351–360 of 362 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What evidence? Press reports about intelligence agencies is not evidence. Where is the direct, observable, undeniable evidence? If you don't have it, then don't keep parroting the nonsense.
a) My argument wasn't that it is correct, it is that it isn't baffling that people say it. b) What kind of evidence wouldn't you deny?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is obscene. I can just about understand contempt of court incarceration for not testifying (though I have extreme reservations on the practice) but such punitive and life-debilitating fines strike me as purely malicious.
Despite rhetoric and protestation otherwise, "purely malicious" is a pretty good description of the US legal system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's generally hard for trans people to find employment, period -- and I doubt she has meaningful job skills given her extended imprisonment. That said, trans people rally around our own so she shouldn't have trouble surviving; but whether or not that life is existentially fulfilling is another question... Also, I don't think it's legal to jail someone over unpaid debt (though many states will certainly try). They ca…
> It's generally hard for trans people to find employment, period -- and I doubt she has meaningful job skills given her extended imprisonment. She's a celebrity speaker with a large upper-middle-class fan base, so as long as their interest doesn't go somewhere else she’ll probably do okay. Of course, if her opponents don't do their part to keep her in the news, the attention will wane. > Also, I don't think it's leg…
She's also very not-ok (3 suicide attempts, including 1 last week) after what she's been through. Being trans is traumatizing enough in itself, and I can't imagine what it was like for her in a military prison. If I were her, I would want an extended period of time away from the limelight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now. Again, this violates the 5th amendment.
> Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now. I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friend…
I think you are misunderstanding my point because you are not arguing against it here. And the link you provided supports my point. My point was that truthful statements made by her under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 could still be used to prosecute her, it is not blanket immunity. And the link details how courts don't believe prosecuting past perjury using compelled truthful statements violate the fifth amendment, even though some of the justices expressed "discomfort" with that.
> That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:
Sure, but the supreme court is also apparently fine with secret wiretapping courts and torture. The supreme court is a political branch of government it's not like their interpretation of the constitution is inherently right, it just happens to be the law of the land.
You are confusing legal with moral.
Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistleblowers and government openness.
> Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistle-blowers and government openness. And Trump praised Wikileaks, and by extension Julian Assange, during his campaign and now [1] look at where things are? The sooner people realize the type of person drawn to politics is inherently the same (supposed party factions and names are irr…
Citation effing needed. I would argue those are outliers of sociopaths that reached positions of power, they don't represent every head of state, let alone all elected public officials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Her prolonged imprisonment in inhumane conditions is an ugly stain on Obama's presidency. I remember when he campaigned praising whistle-blowers and government openness. And Trump praised Wikileaks, and by extension Julian Assange, during his campaign and now [1] look at where things are? The sooner people realize the type of person drawn to politics is inherently the same (supposed party factions and names are irr…
> Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it better. Citation effing needed. I would argue those are outliers of sociopaths that reached positions of power, they don't represent every head of state, let alone all elected public officials.
http://www.clintoncashbook.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKqWHkg5xmc
Obama has already showed himself to be an enabler for the Military Industry Complex as he expanded the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (went in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine etc...) and went deeper on extra-judicial wars and rendition camps, then went deeper with the use of Drone Warfare, such that he was called the Drone King. Which makes sense because how did a formerly unknown Senator form IL become a 2-term president who seemingly eroded Citizen Rights? His war on whistle-blowers is already outlined. And was a Constitutional Scholar/Lawyer no less!
Worth noting, Trump from a supposed contrasting party, expanded drone warfare even further [1]. Further solidifying my point(s). And Trump doubled down on not just drone war-fare and its secrecy, but also went further than Obama on prosecuting whistle-blowers [2].
I'd say something about the Bush dynasty but I think its very easy to see their alliances to the Saudi family and previously Nazi-sympathizers to build their wealth and eventually political clout.
FYI: I'm an anarchist, and I don't have a political affiliation so I can scrutinize both 'parties' objectively and what is consistent (In the US) is that politicians always side with War and interventionism, and are often benefactors of some cronyism--they may decry it, but it happens.
Dick Cheney is the like the poster-child of what these people embody. Those that fail to 'play the game' are often berated and marginalized and subject to unfair (often illegal) practices when they run for office as they will not participate in the order of things: eg Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders come to mind.
I highly recommend Jermey Scahill's work.
1: https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...
2: https://theintercept.com/2019/05/21/why-you-should-care-abou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a) My argument wasn't that it is correct, it is that it isn't baffling that people say it. b) What kind of evidence wouldn't you deny?
Any actual evidence at all would suffice. The word of America's criminal intelligence agencies does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every politician is the same as Trump and Berlusconi, they just hide it better. Citation effing needed. I would argue those are outliers of sociopaths that reached positions of power, they don't represent every head of state, let alone all elected public officials.
Sure: The Clinton's are my favorite example, not least of which because I lived with a crazy kool-aid drinker who swore Hillary was the Messiah come back to save the Earth when she was a total crony: http://www.clintoncashbook.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKqWHkg5xmc Obama has already showed himself to be an enabler for the Military Industry Complex as he expanded the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq (went in Yemen,…
Seconded, I wasn't referring to Hillary "Jill Stein/Tulsi are Russian assets" Clinton.
I'm not even American, so my interest on American politics is academic at best (eventually the trends trickle down to other countries). The US is ahead of the rest of the Global North in complete institutional breakdown.
I just don't believe we should paint "politicians" with a broad brush. Most of them (like in all professions) are too ignorant to be evil, they just go with the flow. The the zeitgeist changes, they will change with it.
I'm no anarchist, so I believe the zeitgeist can be changed, but that goes against entropy, you need to apply energy to keep it changed. It's not a one-shot revolution that does it. Life is too depressing otherwise...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manning was never a whistleblower hence the espionage charges.
She was a whistleblower, hence everyone with a hint of credibility saying she was. Also, it's customary on HN to point out when you have a conflict of interest. You work for a military contractor & used to work for the government, and probably should disclose that when talking about a subject so closely tied to your work.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
The case of using someone's employer or field to shame them is particularly bad for this site, because it disincentivizes people from showing up where they have the most expertise. It's true that we're all strongly biased by our work, so some distortion is inevitable, but having HN be a place where people feel free to show up on topics that they're knowledgeable in is more important than policing each other for bias.
We're also trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture on HN in general.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because she is being released from incarceration!?
Uhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.
Why are you such a fascist?