4 ms·

Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”

by Semirhage 8y ago

Cacti 8y ago
Solid argument, mate.
- Semirhage 8y ago
  Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilty. So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history. Is that better, mate?
  - Cacti 8y ago
    I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a plant? Sure. Could the government be lying? Sure. And that is why we have a justice system. But just because something is possible, or you can come up with an explation of why something may exist, doesn't mean it's probable, and doesn't mean it's likely. And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways, I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born, and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. By the way, do actually have any evidence whatsoever that would imply the government planted that VM, other than some theoretical argument? Because for all your bluster about rationality, I don't see you presenting a shred of evidence to suggest that this didn't go down exactly how it was presented in the indictment.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways Did you miss me specifically saying that I didn’t buy into the shilling thing? Please don’t claim that I said or implied something I went out of my way to disavow. I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born Holy shit, you know how old I am? and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. I think the opposite is true, but I’ll tell you what, I’d never reach either conclusion with so little information available and it all coming via one side. A prosecutor looking for an indictment isn’t an unbiased viewpoint, just like a defense attorney speaking on behalf of their client isn’t.
    - honestoHeminway 8y ago
      If i where at the CIA, i would hire such rotten apples, so i have a handle, and know where the handle is, and could very carefully watch, wether somebody else was pulling that handle. And if that trooper went rogue, and i had to make a public exempel- all those other rotten apples i had, ready to do whatever i want them to do- would know from where the bullets come flying. Spying always attracted those who live in hiding by nature anyway. Before beeing gay was socially accepted, huge parts of the spy community where more or less flaming. If the suspect was a peod- and lived a spys life since puperty anyway, might as well hire him.

Reading all of Cacti’s comments on this topic, I get the sense that the answer to your question is a resounding “No.”

Cacti 8y ago

Solid argument, mate.

Semirhage 8y ago
Am I wrong? Going back over a month, you already had your mind made up. Every comment on the topic since is singing the same tune. You’ve characterized an indictment as “pretty convincing” and scoffed at the notion that a government could fake the evidence offered. You’ve engaged with someone who has talked about shills (and they weren’t talking to you) with incredulity. These are your words, The guy is clearly guilty. So yes, it would seem you have reached a forgone conclusion a while ago and have been working backwards since. For the record I don’t think that you’re a shill, just a sincerely uncritical individual when it comes to the machinations of both criminal justice, and state intelligence apparatuses and their history. Is that better, mate?
- Cacti 8y ago
  I did not reach a forgone conclusion. I reached an informed conclusion after reading the indictment and hearing the explanation by the defendant. That is not a forgone conclusion, that is just a normal, regular, every day conclusion based on the reasonable perponderance of evidence of what seems most credible. Reaching conclusions after reading evidence is what people do. Could he be innocent? Sure. Could the VM be a plant? Sure. Could the government be lying? Sure. And that is why we have a justice system. But just because something is possible, or you can come up with an explation of why something may exist, doesn't mean it's probable, and doesn't mean it's likely. And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways, I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born, and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. By the way, do actually have any evidence whatsoever that would imply the government planted that VM, other than some theoretical argument? Because for all your bluster about rationality, I don't see you presenting a shred of evidence to suggest that this didn't go down exactly how it was presented in the indictment.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    And for the record, since you seem to think you know all about me and my government-shilling ways Did you miss me specifically saying that I didn’t buy into the shilling thing? Please don’t claim that I said or implied something I went out of my way to disavow. I was protesting the war at MIT before you were even born Holy shit, you know how old I am? and I actually think this guy is innocent of the leaking charges. I also happen to think he's very likely guilty of the CP charges. I think the opposite is true, but I’ll tell you what, I’d never reach either conclusion with so little information available and it all coming via one side. A prosecutor looking for an indictment isn’t an unbiased viewpoint, just like a defense attorney speaking on behalf of their client isn’t.
  - honestoHeminway 8y ago
    If i where at the CIA, i would hire such rotten apples, so i have a handle, and know where the handle is, and could very carefully watch, wether somebody else was pulling that handle. And if that trooper went rogue, and i had to make a public exempel- all those other rotten apples i had, ready to do whatever i want them to do- would know from where the bullets come flying. Spying always attracted those who live in hiding by nature anyway. Before beeing gay was socially accepted, huge parts of the spy community where more or less flaming. If the suspect was a peod- and lived a spys life since puperty anyway, might as well hire him.