Oh, fuck you, you tangerine faced buffoon.

Dissent is patriotic, moron.

I’ll give you this though, you’re either very brave or fucking stupid to mention treason in your current situation... oh wait, you’re fucking stupid.

Abby Martin participating with this makes sense. For those unfamiliar, her schtick before was working for Russia Today.

The same way Russia is fond of funding the extreme ends of Antifa and Unite the right clowns. Funding popular dissent and dissatisfaction with America and capitalism is super. However many nuts listen to Zeitgeist crazies may be small, but if that group doesn't overlap with the Antifa crowd, and doesn't overlap with the KKK crowd and doesn't overlap with those outraged by the latest wikileaks 'discovery' it all adds up to a lot of people. It's pretty much public record that Russian intelligence is happily and eagerly funding as many of these organizations they can to foment dissent and dissatisfaction.

It's not some paranoid conspiracy to say this plays into the the hands of America's enemies, it's a fact that is being proven in court. That doesn't mean there aren't piles of truths out there being dug up that make America and it's systems look bad and flawed, but spinning it to make people as angry as possible, and feeding those truths along with as many lies as the target audience will swallow is 'great' propaganda.

So that's a long winded version of declaring this video as russian funded propaganda.

Heck, an armed populace is harder to oppress is really all I was ever suggesting on the count of common ground. One point of commonality.

On Rwanda, the genocidal former government of Rwanda kept their arms and just retreated into the Congo jungle. They've basically kept their "freedom" in the process and subsequently no small reason the DRC has been plagued with horrific violent crimes against humanity the last couple decades.

On Kagame I suppose it depends who you ask about being a tyrant or not. Perhaps pragmatic dictator would be the closest a majority of dissenting experts might agree on? That said, make no mistake that supporters of the former regime weren't allowed to remain armed where Kagame had the ability. Because of the genocide the world largely disregarded it, Kagames forces made large numbers of 'violations' of DRC borders raiding for former genocidairres.

I don't disagree that weapons don't necessarily make anyone more free. I also can't say people are wrong to observe in a civil war level of unrest, a dissenting party armed with fully automatic weapons has more leverage than one armed with knives.

Freedom to practice religion is not 'fairly safe' without guns, unless you want to ignore attacks with cars, trucks, IEDs, and, historically, civilian airliners.

I am mostly pointing out that restricting laws on gun ownership to protect people is not so terribly different from limiting freedom to practice/express idealogies. It is readily demonstrable that BOTH those freedoms have directly contributed to civilian casualties.

The difference between say, banning automatic weapons, and the banning of affiliation with extremist groups like the KKK or ISIL is mostly divided along partisan lines, logically they are pretty much two sides of the same coin, with democrats and republicans each decrying one as necessary and the other as evil.

Former agents (and others), not current. No surprise that, as private citizens, some fired for being incapable of leaving their politics at home called to complain about his announcement that the Clinton investigation was over.
A better argument that there was dissent would be the numerous leaks from the NY branch of the FBI that clearly were intended to harm Clinton.

-..."they" in that sentence is the Catholics and Protestants.....it's your topic. In a general sense, it applies to most religions as individual groups, and the more dogmatic the followers are, the less tolerant of any dissent they become.

I can read. It's in the bible, and never contradicted or eradicated from the religious 'law'...so it's not what I define their beliefs to be, it's what the bible defines their beliefs to be, and if they don't follow it, what in the hell are they 'believing'?

I think you won't provide evidence because you can't. Someone's misinterpretation of the clear instructions, that let you off the hook for following them, means nothing when you have the clear text to read.

Only one hefty book matters in this instance, and it's undeniably clear. If you don't murder infidels, you don't follow the bible's teachings and so must deny it's God's law....making it nothing but a terrible book of fairy tales.

Edit: I think there's a disconnect about disrespect here. Atheists may not respect your beliefs with lip service and placations, but most religions require the complete eradication of differing beliefs. Atheists absolutely respect your right to believe any nonsense you want to, even if we may try to convince you why you're wrong. Religions invariably do not exhibit that base level of respect, how can you possibly claim they are more respectful?
Could it be that atheists are more respectful, enough to engage the 'other', so SEEM more disrespectful because they're up front and honest about their disrespect for beliefs, while religious people might smile but rarely actually engage in discussion/debate for fear of actually having to defend their indefensible beliefs, so just consider them a subhuman demon to be avoided as much as possible and backstabbed at every opportunity because they, let's say, think Saturday is the Sabbath?
I grew up in Texas, I have plenty of experience with 'Christian respect' for the beliefs of others (or lack thereof)....and it's nearly non existent there. I was told more than once that if I don't believe in God or Jesus my opinion didn't matter, and I wasn't welcome there, and deserved death. A few of those respectful Christians tried to beat some Jesus into me....but never one on one, and never successfully.

Except in this case the rule was created specifically to protect members of the senate from cries of racism.

When fascism and totalitarianism take over and the rules are written by bad people for bad purposes simply saying "rules are rules" is naive and dangerous.

Still waiting on some specific examples from you on how Obama "ruined" the country (or for you to admit you were wrong). Your words have no weight so long as you run away from the slightest hint of a counter argument. I can see why you like Mitch's move here, it's exactly the sort of thing you'd pull.

You fear words because you are wrong, Bob. If you stopped to pay attention you might actually have to reevaluate your position and you're too much of an intellectual coward to do that, aren't you? Prove me wrong, by the way, let's see an open discussion, rather than your usual drive-by commenting followed up by hiding in the basement from any cogent dissenting argument.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

Unheard of, yes, and no dissent, curious, but an indicator that it's a political ploy by the heads of those 17 agencies, not to me, because many of them (most famously the head of the FBI) are firmly and unapologetically Trump supporters. They would not produce or agree with such damming conclusions about their guy, imo, without clear evidence. It is more than unfortunate that we won't see that evidence, if it exists, during this administration. I expect it to stay classified by presidential order so he can deny it's existence.

I do agree, what we've seen in the redacted public report is far from proof, and the intelligence community as a whole has a terrible record of lies and misdirection. I think the recent need for public attention and political involvement has only made that worse. With such a horrendous reputation, it behooves them to make public their proof as quickly as possible.....leak it?

Nope, me neither.

Which is sort of the point. It's unheard of that all of these agencies came to the same conclusion on a specific matter. Some may take this as an indicator of how damning the evidence really is, others see this as an indicator that the "assessments" were made on hierarchical levels reserved for political appointees.

The absence of dissent supports the second point of view. No group of analysts in their right mind would create a report without also strongly pointing out contradictory facts, inconsistencies, and separating fact from interpretation. That's what Hersh is referring to. This is not an NIE, it's an opinion piece. This memo by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (wierd name) goes down the same route:

As you will have gathered by now, we strongly suspect that the evidence your intelligence chiefs have of a joint Russian-hacking-WikiLeaks-publishing operation is no better than the “intelligence” evidence in 2002-2003 – expressed then with comparable flat-fact “certitude” – of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The CIA and NSA are not the friend of any left-wing worth having: they are innately anti-democratic, anti-privacy, and anti-rights. Secret agencies are anathema to any open government. At an existential level, intelligence agencies are at best a double edged sword, and by their nature, they always wind up serving the interests of the few, against the interests of the people.

This one's a bit dated (5 weeks), but still good stuff:
http://shout.lbo-talk.org/lbo/RadioArchive/2016/16_12_15.mp3

Mark Ames on "Putin-did-it", starting at around 25:40.

Edit: also, first episode of Intercepted is out, Jeremy Scahill's weekly podcast.

He's got Sy Hersh on this time, and Hersh had a lot to say about "Putin-did-it", including this bit:
"It’s high camp stuff. What does an assessment mean? It’s not a national intelligence estimate. If you had a real estimate, you would have five or six dissents. One time they said 17 agencies all agreed. Oh really? The Coast Guard and the Air Force — they all agreed on it? And it was outrageous and nobody did that story. An assessment is simply an opinion. If they had a fact, they’d give it to you. An assessment is just that. It’s a belief. And they’ve done it many times."

No, I don't deny that intelligence reports have been misused repeatedly by dems and reps historically, and horrifically.

No sir...the Bush administration edited multiple reports to lie about what the intelligence community had reported.

I know little about the lies about Vietnam, but would not be surprised to find the same MO by different parties. Please keep in mind that the appointed leaders of these organizations are often at odds with the politically diverse communities they oversee, and often rewrite official reports to reflect their bias...which I gather is what is being implied with this report without seeing the full classified version that allegedly contains the missing proof. It's a bit odd to make that conclusion, though, considering how firmly right wing the head of the FBI has proven himself to be, you would think he would not sign off if it weren't undeniable.

Well, the public report was compiled from 17 different agencies without dissent, and made clear that there is classified evidence to back up their assertions. That sure sounds like "multiple intelligence sources".

What does "actively hacked our election" mean? Only hacking voting machines and counting machines? It seems they tried, but failed or decided against it. If hacking the DNC and Clinton counts, it's not certain beyond doubt, but is certain beyond reasonable doubt with zero evidence to the contrary, imo.

Yes, but have we seen such public statements from so many agencies combined without dissent? Governments lie, intelligence reports lie, news lies, pundits lie, but usually not en masse with such consistency.

I agree we need dissenting voices, but I also feel that those repeatedly proven to use their soapbox to lie, or intentionally obfuscate, confuse, exaggerate, minimize, omit, misrepresent, etc. have lost their right to have their voice heard. If their issues are shared by others, the others have a responsibility to honestly and truthfully explain, removing proven liars as the issue's spokesman, or they leave themselves open to being completely ignored...some of us don't dismiss lying and see it as a disqualifier for a spokesperson or reporter.
I'm speaking generally here, not accusing anyone specifically.

@bcglorf
i was gonna respond,and most likely fail,in expressing what @radx nailed.

which,again,embarasses the fuck out of me,because @radx is german and english is his second language and he STILL beats me to a pulp when talking about these matters.

but i will add that we NEED dissenting voices.
we NEED people critical of power,the excesses of power and the abuse of power.

i totally agree with you Bc that we need balance,but for that balance to even EXIST,we have to have all voices heard.

how can you or i come to a well reasoned,and rationale conclusion if parts of the book are not even being allowed to be spoken out loud?
because it just happens to conflict with a current narrative the political elite are trying to shove down our throats.

the dynamic is NOT republican vs democrat,nor liberal vs conservative.

the dynamic is power vs powerlessness.

and let me be clear,because maybe some here are misunderstanding my support of hedges as somehow translating to supporting putin.

this is false.
i support hedges because of his stellar work.
putin is a thug who murders political enemies and challengers,and russia itself is dominated by oligarchs.russia is a fucking mess.

these are two separate issues,and to conflate them and apply that metric to my words is simply wrong.