Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote:...or the end of the United States as the leader of the free world.

El Guapo wrote:

stessier wrote:

gilraen wrote:

stessier wrote: I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

stessier wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

stessier wrote:

gilraen wrote:

stessier wrote: I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

The UK is following suit - but it appears to apply to all airlines from 6 countries. So perhaps just incompetence from DHS rather than malice.

Carpet_pissr wrote:Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries.

stessier wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

stessier wrote:

gilraen wrote:

stessier wrote: I'm guessing the "only these airports" thing has to do with the screening at the airports. Again, not totally crazy.

Actually, pretty crazy because screening at the airports isn't done by the airline staff and doesn't vary based on which airline you are boarding to fly to the U.S., and yet the new restrictions do not apply to U.S.-based carriers. Which immediately makes the entire new policy just a form of retaliation against foreign carriers.

The one I saw said "all flight originating from these countries". If it's only foreign carriers, then yeah, that changes it.

Yes, it's only foreign carriers.

The UK is following suit - but it appears to apply to all airlines from 6 countries. So perhaps just incompetence from DHS rather than malice.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'd happily dispense with the self proclaimed "leader of the free world" title anyway. Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries. Not to mention it's just douchey.

Paingod wrote:

Carpet_pissr wrote:Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries.

It's really hard to get excited about 20th place in freedom.

We're #20! We're #20! We're #20! 'Murica, F&%K YEAH!

El Guapo wrote:U.S. Limits Devices for Passengers on Foreign Airlines From Eight Countries.

You'll never guess the religion of those eight countries!

Passengers on foreign airlines headed to the United States from 10 airports in eight majority-Muslim countries have been barred from carrying electronic devices larger than a cellphone under a new flight restriction enacted on Tuesday by the Trump administration.

Officials called the directive an attempt to address gaps in foreign airport security, and said it was not based on any specific or credible threat of an imminent attack.

The Department of Homeland Security said the restricted items included laptop computers, tablets, cameras, travel printers and games bigger than a phone. The restrictions would not apply to aircraft crews, officials said in a briefing to reporters on Monday night that outlined the terms of the ban.

The new policy took effect at 3 a.m. E.D.T. on Tuesday, and must be followed within 96 hours by airlines flying to the United States from airports in Amman, Jordan; Cairo; Istanbul; Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; Kuwait City; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

It applies only to flights on foreign carriers, and not American-operated airlines. Officials did not say how long the ban would remain in place or if other airports would be added.

So is this: (1) related to genuine security concerns; (2) part of Trump's broader effort to punish / stigmatize travel from Muslim countries; or (3) prompted by the fact that long-haul carriers based in the Middle East (e.g., Qatar Airlines) have been taking major market share from U.S. long-haul carriers due to their generally superior product?

Defiant wrote: As to "leader of the free world" I would assume that's more a reference to the US being a free country that is a superpower, not that the US is the most free country in the world.

Kraken wrote:

Defiant wrote: As to "leader of the free world" I would assume that's more a reference to the US being a free country that is a superpower, not that the US is the most free country in the world.

I find it funny that that title devolved on Angela Merkel by almost unanimous acclaim after Trump was elected. My WW2-veteran dad would have been flummoxed.

hepcat wrote:...or the end of the United States as the leader of the free world.

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'll buy most of what Holman said above, but would love to hear from our non-US OO brethren how they feel about the term, particularly when applied to the US president as it often is.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'll buy most of what Holman said above, but would love to hear from our non-US OO brethren how they feel about the term, particularly when applied to the US president as it often is.

Carpet_pissr wrote:I'd happily dispense with the self proclaimed "leader of the free world" title anyway. Even if it's true In some metrics, it's certainly NOT true already for many 'free' countries. Not to mention it's just douchey.

Holman wrote: We occupy our position not merely because of missiles and aircraft carriers but because we spend money, resources, and prestige on projects that actually improve living conditions around the globe.

Carpet_pissr wrote:

Holman wrote: We occupy our position not merely because of missiles and aircraft carriers but because we spend money, resources, and prestige on projects that actually improve living conditions around the globe.

As do umpteen other countries. Surely no one thinks USAID is unique in the world? Really trying hard not to veer us off topic but this particular concept bugs the shit out of me. Sorry.

Pyperkub wrote:

The United States has pulled its participation from hearings planned for today by a regional human rights body that has enjoyed the support of every U.S. administration since its founding.

Trump withdraws reappointment nomination of popular whistleblower advocate

By Joe Davidson

From left, Shirine Moazed and Elizabeth McMurray look on as special counsel Carolyn Lerner hands whistleblower James Parsons an honorary award in 2012. (Photo by Daniel C. Britt / The Washington Post) Truth tellers are especially important and potentially vulnerable in an administration afflicted with serial mendacity. An important refuge from management retaliation for federal truth tellers — a.k.a. whistleblowers — is the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), a small, understaffed independent agency that regularly challenges the biggest dudes on the block.

But now, whistleblowers and their advocates are worried that the office’s vigilance under Carolyn Lerner could be endangered by President Trump’s notice to the Senate “withdrawing from further Senate consideration” her reappointment nomination.

This worry is fueled by the Trump administration’s early agency gag orders, as well as the stern White House rebuke of State Department workers who complained — on an approved, internal dissent channel — about Trump’s first immigration executive order left a chill. The “new administration hasn’t demonstrated any tolerance for those who dissent against its actions,” said Tom Devine, legal counsel of the Government Accountability Project, which represents whistleblowers.

Regardless of administration, federal agencies have too often punished, not praised, whistleblowers. Careers have been ruined, workers have been banished, performance ratings have been fixed by vengeful managers who did not like employees exposing mismanagement. When Lerner became special counsel in 2011, the office was mired in the muck of controversy surrounding the previous special counsel. Just as employee advocates cheered her predecessor’s departure, they, and bipartisan members of Congress, are now hailing Lerner’s tenure and pushing for her retention.

Trump could still decide to nominate her, making her appointment his rather than an Obama administration’s holdover. The White House did not respond to questions about Lerner’s nomination.
Lerner is one of the few Obama administration appointees who gets as much praise from Republicans as she enjoys from Democrats. In fact, the member of Congress leading an effort to retain her is Republican Rep. Rod Blum of Iowa.

Along with three other House Whistleblower Protection Caucus co-chairs, Blum praised her in a letter to Senate leaders: “Under Ms. Lerner’s leadership, OSC has increased both the number of claims it investigates and the number of cases resolved. OSC has won bipartisan praise for its work, including resolving multiple cases of retaliation against whistleblowers at the Veterans Administration, resulting in meaningful reforms meant to improve the care of our nation’s veterans. We believe Ms. Lerner has earned a second term.”

In addition to Blum, it was signed by Republican Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.), and Democrat Reps. Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), and Jackie Speier (Calif.). Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that deals with federal workforce issues, called Lerner “a model of effectiveness and independence.”

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supports Lerner’s renomination, saying: “Whistleblowers often face retribution for trying to tell the truth and make government better. Protecting them is an important, non-partisan job that the Office of Special Counsel has done well under Carolyn Lerner’s leadership.”

As kind as the Capitol Hill praise is, it pales compared with passionate testimonials from whistleblowers Lerner assisted.

“She’s fearless,” said Robert MacLean, a Transportation Security Administration air marshal who took the first federal whistleblower case to the Supreme Court. He won and said the court’s decision was based largely on OSC’s findings that opposed the Obama administration’s defense of the agency.
“Her investigations are exhausting,” he added. “She doesn’t leave a rock unturned. Her investigations are very meticulous.”

Brandon Coleman, a Trump supporter, said withdrawing Lerner’s nomination “is a horrible move for someone who truly wants to ‘drain the swamp.’ The VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) tried to destroy my career and sent me home for 460 days for doing nothing wrong other than telling the truth that suicidal vets were escaping from the Phoenix VA hospital. If not for Ms. Lerner and the OSC, I would not have won my case, nor would I be a VA employee today.”

Franz Gayl, a Marine Corps civilian who blew the whistle on the lack of protective equipment for combat vehicles, was succinct: “Carolyn Lerner is awesome.”

Added Devine: “She’ll be a tough act to follow. When she arrived, the office was a national disgrace. Now it has the most impressive track record in history.”

Yet, he also complained about an OSC approach that is sometimes “too cautious.” OSC, he said, should take a more aggressive approach to suing agencies on behalf of whistleblowers. Lawsuits, Devine argued, would encourage agencies to treat whistleblowers fairly and could set precedents strengthening whistleblower protection laws.

An OSC spokesman said Lerner was not available for an interview. During Senate testimony last year, she outlined OSC progress under her leadership, including a 38 percent increase, from 2014 to 2015, in favorable actions for employees and a 50 percent increase, from 2011 to 2015, in the number of cases received and resolved. Meanwhile, OSC’s cost to resolve cases is down 45 percent, leading to record productivity.

“This dramatic increase in filings indicates that whistleblowers believe they can make a difference by bringing a claim to OSC,” Lerner said.

Lerner’s statistics are impressive, but for MacLean, her work is personal.
“I’m kind of biased,” he said, “because she pretty much saved my life.”

El Guapo wrote:

AjD wrote:Just published, from the Associated Press:

Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics for Putin’s Benefit

malchior wrote:We're fucked - this is flat out bananas. Short summary. Comey and entire intelligence community goes out of their way to say there was no wiretapping but still Nunes says he independently heard about incidental surveillance and ran right over to the White House to tell the President.

malchior wrote:Special Prosecutor is needed now - Nunes might have literally told the President about an investigation against him or associates. How can he lead the investigation going forward? Oh yeah I forgot - apparently we are ethically rudderless in the time of Trump.

Good twitter thread about this

1. This week every intel agency worth a damn has told Congress that Obama absolutely did NOT spy/tap Trump's phone

2. So Trump WH looks terrible because he lied and implied his predecessor committed a crime.

3. So Nunes, gets a call from a "source" that claims intel agencies got "incidentally" picked up some stuff on Trump campaign?

Nunes, briefs Ryan, then runs to the WH to brief Trump. Then speaks to reporters without briefing the Intel Comt!?!?!?

5. Nunes acting on a "source" seems to have used his extremely important position to give Trump light cover on a manic tweet.

6. This is very dangerous. I have trouble seeing somebody like Mike Rogers doing this. Intel Chairmen don't act like this.

7. Lastly, who was the Trump Campaign talking to that got them swept up? Nunes might want to care about that...