Right, they are no longer engaged in this kind of fraudulent behaviour. And HSBC is no longer laundering money for drug cartels and terrorists. And the DEA is no longer making up fictional sources for the data they were handed by the NSA.

And they're all terribly sorry.

Super fucking rad hook up.
In reply to this comment by shagen454:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc&feature=player_embedded

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."

Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.

There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".

But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.

Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.

Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?

This is overly confusing for my mind. In that, I have concluded that none of this is about guns, and it is all about drugs being illegal. Trying to make crazy gun laws because of bad drug laws is just kicking the ball down the road all the while creating new problem. Start at the root not at the symptom. Drug cartels want guns because they want to protect their interests in drug production to sell to the US drug user. Gun sales to cartels are financed by the fact that drugs are illegal. Statically, for drugs, crime does pay...so well that you can arm yourself with some of the finest guns on the market. This would likely continue even if stricter gun laws existed in the same way drugs still get sold even though they are HIGHLY controlled. /rant

For one thing in the video, wouldn't the NRA make more money if guns are seized? I mean, if the cops have it, then you don't...so you need to buy another one. Or are guns like razors, the bullets are the real money maker? At any rate, it doesn't matter. I don't expect to see eye to eye with Cenk on gun rights, but I would expect him to call out the real problem as drugs, but perhaps that is a little convoluted for this conversation exactly.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I have a way to get around Obama's objection about ending the drug wars. He said that if we legalize it in the USA drug cartels would take over other countries. They would--if we just open the borders.
Instead completely legalize it, with a provision to not allow foreign imports for 10 years. This would give the US time to stabilize our cannabis economy and cut the legs out from under the cartels. When we can grow our own, or simply buy it, there will be no more cannabis crossing the borders.


Similar to my thoughts on the matter, but with an addition of a 10 year dis-allowance for foreign imports. I hadn't considered that.

Now that i have, i think it's a great idea on the basis that as you stated would give time for the internal stabilization to occur as well as giving a decent amount of time to stably wind down the amount of resources that is currently dedicated to fighting it internally, and redirect their attention to resisting external imports during the 10 year dis-allowance while the dedicated forces are realigned into alternative programs, or if necessary/reasonable, largely cut.

I have a way to get around Obama's objection about ending the drug wars. He said that if we legalize it in the USA drug cartels would take over other countries. They would--if we just open the borders.

Instead completely legalize it, with a provision to not allow foreign imports for 10 years. This would give the US time to stabilize our cannabis economy and cut the legs out from under the cartels. When we can grow our own, or simply buy it, there will be no more cannabis crossing the borders.

I posted about this before, so many of the problems that drugs create are actually created by the War On Drugs.

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can. If Tesco's sold Fair Trade Cannabis, drug dealers would be utterly screwed in no time. Plus, farmers in Columbia/Afghanistan/etc would have a legitimate market, which would erode the illegal market, in turn decimating FARC/Taliban/etc's income and ability to operate. I saw one report that said half of the Afghan Taliban's $3B annual income is from heroin and cannabis sales.

The financial implications would be vast, tax revenue for governments would be a big help while the money, and therefore power, of drug cartels shrinks. There would be even more horrific violence here as cartels look to consolidate on their remaining business, I shudder to think of how the Zetas, the Tijuana Gang and the Juarez Cartel among others in Mexico would respond and it would take considerable political strength to get through.

Is legalising drugs the answer to peace on earth? The war on drugs is subsidising organised crime.

I am politically against the war on drugs. Personnally, I applaud the agent and wish there were more people on the border with his sensitivities.

When I say I would have fired the guy, I am speaking from the point of view of his employer. As such, my concerns would include this man pulling down the morale of his team by proselytizing for a group whose mission counters that of the agency, and espousing a point of view that does the same. I would believe he was entitled to his opinions, and even the entitled to express them outside of work. But on the job is too far.>> ^Skeeve:

I'd be interested to hear why. He never refused to do his job. He never did anything to help drug dealers or smugglers or anything. He simply expressed an opinion, which is his right.
Soldiers don't get kicked out of the military for bitching about their mission.
Public servants don't lose their jobs for disagreeing with government policies.
Plumbers don't get fired for grumbling about unclogging toilets.
And if the above people do lose their jobs for those things, they sue for wrongful dismissal.
This guy innocently suggested an alternative to the war on drugs (an alternative that is likely to be better for everyone except drug cartels and the people with a financial stake in fighting them) and he gets fired and you think that was the right thing to do?
>> ^longde:
I feel for him; but if I were his boss, I'd fire him too.

I'd be interested to hear why. He never refused to do his job. He never did anything to help drug dealers or smugglers or anything. He simply expressed an opinion, which is his right.

Soldiers don't get kicked out of the military for bitching about their mission.
Public servants don't lose their jobs for disagreeing with government policies.
Plumbers don't get fired for grumbling about unclogging toilets.

And if the above people do lose their jobs for those things, they sue for wrongful dismissal.

This guy innocently suggested an alternative to the war on drugs (an alternative that is likely to be better for everyone except drug cartels and the people with a financial stake in fighting them) and he gets fired and you think that was the right thing to do?
>> ^longde:

I feel for him; but if I were his boss, I'd fire him too.

What happened to Anonymous going after the Mexican drug cartels?

How in the fuck did the Mexican Drug Cartels find out who was in Anon? And how did they Kidnap him!? That's what bothers me more than anything.

Anonymous advised its members to protect their online identities, and not to wear the traditional Anonymous mask in public, or even purchase them online, as a core group decides if it should take on a Mexican drug cartel that is said to have kidnapped a member of the group.

The hacker group had earlier threatened to expose the identity of members and supporters of a Mexican drug cartel by Nov. 5, in retaliation for the kidnapping of a group member, and hacked the web site of a former state official, alleging that he has associations with the dreaded Zetas cartel.

But there are fissures showing among the leaders as fear of handling the drug cartel builds up, with some expressing concern that new, inexperienced members could get quickly exposed and compromised.

The action has been cancelled, Sm0k34n0n wrote in a Twitter message in Spanish on Monday. High-profile colleague anonymouSabu described sm0k34n0n as one of the campaign's promoters in another Twitter message. But other groups from Latin America are said to be considering a core action group, and warning other members to stay away. AnonymouSabu was all for the action late Sunday.

A video in Spanish posted on YouTube on October 6 by a person calling himself "MrAnonymousguyfawkes", threatened that Anonymous will publish the names, photos, and addresses of police officials, journalists, and taxi drivers that collaborate with the drug cartel, hoping the government will arrest them.

"You made a huge mistake by taking one of us. Release him. And if anything happens to him, you (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5th," said a masked person in the video, according to a translation provided by another user of YouTube.

November 5 is known in the U.K. as Guy Fawkes day after his November 5, 1605, conspiracy to attempt to blow up the British Parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask, popularized by the movie V for Vendetta, has been adopted by Anonymous.

Anonymous claimed on Sunday to have defaced the website of a former official in the Mexican state of Tabasco. On Monday, the website bore a message in Spanish by Anonymous Mexico stating that he was a part of Zetas.

"We all know who they are and where they are," said the speaker in the video. Anonymous did not however claim that its hacking skills gave it special access to information on the cartel. Nor are its traditional tactics such as DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on websites likely to be of use against armed gangs, according to various analysts.

The drug cartel has killed people who have criticized them on blogs and other social media, according to reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York reported in September the murder of a journalist in direct retaliation for information posted on social media.

As newspapers are censored by fear, Mexican citizens, and many journalists, are turning to social media and online forums to share news and inform each other, said Sara Rafsky, a research associate in CPJ's Americas program. "So it should be no shock that drug cartels are turning their attention to the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242845/anonymous_threatens_to_expose_mexican_drug_cartel.html

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

@Lawdeedaw - Individual members of the legislative branch don't have anything approximating the power of a president. It is true that idealists such as Kucinich, Wellstone, Weiner, Paul and Obama have managed to find a place in the legislative branch, but never have these idealists held the numbers to ever be a credible threat against corporate domination. (What's even more disheartening is the current epidemic of moronic idealists like Santorum, Bachman and Palin, who have been empowered by a decade of Republican campaigning that targets the lowest common denominator.)
Once the idealists enter the Presidential ring, all bets are off. McCain is a great example of a highly principled republican who was basically forced to renounce everything he ever believed in (most prominently campaign finance reform) to get a shot at the golden ring. Obama also broke his promise to only except public funding because he realized it would put him at a severe disadvantage. As long as our current system is in place, no presidential candidate (not even Saint Paul) has a chance of subverting it. This is not an insult against this man, whom I respect despite the fact that he holds some extremely naive economic views. This is just a frank assessment of how fucked up our campaign finance system is.
If you don't think Ron Paul plays the game too, then ask him about Texas pork barrel spending. There is a video on the sift where he freely admits to playing the pork barrel game. I don't blame him for it - you do what you have to do in a fucked up system.
I'm not here to bash Paul. My point is that our current system will not allow him to be what you want him to be, just as the system won't allow Obama to be the President I want him to be.
Speaking as someone who has already suffered through hopey-changey delusions, I'm just trying to save you some grief. Been there. Done that. I guess maybe you have to experience it first hand before you can truly accept this cruel reality on your own terms.
Until this system works for the voters rather than the funders, we are all destined for disappointment. I'd love to see a conservative-liberal truce until we can throw these money changers out of the temple.


You think Keynesian economics got us out of the Great Depression yet Paul's the naive one? Paul's been saying to get rid of the money changers his whole political career. If we had actually been following the Austrian school of economics, none of this would've happen. You can't give a select group of people total control of your economy and then not expect them to take advantage of it.

And Paul always voted against pork spending. That's hardly playing the game.

Obama hasn't been neutered, he was a fraud from the beginning. He's not bombing civilians and waging wars to secure campaign donations. He's been a puppet and PR salesman for Wall Street and their war machine from day one. He's not prosecuting white-collar fraud, he's prosecuting government whistleblowers. He's arming drug cartels in Mexico. He's using flying robots to rain down hellfire missiles in sovereign countries on the other side of the world. He's a neocolonialist. Not because someone is twisting his arm, but because that's what he signed up to be.
Obama can't be the President you want him to be because he's not that guy and never was.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mexican-Drug-Cartel-Uses-Self-Made-Armoured-Trucks-as-APCs