Slashdot had a post about an upcoming (about 1 year out) phone that can run pretty standard Linux distros. I took interest because I'm very annoyed about how UNconfigurable android is.

I have a Samsung Galaxy S2, very old by now, but hardware wise it still works fine. Software wise, it is shit. Android apps are massively bloated compared to when the phone was new, so the "system" partition of the phone is too small to install anything other than like 1-2 apps. From what I can tell, rooting might not help because there are still standard partitioning requirements? I dunno. Anyway, it is a big mess compared to a desktop, where I can partition things any way I want (which works great if you know what you are doing).

Anyway, I don't want to shill for Purism, the company that will be making the phone in the Slashdot article (for one thing, the phone is still a year or so away from final production), but they seem to be doing things right. They DO have some laptops on the market now, which apparently include a relevant feature mentioned in the write-up about their upcoming phone: hardware kill switches for the microphone, camera, and WiFi/Bluetooth.

If you read the ToS (hah! as if) for things like Facebook's app or the phones / OS themselves, you might see that you are "agreeing" to this kind of data collectionspying. If that sets the bar for "good" behavior, imagine what the bad guys (NSA, other agencies, state actors, unscrupulous advertisers, malware producers, etc.) can and will do. That's why any software solution is dubious. That's why electrical tape over your webcam is better than assuming that the record light is trustworthy. That's why a hardware kill switch is a good feature if you're concerned about this (like me).

Here's links to:
an article about the hardware kill switches in Purism's laptops, and
an article about their upcoming phone the Librem 5

I don't own any of their hardware. I don't like paid shills. That being said, I'm interested in what they are doing.

The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

FYI, here is the transcript of that portion of Obama's speech:

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

Not quite what Rachel made it out to be.

I don't blame her for being attentive on this issue -- I sure as hell am. I also don't blame her for using her show to try to build political pressure for Obama to Do The Right Thing^TM, but I don't see any reason to think from this speech that he's decided to do something bad, or even left the door open to do something bad.

What I heard was what he's always said: we don't have to choose between our values and our safety.

He's just pointing out, in a very, very delicate way, that Guantanamo as is operates entirely outside of the law, but that it would be irresponsible to release the people we can't try because Bush ignored due process and the Geneva conventions and made it impossible to build a legitimate legal case for holding some of these people.

I think the idea is to come up with a way to charge them for "conspiracy to commit terror attacks" that passes muster, so that their detention ceases to be unlawful and indefinite. As Xaielao said, there is some precedent for this with Prisoners of War, though most of the law written about that assumes there's a state with a government to deal with in some clear way about the release, so we'd need a new legal framework for dealing with non-state actors...

If she started smashing fat fingers(which would be much better TV incidentally than the interview that her producers cut), then Scalia might start crying about the 4th and 5th amendments if he were really delirious. But 60 Minutes is not a state actor or the government so he wouldn't get too far there.

To address rottenseed's timing question, it should be made absolutely clear that torture inflicted upon American citizens is not legal whether they are incarcerated or detained before trial or seized from their homes by the popo. If you read the 8th as part of a legal procedural continuum (arrest,detention,conviction)along with the 4th and 5th, it makes sense for something crafted in legalese.

If you are unlucky enough to be tagged an "unlawful enemy combatant," however, it is now completely unclear (thanks to the purely Dick Cheney and his legal enablers) what law or procedures protects that person from torture of any kind. That is the awful truth that Scalia dances around in this clip.

To parse the word punishment or torture or even the history of 8th amd jurisprudence misses the point about what is truly outrageous about Scalia's position.

PART ONE

On September 11, 2001, deep inside a White House bunker, Vice President Dick Cheney was ordering U.S. fighter planes to shoot down any commercial airliner still in the air above America. At that moment, CIA Director George Tenet was meeting with his counter-terrorism team in Langley, Virginia. Both leaders acted fast, to prepare their country for a new kind of war. But soon a debate would grow over the goals of the war on terror, and the decision to go to war in Iraq. Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and others saw Iraq as an important part of a broader plan to remake the Middle East and project American power worldwide. Meanwhile Tenet, facing division in his own organization, saw non-state actors such as Al Qaeda as the highest priority. FRONTLINE's investigation of the ensuing conflict includes more than forty interviews, thousands of pages of documentary evidence, and a substantial photographic archive. It is the third documentary about the war on terror from the team that produced Rumsfeld's War and The Torture Question.