can stop it" then there is no point in ANY effort being made ... one way or the other.

We, as a society, have created the circumstance where such a consideration even enters the thought process and that (to me) is a very sad and dangerous thing. I cannot help but believe that if our society placed great value on integrity, truth and self-responsibility such things as cover-ups, hypocritical views and acceptance of the unacceptable would be a far more rare circumstance than it is now. This country's population has seen fit to abandon those concepts for the sake of a supposedly safer, politcally correct, idealistic and conscienceless existence.

Believe in Robin Hood if you like; it is indeed your perogative. Just beware for your own welfare when Robin Hood decides YOU deserve exposure!

You realize they've hacked the FBI, right? This group doesn't have a real organization it's a wide group of many people WORLDWIDE. They don't listen to rules, and don't have a specified guideline. It's whoever wants to do stuff, good or bad.

[fj1200]

Yes, that's the slippery slope, all right. Here's another: suppose Anonymous compiled all your posts, or better, all my posts, and published the ......more colorful of them on the Internet attached to our real names and addresses? That is possible, after all: it's exactly what they are doing with the incautious rapists and party kids. The kids put out a lot of stupid stuff, which was all taken down quickly ----- but not before it was collected by Anonymous.

I'd be pretty sure that all the information was collected and is being used by the prosecution. Whether they should be violating the rights of, likely, minors in this case is a different question. No, I'd say.

[CSM]

You realize they've hacked the FBI, right? This group doesn't have a real organization it's a wide group of many people WORLDWIDE. They don't listen to rules, and don't have a specified guideline. It's whoever wants to do stuff, good or bad.

Understood and that is why I am so skeptical.

[revelarts]

Do not misconstrue what I am saying. By all means, if the prostitue has information and comes forward as a witness, then good on the prostitute. The fact that he/she does so is NOT justification (IMO) for supporting prostitution (I have other justification for that!) if it is deemed illegal. What bothers me in this discussion is the perception that somehow, this criminal group is now to be viewed as some sort of white knight in shining armor riding in on a stallion to save the poor townspeople from the evil magicians. ...

I agree ,
i don't think people aought to forget where the info came from or white wash Anonymous for doing good in this or other instances. They have crossed the lined and stolen all the info they provide. there may come a day of reconnecting and these good deeds may weight heavily in their and favor IMO but , should probably not exonerate them if found guilty.

Your other point about the Eye of exposer coming to rest on those that now support them one day, is to be taken seriously as well. they are a loose canon.
it's a point those who support torture don't seem to embrace when applied there.
That if we like it and condone illegal behavior toward others for our benefit ,
then don't be shocked when it comes around to get you too.

[mundame]

We, as a society, have created the circumstance where such a consideration even enters the thought process and that (to me) is a very sad and dangerous thing. I cannot help but believe that if our society placed great value on integrity, truth and self-responsibility such things as cover-ups, hypocritical views and acceptance of the unacceptable would be a far more rare circumstance than it is now. This country's population has seen fit to abandon those concepts for the sake of a supposedly safer, politcally correct, idealistic and conscienceless existence.

Maybe. But these days, as I get older and more cynical, I suspect that the value we placed on integrity, truth, and so on just allowed whole lots more cheating to go on. This is why Nigerians love to scam Americans: we believe in people. We think they are telling the truth. So it's very, very easy to lie to us.

Yeah, I'm a Reagan girl: trust but verify.





Believe in Robin Hood if you like; it is indeed your perogative. Just beware for your own welfare when Robin Hood decides YOU deserve exposure!

Oh, sure ---- it is a double-edged sword, you are right about that.

[CSM]

Maybe. But these days, as I get older and more cynical, I suspect that the value we placed on integrity, truth, and so on just allowed whole lots more cheating to go on. This is why Nigerians love to scam Americans: we believe in people. We think they are telling the truth. So it's very, very easy to lie to us.

Yeah, I'm a Reagan girl: trust but verify.






Oh, sure ---- it is a double-edged sword, you are right about that.

LOL ... no where did I say believe everything you hear! I am in full agreement on the "verify" part and only dispense trust once it is earned.

[jimnyc]

If what Anonymous will be producing is gained legally, I have no issue with it. If they violate the law to get it, it could harm the case. If an officer of the law "stole" evidence, it would likely be barred from being used in a court of law. I think this group might have good intentions at times, but there methods are simply that of more criminals.

[mundame]

Do not misconstrue what I am saying. By all means, if the prostitue has information and comes forward as a witness, then good on the prostitute. The fact that he/she does so is NOT justification (IMO) for supporting prostitution (I have other justification for that!) if it is deemed illegal. What bothers me in this discussion is the perception that somehow, this criminal group is now to be viewed as some sort of white knight in shining armor riding in on a stallion to save the poor townspeople from the evil magicians. I would also point out that this group is not offered nor proposed any deal; they have threatened to expose all involved, innocent or not, and have not offered their information to ANYONE with the responsibility or authority to investigate the crime (the suspected cover-up OR the alleged rape) at any level. My skepticism runs rampant.


Maybe it's indignant woman hackers.

Could be, after all. Some women do advanced computer stuff.

Well, in novels, anyway. Like the new "14." Excellent. Actually, lots of novels use that trope, the intrepid (lovely) female hacker. And some movies, too. "The Net," with Sandra Bullock. I have to get that again.

I can imagine female Anonymous members going after rapists who are being protected by a town because they play football.

[cadet]

Understood and that is why I am so skeptical.

So you can't hold them to their past. Cause every single good thing is done by different people then the one's who've done the bad things. And if you'll notice, they always do what they say they will.

[CSM]

Maybe it's indignant woman hackers.

Could be, after all. Some women do advanced computer stuff.

Well, in novels, anyway. Like the new "14." Excellent. Actually, lots of novels use that trope, the intrepid (lovely) female hacker. And some movies, too. "The Net," with Sandra Bullock. I have to get that again.

I can imagine female Anonymous members going after rapists who are being protected by a town because they play football.

I think it's the Illuminati engaged in mortal combat with the modern day Templars; both seeking control of planet Earth. It's either that or alien beings executing the pre-invasion plan.

Seriously though, there are people out there (some very gifted) who thrill at walking the edge. They eventually cross the line and then justify their illegal acts to themselves (and others, if need be) and subsequently accept their criminal activities as somehow noble and for the benefit of society at large.

[CSM]

So you can't hold them to their past. Cause every single good thing is done by different people then the one's who've done the bad things. And if you'll notice, they always do what they say they will.

Hmmm, just like Muslims, eh?

My mother used to tell me that when sheep live with goats, they start to think like goats. Just sayin ...

[tailfins]

If what Anonymous will be producing is gained legally, I have no issue with it. If they violate the law to get it, it could harm the case. If an officer of the law "stole" evidence, it would likely be barred from being used in a court of law. I think this group might have good intentions at times, but there methods are simply that of more criminals.

What annoys me about mundane's point of view on this is a willingness to take unfavorable action on another person using UNVETTED information.

[gabosaurus]

In cases like this, I would prefer that all the names and information remain confidential. Let friends and relatives of the victims decide the punishment.
Sometimes the law of the street is preferable to the laws of society.

[Kathianne]

In cases like this, I would prefer that all the names and information remain confidential. Let friends and relatives of the victims decide the punishment.
Sometimes the law of the street is preferable to the laws of society.

Are you calling for vigilantism regarding rape? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

[jimnyc]

What annoys me about mundane's point of view on this is a willingness to take unfavorable action on another person using UNVETTED information.

That's what our justice system is for. If these videos are credible, and as damning as they sound, justice will be served. If not, release them afterwards and have a special prosecutor intervene based on corruption. But to have vigilantes in any sense is wrong, IMO.

[gabosaurus]

Are you calling for vigilantism regarding rape? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?

It depends on how close you are to the victim and whether you have solid facts about what happened.
If that is the case, I am afraid I am. Perhaps it is a character flaw.
One of my best friends was the victim of a brutal sexual assault by two guys. They got what they deserved.
Sorry if this upsets anyone.

[Kathianne]

It depends on how close you are to the victim and whether you have solid facts about what happened.
If that is the case, I am afraid I am. Perhaps it is a character flaw.
One of my best friends was the victim of a brutal sexual assault by two guys. They got what they deserved.
Sorry if this upsets anyone.

I do understand wanting to mete out justice, I do. However, what one is honestly sure of regarding facts, doesn't make it so. As imperfect as the criminal justice system is, it beats out no rule of law. Can't go there.

[gabosaurus]

I do understand wanting to mete out justice, I do. However, what one is honestly sure of regarding facts, doesn't make it so. As imperfect as the criminal justice system is, it beats out no rule of law. Can't go there.

I do agree with the rule of law in most instances. And you will never see me chasing someone with a shotgun.
My brother in law thought otherwise. He was brought up with a strong notion of family. Offenses against one's family are handled through the law of the street.

Rape cases are difficult because of the perverted judicial tendency to put the victim on trial instead of the accused. And the more famous or notorious you are, the better the chances are of getting off.

[tailfins]

In cases like this, I would prefer that all the names and information remain confidential. Let friends and relatives of the victims decide the punishment.
Sometimes the law of the street is preferable to the laws of society.

So you are on the same page as the Ku Klux Klan, then.

[Kathianne]

I do agree with the rule of law in most instances. And you will never see me chasing someone with a shotgun.
My brother in law thought otherwise. He was brought up with a strong notion of family. Offenses against one's family are handled through the law of the street.

Rape cases are difficult because of the perverted judicial tendency to put the victim on trial instead of the accused. And the more famous or notorious you are, the better the chances are of getting off.

That your brother in law sees it that way, doesn't make it right. Again, I understand. Rape trials have improved, doesn't mean perfectly. Then again, there are other cultures that kill the victim, for inciting such attacks.

[jimnyc]

Here's my issue: Once we start championing and allowing justice to be served like Anonymous wants to do - do we allow it with every case in which it happens? What if everyone in court started hiring hackers to expose information that is privileged, or do whatever is necessary to disrupt trials? Where does it stop? When do you say "Oh, that was too far"? Basically, this would be allowing a group of 'anonymous' people to more or less intervene in court, albeit indirectly. If I were to mess with a witness, or cause a mistrial due to messing with a court case, I would likely end up behind bars on contempt charges at the minimum.

I can almost understand someone, or a group, telling the prosecution "Hey, we have these, so you better do your jobs on the up and up". But there's got to be a line where they make a legal warning, or what turns into a criminal conspiracy to maneuver a court case, or whatever the hell the legal jargon would be! :)

[gabosaurus]

That your brother in law sees it that way, doesn't make it right. Again, I understand. Rape trials have improved, doesn't mean perfectly. Then again, there are other cultures that kill the victim, for inciting such attacks.

No one was killed here. But I am guessing that neither guy assaulted anyone for quite a long time.
I am not a vigilante type. But if you mess with my family, you better watch your back. This is all I have to say. :cool:

[Nukeman]

No one was killed here. But I am guessing that neither guy assaulted anyone for quite a long time.
I am not a vigilante type. But if you mess with my family, you better watch your back. This is all I have to say. :cool:
Personally I have NO problem with family justice.. You guys can sit here all day long and debate how the law trumps this and that but if it were YOUR family that was injured, or hurt through the callous actions of others (not talking accidents) than you damn sure better believe most of you would want to mete out the justice yourselves.

I pitty the person that EVER attempts to harm my family. That is not internet tough guy talk just a very family oriented man that will do whatever it takes to protect and keep his family safe.......

[gabosaurus]

Several years ago, a man was on trial for shooting an intruder he found in his home.
He had woke up and found a guy with a knife sitting on his daughter's bed. He shot the intruder in the shoulder (I believe) and then called police.
A grand jury declined to bring charges, but the intruder's family sued for damages and won. So the father was out that and legal costs.

You can be law abiding all you want. But I bet your mind changes if you wake up to find someone in your kid's bedroom.

[Kathianne]

Several years ago, a man was on trial for shooting an intruder he found in his home.
He had woke up and found a guy with a knife sitting on his daughter's bed. He shot the intruder in the shoulder (I believe) and then called police.
A grand jury declined to bring charges, but the intruder's family sued for damages and won. So the father was out that and legal costs.

You can be law abiding all you want. But I bet your mind changes if you wake up to find someone in your kid's bedroom.

There's a huge difference between protecting your property and those on it and taking 'justice to the street' when family or loved one is a victim of street crime. One is immediate and blowing someone away, who's entered your home uninvited is reasonable. Finding some punk or punks on the street and meting out justice? Not so much.

[tailfins]

Several years ago, a man was on trial for shooting an intruder he found in his home.
He had woke up and found a guy with a knife sitting on his daughter's bed. He shot the intruder in the shoulder (I believe) and then called police.
A grand jury declined to bring charges, but the intruder's family sued for damages and won. So the father was out that and legal costs.

You can be law abiding all you want. But I bet your mind changes if you wake up to find someone in your kid's bedroom.

The homeowner was penalized for being a poor shot. Had he hit the brain instead of the shoulder he would have paid no damages because the intruder couldn't testify.

[revelarts]

If what Anonymous will be producing is gained legally, I have no issue with it. If they violate the law to get it, it could harm the case. If an officer of the law "stole" evidence, it would likely be barred from being used in a court of law. I think this group might have good intentions at times, but there methods are simply that of more criminals.
Same with torture, ( and waterboarding for those who are confused about that) it's illegal. Some terrorist cases were thrown out by conservative republican judges because the "confessions" were coerced which is illegal as well.




Here's my issue: Once we start championing and allowing justice to be served like Anonymous wants to do - do we allow it with every case in which it happens?

do i have to say it?

[mundame]

I think it's the Illuminati engaged in mortal combat with the modern day Templars; both seeking control of planet Earth. It's either that or alien beings executing the pre-invasion plan.




Are the alien beings the Reptilians? I was worried you were leaving out the Reptilians.

My money is on the Illuminati. Those Illuminati rock.

[mundame]

Several years ago, a man was on trial for shooting an intruder he found in his home.
He had woke up and found a guy with a knife sitting on his daughter's bed. He shot the intruder in the shoulder (I believe) and then called police.
A grand jury declined to bring charges, but the intruder's family sued for damages and won. So the father was out that and legal costs.

You can be law abiding all you want. But I bet your mind changes if you wake up to find someone in your kid's bedroom.

The dad was foolish.

He should have just killed the guy then and there while he had the chance! In for a penny, in for a pound: who would not have called it self-defense, or home defense?

For heaven's sake, if they are actually inside your home, you don't give them a second chance to come back!!!

[mundame]

The homeowner was penalized for being a poor shot. Had he hit the brain instead of the shoulder he would have paid no damages because the intruder couldn't testify.


What, he couldn't find a second bullet??

Darn. What he couldn't find, I bet, was nerve.

[tailfins]

What, he couldn't find a second bullet??

Darn. What he couldn't find, I bet, was nerve.

What kind of legal jeopardy would a second shot bring versus a well-aimed first shot?

[mundame]

What kind of legal jeopardy would a second shot bring versus a well-aimed first shot?


True. Doing it right and doing it once would be better.

However, I would be perfectly willing, I mean it, to go with the legal defense, "I saw he was still alive so I shot him again!"

[tailfins]

True. Doing it right and doing it once would be better.

However, I would be perfectly willing, I mean it, to go with the legal defense, "I saw he was still alive so I shot him again!"

Competent counsel would stop you from saying that after spilling their coffee. A better response would be that "I was in such panic and shock that I couldn't stop pulling the trigger".

[Marcus Aurelius]

Several years ago, a man was on trial for shooting an intruder he found in his home.
He had woke up and found a guy with a knife sitting on his daughter's bed. He shot the intruder in the shoulder (I believe) and then called police.
A grand jury declined to bring charges, but the intruder's family sued for damages and won. So the father was out that and legal costs.

You can be law abiding all you want. But I bet your mind changes if you wake up to find someone in your kid's bedroom.

link please???

[jimnyc]

Same with torture, ( and waterboarding for those who are confused about that) it's illegal. Some terrorist cases were thrown out by conservative republican judges because the "confessions" were coerced which is illegal as well.

do i have to say it?

You can say it if you like, and want to go off topic, but not only would it be 'apples and oranges', but the apples would be from NYC and the oranges from Guatemala, not even in the same ballpark. But in the same sense, as you want to allow for hacker groups, and for groups like ran by Assange. Why doesn't law matter in those cases?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Competent counsel would stop you from saying that after spilling their coffee. A better response would be that "I was in such panic and shock that I couldn't stop pulling the trigger".

"I was just cleaning my 9mm your honor, and it just went off.... 15 times."

You come into my home... armed... you get 1 warning. You don't comply, I empty the clip. Period.

[mundame]

Competent counsel would stop you from saying that after spilling their coffee. A better response would be that "I was in such panic and shock that I couldn't stop pulling the trigger".

You may have a point there..........

I'll bear it in mind.

Reminds me of the Jean Harris defense when she killed that awful, awful man Dr. Tarnhouer the diet doctor. She said she was showing him the gun and it just went off!! Right in the bedroom!!!


Nine times........several of those accidental shots managed to hit him, too.

Harris was convicted, much to her indignation. She was a private school headmistress and he was truly a louse, so I guess she felt she had the right to put a stop to such bad behavior. That's not how the jury saw it, though.

[Robert A Whit]

Same with torture, ( and waterboarding for those who are confused about that) it's illegal. Some terrorist cases were thrown out by conservative republican judges because the "confessions" were coerced which is illegal as well.



I keep wondering why people who are dead set against waterboarding refuse to give that same protection to our own Navy seals.

They endure it too.

Why not do it to a terrorist?

Back when I was in the US Army, I watched as some NCO forced a guy into a small room that had a chair with a metal bottom. And they hooked him up to electricity. When he tried to not give them the correct answers, they hit him with a shock.

Some keep saying it won't work. Hell it won't work. That guy and others like him talked their heads off and told the truth. Worked every time.

We had this course called escape and evasion and believe me, few men won't talk and tell the truth during some sort of torture.

But our own Navy does this to our men. I don't see anyone saying how wrong that is.

You know, come to think of it, a lot that gets done by our own military to our own guys can be called torture too.

If you want to include water boarding that is.

Take the old drop to give me 100 push-ups thing. Torture?

What about when a NCO selects some dude and lays it to him?

I was at a firing range at Fort Ord, CA and saw an NCO park his fat ass on the shoulders of some guy he was trying to get to squat lower as he shot at the targets.

Torture?

[tailfins]

I keep wondering why people who are dead set against waterboarding refuse to give that same protection to our own Navy seals.

They endure it too.

Why not do it to a terrorist?

Back when I was in the US Army, I watched as some NCO forced a guy into a small room that had a chair with a metal bottom. And they hooked him up to electricity. When he tried to not give them the correct answers, they hit him with a shock.

Some keep saying it won't work. Hell it won't work. That guy and others like him talked their heads off and told the truth. Worked every time.

We had this course called escape and evasion and believe me, few men won't talk and tell the truth during some sort of torture.

But our own Navy does this to our men. I don't see anyone saying how wrong that is.

You know, come to think of it, a lot that gets done by our own military to our own guys can be called torture too.

If you want to include water boarding that is.

Take the old drop to give me 100 push-ups thing. Torture?

What about when a NCO selects some dude and lays it to him?

I was at a firing range at Fort Ord, CA and saw an NCO park his fat ass on the shoulders of some guy he was trying to get to squat lower as he shot at the targets.

Torture?


Listening to you babble on and on sure is torture!

[jimnyc]

Oh man, I know I'm about to hear it from Rev. He's been gearing up a post now for about an hour! :coffee: :cheers2:

[revelarts]

You can say it if you like, and want to go off topic, but not only would it be 'apples and oranges', but the apples would be from NYC and the oranges from Guatemala, not even in the same ballpark. But in the same sense, as you want to allow for hacker groups, and for groups like ran by Assange. Why doesn't law matter in those cases?

you've told me on many occasions Jim that breaking the law is breaking the law, And people should not break the law or take it into their own hands. If they have a problem with it they should take it to court and or to the legislature and have them change the law. Not go off on their own.

But now it's apple and oranges when some people break a law that you disagree with.

no problem Jim

(took a while, mom came over for visit)

[revelarts]

I keep wondering why people who are dead set against waterboarding refuse to give that same protection to our own Navy seals.
They endure it too.
Why not do it to a terrorist?
Back when I was in the US Army, I watched as some NCO forced a guy into a small room that had a chair with a metal bottom. And they hooked him up to electricity. When he tried to not give them the correct answers, they hit him with a shock.
Some keep saying it won't work. Hell it won't work. That guy and others like him talked their heads off and told the truth. Worked every time.
We had this course called escape and evasion and believe me, few men won't talk and tell the truth during some sort of torture.
But our own Navy does this to our men. I don't see anyone saying how wrong that is.
You know, come to think of it, a lot that gets done by our own military to our own guys can be called torture too.
If you want to include water boarding that is.
Take the old drop to give me 100 push-ups thing. Torture?
What about when a NCO selects some dude and lays it to him?
I was at a firing range at Fort Ord, CA and saw an NCO park his fat ass on the shoulders of some guy he was trying to get to squat lower as he shot at the targets.
Torture?

Short answer, I don't like it but you guys volunteered for the military.
you want me to complain to congress about your treatment , I will.

[jimnyc]

you've told me on many occasions Jim that breaking the law is breaking the law, And people should not break the law or take it into their own hands. If they have a problem with it they should take it to court and or to the legislature and have them change the law. Not go off on their own.

But now it's apple and oranges when some people break a law that you disagree with.

no problem Jim

(took a while, mom came over for visit)

I'm advocating that the laws be changed, that certain techniques should NOT be off the table. I think it should be legal for the CIA and other agencies to use such techniques. You're advocating breaking the law prior to any fight to make something legal/illegal.

[Gaffer]

Anyone else see the historical similarities between the anonymous group and the depression era gangs of bank robbers and murderers. Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone? They all had the robin hood mystique and popular support. But they were still thieves and killers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do not buy into this attempt to amend their image ! One can not rob a bank and then buy amends by giving some of the money to a charity. Anonymous has a very dangerous anti-American political agenda. This attempt to get new fans and recruit support from those that previously gave none is bogus IMHO. A THOUGHTFUL LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING TRIED HERE SHOULD CLUE ANYBODY IN TO ITS DECEIT.-Tyr

[aboutime]

I do not buy into this attempt to amend their image ! One can not rob a bank and then buy amends by giving some of the money to a charity. Anonymous has a very dangerous anti-American political agenda. This attempt to get new fans and recruit support from those that previously gave none is bogus IMHO. A THOUGHTFUL LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING TRIED HERE SHOULD CLUE ANYBODY IN TO ITS DECEIT.-Tyr


Illegal, in any sense of the word is still Illegal. Trying to convince others to commit Illegal acts, warrants punishment for such acts.

[revelarts]

Anyone else see the historical similarities between the anonymous group and the depression era gangs of bank robbers and murderers. Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone? They all had the robin hood mystique and popular support. But they were still thieves and killers.

OK so Who has anonymous killed, wacked in the knee caps, stolen money from, delivered illegal substances to, kidnapped or assassinated?
Sounds more like the cia than Anonymous.
i could certainly post more proof on each count against the former.

[taft2012]

Same with torture, ( and waterboarding for those who are confused about that) it's illegal. Some terrorist cases were thrown out by conservative republican judges because the "confessions" were coerced which is illegal as well.


Were these cases in US civilian courts or military tribunals?

I think you keep doing a lot of apples vs. oranges comparisons in this area. For instance, discussing the US Supreme Court opinions, which have zero application in regard to the treatment of enemy combatants taken on the battlefield in a foreign land and kept on foreign soil. The US Constitution has no application to them, and hence, no interest to the US Supreme Court.

That is the Constitutional realm of the Commander-in-Chief.

[revelarts]

Were these cases in US civilian courts or military tribunals?

I think you keep doing a lot of apples vs. oranges comparisons in this area. For instance, discussing the US Supreme Court opinions, which have zero application in regard to the treatment of enemy combatants taken on the battlefield in a foreign land and kept on foreign soil. The US Constitution has no application to them, and hence, no interest to the US Supreme Court.

That is the Constitutional realm of the Commander-in-Chief.

Taft it's been a awhile since i've posted the cases AND the commentary of the Judges. But they were Gitmo "terrorist" . One judge was on a tribunal. Or it may have been a lawyer who presented to the tribunal.

And the Supreme court decisions are , for better or worse, the Supreme law of the land including the military. not sure when the military became exempt from all law. Or a seperate branch of gov't. Even overseas An American soldier can't (or aren't suppose to) rape, steal, torture etc... under the cover of "it was an enemy".

[Gaffer]

OK so Who has anonymous killed, wacked in the knee caps, stolen money from, delivered illegal substances to, kidnapped or assassinated?
Sounds more like the cia than Anonymous.
i could certainly post more proof on each count against the former.

Well they have stolen credit cards and ID's among many other things. Exposed innocent peoples lives, doing the same things to the innocent as they have done to the guilty. Who knows how many wacked kneecaps or assassinations have occurred due to their efforts that have never been actually reported by the media.

They'll clean out your bank account at the same time as exposing a rapist to the publics attention. Does that make them good guys?

[taft2012]

Taft it's been a awhile since i've posted the cases AND the commentary of the Judges. But they were Gitmo "terrorist" . One judge was on a tribunal. Or it may have been a lawyer who presented to the tribunal.

And the Supreme court decisions are , for better or worse, the Supreme law of the land including the military. not sure when the military became exempt from all law. Or a seperate branch of gov't. Even overseas An American soldier can't (or aren't suppose to) rape, steal, torture etc... under the cover of "it was an enemy".

The USSC is the supreme law of the land... *this* land. Not foreign lands and not our troops operating in foreign lands.

A prisoner being tried on Gitmo based on a confession received *may* fall under the purview of the USSC. That's debatable.

A prisoner undergoing a military tribunal in Kabul .... no, the USSC has no Constitutional jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that the military is "exempt from all law." They are subject to military law.

[revelarts]

The USSC is the supreme law of the land... *this* land. Not foreign lands and not our troops operating in foreign lands.

A prisoner being tried on Gitmo based on a confession received *may* fall under the purview of the USSC. That's debatable.

A prisoner undergoing a military tribunal in Kabul .... no, the USSC has no Constitutional jurisdiction. However, that does not mean that the military is "exempt from all law." They are subject to military law.

Holy &$%^(

Ok so,
military law of what country?

[revelarts]

If the USSC has no jurisdiction over the Military does?

The congress created the laws and rules of military tribunal system.
That law was and IS subject to the USSC.

Constitution
Under the powers of Congress
Article 1 section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

--To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

--To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

--To provide and maintain a Navy;

--To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

--To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

the The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by Truman.

Did they give the the Military powers outside the reach of the supreme court if they are overseas?
It's my understanding that the military overseas may be subject to local and/or U.S. civil and/or U.S. Military law.
An officer in Singapore might end up in jail there for chewing bubble gum.

C'mon conservatives who love the Constitution, the U.S. military is a creation of the congress Headed by the Executive and all it's fianl court of appeal and abriter of what's law is the USSC court. The Court of Military Appeals is UNDER the USSC.

Unless i'm in the twilight zone where the military only answers to the president in all things.

[jimnyc]

Rev, if the law means that much to you - why do you ignore it when Wikileaks and Anyonymous break it? :poke:

[revelarts]

Rev, if the law means that much to you - why do you ignore it when Wikileaks and Anyonymous break it?

hey they may pay a price for breaking the hacking laws. But it doesn't mean what they did was all bad.
You'd arrest Santa for breaking and entering. he Broke the laaaww.:poke:

hey I freely admit that i do not agree with some laws and some laws are meant to be broken in the name of justice. On rare occasions if necessary and moral. (torture is not moral toward any goal).
I've got no problem with that. there are LOT of Bad laws, and some laws that are just a nuisance that should be ignored before and after repealing them.

But you know, as far a law goes, my gold standard is the constitution. don't break that. there's nothing that I can see needs fixing or breaking or bending there except for the tax amendments.

[aboutime]

If the USSC has no jurisdiction over the Military does?

The congress created the laws and rules of military tribunal system.
That law was and IS subject to the USSC.

Constitution
Under the powers of Congress
Article 1 section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

--To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

--To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

--To provide and maintain a Navy;

--To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

--To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

the The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by Truman.

Did they give the the Military powers outside the reach of the supreme court if they are overseas?
It's my understanding that the military overseas may be subject to local and/or U.S. civil and/or U.S. Military law.
An officer in Singapore might end up in jail there for chewing bubble gum.

C'mon conservatives who love the Constitution, the U.S. military is a creation of the congress Headed by the Executive and all it's fianl court of appeal and abriter of what's law is the USSC court. The Court of Military Appeals is UNDER the USSC.

Unless i'm in the twilight zone where the military only answers to the president in all things.


rev. Just a little tidbit of professional experience, and information for anyone on this topic.

The U.S. Military stays within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. However. In order to maintain discipline, and the following of Orders by members of the military, as well as the performance of their duties. THE CONSTITUTION is NOT in effect.
In other words. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the Legal background followed by military members.
One example would be....NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS...Free speech..for those in uniform while on Duty.
If members were granted 1ST amendment rights like civilians. The purpose of Military Leadership would be destroyed.
That's only One example. In reality. The Military is a DICTATORSHIP.

[revelarts]

rev. Just a little tidbit of professional experience, and information for anyone on this topic.

The U.S. Military stays within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. However. In order to maintain discipline, and the following of Orders by members of the military, as well as the performance of their duties. THE CONSTITUTION is NOT in effect.
In other words. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is the Legal background followed by military members.
One example would be....NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS...Free speech..for those in uniform while on Duty.
If members were granted 1ST amendment rights like civilians. The purpose of Military Leadership would be destroyed.
That's only One example. In reality. The Military is a DICTATORSHIP.

Ok Sure ,
And as i said the USMJ was written by the congress. signed by the pres.
The dictaorship is Under the 3 branches, the constitution and more restictative than the constitution in many areas.
not as it seems some are saying under no legal authority but it's own and the president.

[jimnyc]

hey they may pay a price for breaking the hacking laws. But it doesn't mean what they did was all bad.
You'd arrest Santa for breaking and entering. he Broke the laaaww.:poke:

hey I freely admit that i do not agree with some laws and some laws are meant to be broken in the name of justice. On rare occasions if necessary and moral. (torture is not moral toward any goal).
I've got no problem with that. there are LOT of Bad laws, and some laws that are just a nuisance that should be ignored before and after repealing them.

But you know, as far a law goes, my gold standard is the constitution. don't break that. there's nothing that I can see needs fixing or breaking or bending there except for the tax amendments.

Point being, you don't take issue with some VERY serious laws being broken, and national security information and diplomatic information being stolen and disseminated. You don't have an issue with such laws being broken as I mentioned as you believe it exposes corruption and other misdeeds by criminals and politicians. You have your reasoning for thinking it's ok that these laws are broken or overlooked.

Therefore, any wording from you about "supreme law of the land" or pretty much anything about a nation of laws and such is down the drain. Unless of course you are the arbiter of what laws we can break and which we can't. Seems you will have some laws you find unreasonable, and others will find other laws unreasonable. Your definition of moral, when dealing with mass murderers, might be different from others.

[jimnyc]

Ok Sure ,
And as i said the USMJ was written by the congress. signed by the pres.
The dictaorship is Under the 3 branches, the constitution and more restictative than the constitution in many areas.
not as it seems some are saying under no legal authority but it's own and the president.

Who wrote the hacking laws, espionage, conspiracy and everything else that large hacker organizations ignore?

[revelarts]

Point being, you don't take issue with some VERY serious laws being broken, and national security information and diplomatic information being stolen and disseminated. You don't have an issue with such laws being broken as I mentioned as you believe it exposes corruption and other misdeeds by criminals and politicians. You have your reasoning for thinking it's ok that these laws are broken or overlooked.

Therefore, any wording from you about "supreme law of the land" or pretty much anything about a nation of laws and such is down the drain. Unless of course you are the arbiter of what laws we can break and which we can't. Seems you will have some laws you find unreasonable, and others will find other laws unreasonable. Your definition of moral, when dealing with mass murderers, might be different from others.

Jim, read the 1st line of my answer,
"There may be a price to paid." as in they may go to court and lose and go to jail.
I don't say that the law should not be used. but frankly until they really burn do something that seems to out weight the good. I won't turn them in.

See i think the difference between you and me about law is i drawn the line at the constitution and after that i'm more for the spirit of the law and freedom. But out of respect for God I'll obey laws and encourage others to obey them as well.
While, it seems to me, you think if the letter of the any law -state local federal- is broken it's a moral offense and anarchy will soon reign. except for torture law the CIA and other can get away with that. Do u drive the speed limit all the time Jim?

Would you obey the fugitive slave act? And report or turn in run away slaves?
Would you turn in a good Japanese neighbor who was trying to get to Canada away from the U.S. detention camps?

Breaking into gov't records and exposing non-life threatening info is not so much of a horrible crime iMO, no ones HURT, except inept or corrupt politicians/bureaucrats careers.
Sure some people may disagree with my moral stances and think torture is for the greater "good" even though immoral and Illegal. But it's obvious that torture has to rationalized into being a good. And is on it's face an evil and HURTS people, some who may indeed be innocent. All for questionable results. As apposed to the things i support "breaking the law" ON RARE OCCASIONS.

[WiccanLiberal]

I have been reading this thread and wondering whether we will ever get beyond the politics of sex. In the US we seem to think we have made enormous progress in protecting women from sexual violence. Are we really any better than India where recent news has made public a culture that discourages reporting sexual assaults and where a young woman was recently gang raped so violently she later died?

[mundame]

I have been reading this thread and wondering whether we will ever get beyond the politics of sex. In the US we seem to think we have made enormous progress in protecting women from sexual violence. Are we really any better than India where recent news has made public a culture that discourages reporting sexual assaults and where a young woman was recently gang raped so violently she later died?


To be fair, the Steubenville football players didn't rape her with a large knife and thus cut up her intestines, as happened to the Indian girl. If they HAD, my guess is that even the laughy-guy with the videoed comic routine about it might have called the cops --- or at least run away instead of doing stand-up comedy. The cops would have come, too, which they didn't in India and no one on the bus helped the girl, and in fact, the bus never bothered to stop the whole time, at least till blood was getting over everything.

Some males in this country think a dead-drunk female is fair game. So they get her drunk or slip Rohypnol into her drink to achieve that fair-game status. However, this is called "rape" in the law.

Well, unless you are Todd Atkins of Missouri; he might have called it "non-legitimate rape."

But he lost his Senate bid because he was a no-good Neanderthaler like those Indian criminals.

But I'd say we're a little further along. I don't think what happened in India would happen here, at least not so publicly.

[gabosaurus]

Sometimes the law has to be broken to expose the truth. In this case, the truth is really sordid.

http://localleaks.blogs.ru/2013/01/01/steubenvillefiles/

Not that this case is different from any other small town (especially in Texas and Florida, where high school football is above the law).

[avatar4321]

Well, because they CAN. That's the thing with them, with all these new hackers who expose a lot of "secret" data. They can, and they do. The law isn't of interest to them, just what they can do.

The FBI has tried very hard to catch them but failed abysmally, in that now Anonymous is mad and striking back at them.

Remember, this is not a legal group: it's outlaws. But they could turn into an interesting Robin Hood sort of organization, if they expose evil-doing, like in Steubenville (probably). I'd like to see more of that done!

Using evil to fight evil isn't a good policy.

Illegal evidence isn't admittable in court. Why would we want to undermine any chance at justice by including them?

[avatar4321]

I really don't see where Anonymous could really do anything in this scenario. I really doubt a crooked DA uploaded the original video to a server for safekeeping and produced a modified one that served his purposes.

I think Anonymous (or a couple of computer savvy kids in that town) made the claim to gain National scrutiny on what they feel is a cover-up... in which case, it worked brilliantly.

I think you are right. Anonymous is all about number 1.

[avatar4321]

In cases like this, I would prefer that all the names and information remain confidential. Let friends and relatives of the victims decide the punishment.
Sometimes the law of the street is preferable to the laws of society.

When is mob action ever preferable?

[avatar4321]

Personally I have NO problem with family justice.. You guys can sit here all day long and debate how the law trumps this and that but if it were YOUR family that was injured, or hurt through the callous actions of others (not talking accidents) than you damn sure better believe most of you would want to mete out the justice yourselves.

I pitty the person that EVER attempts to harm my family. That is not internet tough guy talk just a very family oriented man that will do whatever it takes to protect and keep his family safe.......

I hate to disagree. Vengence isn't justice.

There is a reason why justice is blind. It's because those who are emotionally involved cannot see the situation accurately.

[revelarts]

When is mob action ever preferable?

Only when the proper channels have failed ,the mob has got the right perp.
And it makes appropriate retribution.
which is probably not often, but it has happened.

[avatar4321]

Only when the proper channels have failed ,the mob has got the right perp.
And it makes appropriate retribution.
which is probably not often, but it has happened.

I disagree. A mob is never preferable in a civilized society. And they never lead to justice. They can't.

[revelarts]

I disagree. A mob is never preferable in a civilized society. And they never lead to justice. They can't.

In 99% of the cases your probably right but
"British subjects could only be taxed with the consent of their elected representatives. When Parliament refused to back down, colonial mobs forced stamp distributors to resign. Direct action by interracial urban mobs was a frequent occurrence in the lead-up to the Revolution."

Sam Adams lead mobs to disrupt British politics in Boston. Often it was effective protest, at times it did get out of hand.

[mundame]

I disagree. A mob is never preferable in a civilized society. And they never lead to justice. They can't.

Well, except in the case of the mob that shot Joseph Smith. Somebody had to. He was debauching little girls literally by the dozen AND running for president.....it had to stop.

Then there's the French Revolution, which I am studying right now, for the first time. People have NO IDEA what all they got up to, it was bad. But the French still love their Revolution, even though it led quickly to a strong-man takeover, as these things usually do. (Napoleon)

What about when the law simply doesn't cope? Doesn't stop the crimes. Doesn't bring the killer or rapist to justice? Or can't, because of bad law. J Lo in "Enough," love that movie. "Sleeping with the Enemy." Movies about grossly abusive husbands the law will not and cannot stop, so the wife finally kills them.

MOST movies these days are about vigilante action. Have you noticed that? Have been for decades. The lead protag goes outside the law and simply deals with the problem properly: "He needed killing." And we all cheer.

This Steubenville case does look like such a case where either vigilantes deal with it or the bad guys get away with terrible crimes. Apparently they fed this young girl Rohypnol, carried her unconscious body from party to party getting raped all along the way by the whole football team ---- hey, we definitely need Spiderman here. But Anonymous' Knight Sec division may work too.

Yeah, I guess I am in favor of vigilantism in cases of corrupt law enforcement or hampered, impotent law. The law actually has to WORK, after all, or we need something else entirely. Hollywood certainly agrees with me.

[tailfins]

I disagree. A mob is never preferable in a civilized society. And they never lead to justice. They can't.


It happens in Brazil quite a lot; it serves as a stealth death penalty. Castro and Chavez also govern via mobs. Do a Bing search on "Actos de Repudio". Go to images if you can't read Spanish about Actos de Repudio in Cuba.


¿ QUE ES UN "ACTO DE REPUDIO" ? Por: Dr. Eloy Arnaldo González.

http://www.cubademocraciayvida.org/web/article.asp?artID=1375

http://www.cubademocraciayvida.org/media/a%20actos%20de%20Repudios/400ACTO-DE-REPUDIO.jpg

[tailfins]

Come to think of it, we already have an example of this in the USA. It's how the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, Hell's Angels, etc. do "justice". Should gang "justice" become mainstream?