241–250 of 362 posts
What's the legal reasoning (if there's any) to keep her locked up and ruin her financially while not being able to swing the same punishment at all those people who refused to testify in the recent impeachment?
On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.) On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fif…
You’re just saying that you support civil disobedience when you support it. Of course. But of course people can and do commit civil disobedience to protest things you don’t support.
It seems to me that the 1st Amendment should, in principle, give you the right to remain silent in any circumstances (including when you're subpoenaed). After all, shouldn't freedom of speech include the freedom to not speak - isn't remaining silent in of itself a form of expression? I understand that this is not at all how the courts have interpreted the constitution, but it remains my gut interpretation - that indi…
While it might sound nice to want to sweep away compelled testimony, in this case the cure is much worse than the disease. A major part of the Constitution's objective as specified in the preamble is to "establish justice." Certainly criminal elements - actual criminals, not people who are quasi-political prisoners like Assange - would love to be able to refuse to testify under any circumstances. Such an interpretati…
I am still concerned by the ethical ramifications of forcing people to testify against their friends and loved ones. I don't think it would necessarily result in a failed state if the prosecution were forced to rely on only willing witnesses and physical evidence.
I am curious if you have any insight regarding the crime of making false statements to federal agents [1]. This actually is a law passed by congress that seems to interfere with free speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the difference? She needs x amounts of money.
Right, but the primary reason you would support Manning is because you believe the government is in the wrong and that the $256k is considered coercive because the government is using it to pressure her into doing something that isn't in her best interest in regards to a fair trial. So the goal would be to pay lawyer fees to fight the $256k of fees.
You're aware she's been granted immunity, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shameful? Yes. Freedom of the press for trying to persecute a Russian agent? Well... Sources: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/mueller-report-de... https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/07/15/ecuador-concluded-t... https://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia... And so on.
Even if Assange was a Russian agent he still did nothing wrong regarding his actions of helping whistle-blowers publish their data.
On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.) On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fif…
On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.) On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fif…
Contempt of court is the nightstick. Obstruction of justice is the resisting arrest charge. That may be on the table for her. But you can’t just keep holding someone in contempt until they do the thing they’ll never do, or once you no longer need it. She’s not asking for special treatment, that is just how contempt works.
(Not a lawyer).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly the previous comment was conflating things that happened in the past with what's happening how. I was sometimes disappointed with the reality of the Obama presidency, like may others. But this comment is just ridiculous. From the policies, to the personal conduct, to their respect or lack thereof for the rule of law, the two administrations and the actions of the two in and out of office are wildly differen…
The fact remains that millions of people are screaming holy hell about things "Trump does" that they were silent about 4 years ago when Obama did them.
On the one hand, I understand the hacker ethos and the feeling that the Espionage Act in particular is a disgrace, especially as applied to Assange. (I thought the resurrection of the Espionage Act during Pres. Obama's administration was one of the most disgraceful actions of his presidency.) On the other hand, Manning has no leg to stand on. She was granted immunity per the first sentence of this order, thus her Fif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially given its current leadership, I often turn away jobs of more than two times my salary - in USD (I live in Canada) - to avoid living in America. That Trump ever got elected - or was ever seriously considered as a candidate - tells me that enough of the the population is seriously disturbed that I’d like nothing to do with it. And then there’s the war atrocities...
Before you write off 50 million people as "seriously disturbed", you should find out their motives. Not the cherry-picked mockery of them you see on social media, but their more common motives. To make such a crude judgement as you did, you have to be ignoring some huge factor. If you conclude that factor is "they're stupid" or "they're evil", then you haven't found it. This applies generally to many controversial id…
You seem to be dismissing those explanations simply because you don't like them and you reject the idea that it could be true of so many people. But you aren't actually providing any evidence against these explanations. Simply exaggerating them to the point that you think they can be dismissed as unreal doesn't work. There's a mountain of evidence that large numbers of people can and will passively tolerate evil policies and continue to vote for their proponents on the basis of issues they care more about. There's plenty of evidence that large numbers of people can and will vote for candidates who are making empty promises to them. There's plenty of evidence that large numbers of people can and will reject sound information about reality when it conflicts with dearly held beliefs.
Nobody (except perhaps you) is trying to say that Trump's success boils down entirely to those two factors that can be described as "evil" and "stupid" when taken to the extreme. But it's quite reasonable to conclude that those are indeed very important factors to his success and support.