US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there • Hacker News Board

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#51

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 6:08 PM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #46

mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of the cartridge. The bullet is just the projectile, and does not include the propellant.

You're all way over-thinking potatoes.

I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#52

Post by toyg » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 7:47 PM UTC

Spearchucker wrote: post #32

xradionut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US has other points of leverage on the Irish. (How about we close this nice tax scam you got going...)

Serious question: just how do you figure the US can close that tax loophole (it's law, so not a scam)? Did you know that it only works when money is routed through the Netherlands? And from there to the Caribbean or elsewhere? You're stretching it, implying the US can sway lawmakers abroad.

The US can close the loophole at their end in a minute, by passing Cuba-style embargo laws. They won't do it today, because US corporations are prime benefactors of that scam, but it doesn't mean they won't ever do it.

In any case, there's absolutely no indication whatsoever that the Irish will risk jeopardizing their relationship with the Empire for little Ed Snowden; in fact, the opposite is likely true (they'd love to be the ones shipping a shackled Snowden to the NSA). It's probable that this intimation was issued to Ireland exactly because it's the country less likely to protest for being openly treated as vassal. For example, it's already quite doubtful that the stunt pulled on French and Spanish authorities for Morales's plane could ever be repeated, because public opinion in those countries is now incensed. Not everyone loves to be Air Strip One.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#53

Post by toyg » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 7:50 PM UTC

justincormack wrote: post #42

grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the US have any interest in the death penalty for Snowden. They'd much rather him rot without trial in Guantanamo for the rest of his life, as to serve a better lesson to anyone thinking of following his footsteps.

I don't think he could be extradited if he was going to not be tried either; that would also be illegal in the US as he is a citizen...

Oh, he would be "trialled", of course. With a special trial, that could last decades, time he gets to spend in protective custody, of course.

After all the bull*hit about "enemy combatants", my faith in the separation of powers in the US is quite nil.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#54

Post by nicholassmith » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #38

nicholassmith wrote: post #16

There was a funny line in The Social Network that went: `Like my brother and I are in skeleton costumes chasing the Karate Kid around a gym.` That's kind of what America looks like. Snowden has all these mighty military secrets, but at the end of the day they just look like school bullies who want to smack him around. What Snowden did is without a doubt a crime, but one that seems like it was necessary, and should be…

I agree with everything but the concept that what he did "is without a doubt a crime." In fact, many people, including lawyers and constitutional scholars, have debate on the subject. The reasons they might not be a crime include: -Legal whistle blower protections -precedent of committing lesser crimes to prevent larger crimes -international case law around disobeying illegal orders -the application of reasonableness…

Ooh, that's interesting thank you. My knowledge of constitutional application is Not Great, so it's interesting it'd fall within that. I think it's possibly still a crime but one with a certain level of legal affordability, but I'm sure much smarter people than me are working on that definition.

I'd have said the last one (FBI & President) wouldn't fall under treason exactly, as whilst they were whistleblower leakers they weren't of a certain level of international security relations.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#55

Post by nicholassmith » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 9:59 PM UTC

embolism wrote: post #44

nicholassmith wrote: post #16

There was a funny line in The Social Network that went: `Like my brother and I are in skeleton costumes chasing the Karate Kid around a gym.` That's kind of what America looks like. Snowden has all these mighty military secrets, but at the end of the day they just look like school bullies who want to smack him around. What Snowden did is without a doubt a crime, but one that seems like it was necessary, and should be…

How do they resolve this without having him face a trial? Also, there are some countries that are even less benign than then US who would like to take advantage of this situation if they can.

They don't, but trials don't have to be drawn out, ridiculous processes like the Bradley Manning trial has become, they can be done with pretty straight forward behaviour from both sides.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#56

Post by charonn0 » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #51

charonn0 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're all way over-thinking potatoes.

I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower"…

    "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" 
    is not the way to argue it.

I never made such an argument.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#57

Post by tzs » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:22 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #33

1337biz wrote: post #23

I still don't get why Russia is not just putting him on military transport to Cuba. They should have "some" experience flying that route without US interference. Nobody would mess around with a military transport and getting him out of the country would probably reflect on Russia better than just harboring him around at the transit zone.

> just harboring him around at the transit zone. Russia are not harboring him because he's not in Russia, he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any country. It has always shocked me that US airports don't have this concept, it must be the only major world transport hub that doesn't.

> Russia are not harboring him because he's not in Russia, he's in an international transit lounge and therefore not actually in any country.

That's a widespread myth. Russia owns, and exercises control over, the transit area. If someone inside the transit area is wanted on a Russian arrest warrant (or whatever their equivalent is), Russian authorities will go in and get them.

All a transit area really is is a small section of a country that you are allowed to enter without a visa for that country, provided that you are simply passing through. There's nothing otherwise special about them.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#58

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jul 05, 2013, 10:29 PM UTC

charonn0 wrote: post #56

mikeash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Any projectile of decent mass will be deadly when accelerated to high speed. There's nothing that magically exempts potatoes from this just because they're edible. You can absolutely kill someone with a potato gun. The prosecution in question may be wrong for other reasons (e.g. fired safely and not with any intent to harm), but "potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower"…

"potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it. I never made such an argument.

You didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#59

Post by jlgaddis » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 12:59 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #58

charonn0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"potatoes can't kill, because otherwise Ireland would be a superpower" is not the way to argue it. I never made such an argument.

You didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.

Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic?

Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.

Re: US sends pre-emptive warrant to Ireland to stop Snowden flight refuelling there

#60

Post by mikeash » Sat, Jul 06, 2013, 1:46 AM UTC

jlgaddis wrote: post #59

mikeash wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't, but the lawyer referenced in the original comment I replied to said essentially that.

Oh geez, can we get any more off-topic? Stop being so damn pedantic and nitpicky, both of you. All of you.

Pedantic? Nitpicky?

A comment was made about a lawyer making an argument which, in my opinion, is a bad argument. I pointed that out. I'm not being "pedantic" nor am I "nitpicking" when I point out that a potato cannon is, in fact, a deadly weapon and the lawyer's argument against it is stupid.

Now, I agree that the comment, and therefore the whole thread that followed it, was not really on-topic. But I'm not seeing this whole "pedantic and nitpicky" thing.