Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Would Return To US If Government Guarantees Fair Trial (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Edward Snowden said if the government would guarantee him a fair trial, he would return to the United States. Snowden spoke via Skype from Russia on Saturday at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, WTOP reported. "I've told the government I would return if they would guarantee a fair trial where I can make a public interest defense of why this was done and allow a jury to decide," Snowden said.
But he still wouldn't get it.
The US works hard to ensure that Fully Informed (of their right to vote based on conscience rather than facts) jurors are pretty much banned. If you show any signs of being fully informed, you will never be a juror. Easiest way out of jury duty, if you wanted out of it, to be honest, and no worries about penalties either. Just show up and loudly proclaim "I believe in my right to vote not guilty to stop a bad law". You'll never have to show up again, and might even get to leave early.
Trump is real? I thought it was only make-believe monster tales created by the American media.
Signed,
a Canadian.
And I still wouldn't believe them. There is no such thing as a fair trial when the US Govt. is involved. They will hang you, shoot you, or put you to sleep. I understand you are homesick, but that ship has sailed. Unless they offer to make you president, just stay in Russia.
Might as well ask if you can discuss the merits of the 2nd Amendment being a final check by The People on an out of control government at the trial because you shot the city dog catcher.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A "fair trial" for him ends with him in prison for life, or worse. Stay in Russia and enjoy what little freedom you have Mr. Snowden.
That has been his position all along.
Does anyone believe anyone can get a fair trial in the US?
The US has the **worst** justice system in the world. Nobody gets any type of "fair trial" here unless you're a white male at the head of a corporation.
That's a bold statement.
China just illegally extradited 5 people from Hong Kong (1 nation, 2 systems agreement does not allow for intelligence agencies to extradite citizens) for running a "banned book" publishing site because they were about to publish something awful against President Xi. One of those people was a British citizen. THey are now making public confessions on Chinese State media. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-case-of-the-missing-hong-kong-book-publishers
Egypt just gave a book publisher 2 years in prison for publishing "sexually explicit material" because some guy read his novel and got heart palpitations and a drop in blood pressure. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/africa/egypt-author-sentenced/index.html
Iran executes people for being gay. http://observer.com/2015/05/how-iran-solved-its-gay-marriage-problem/
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
If the judge actually was a kangaroo! That would be adorable!
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Espionage Act it is. The only defense allowed being "I didn't do it". Which would be rather ridiculous.
And judge and jury only get to decide "did he do it?".
There is nothing in store for Edward Snowden but a sham trial with hardwired "Guilty" verdict. The U.S. won't clean up their ridiculous laws allowing the government to get predetermined results when they really want it. Most certainly not in order to benefit Snowden or any old whistleblower;.
IANAL, but my understanding of criminal trials is that the accused - not the law - is on trial. My understanding is that the jury needs to decide whether or not the state presented a solid argument for the accused having committed the offense(s) they are accused of. I am not aware of a situation where the jury is tasked with evaluating the validity of the law under which the accused is charged.
I'm not saying that the acts of the NSA were justified or constitutional, I'm just saying that the criminal case against Snowden is not the place where that is to be evaluated.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you think that USA has the 'worst' justice system you clearly have no clue about any other country in the world. Don't make dumb statements.
Snowden speaks remotely to Liberty forum crowd in Manchester, N.H.
"Snowden appeared via Skype from Russia, and organizers did not allow the media to video record his remarks."
That's kinda odd. I wonder why the organizers did that and whether it was at Snowden's request?
Offer him a fair trial with a standing executive order that says that the Attorney General must conduct an after the fact review of the US Attorney's conduct and bring criminal charges for even the slightest technicality from Brady violations on down. The slightest misconduct and you're fucking crucified by order of the President.
It would give Snowden no excuse, make us look fair and still accomplish their goal of prosecuting him. They just lacked imagination, I guess.
The US Constitution guarantees him a fair trial.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees a lot that the U.S. government is not willing to grant its citizens. In this case in particular, the Espionage Act under which he is accused denies a fair trial to Snowden. He would not be permitted to defend or justify his actions to the court.
That's what his statement is about.
I just rewatched the pilot episode of Star Trek: TNG - I know how "fair trials" work.
Robert Blake, AKA Baretta, was accused of killing his second wife and was acquitted in criminal court. He was quoted as saying "In the United States, you're innocent until proven broke."
Like OJ Simpson, he was found guilty in civil court of being liable for her wrongful death.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Trump's a blowhard, but he's not nearly as much of a monster as Cruz would be in office. Cruz wants to turn the US into a theocracy. At least Trump wants some kind of universal healthcare.
They promise that you'll get your day in a closed courtroom (with press barred) at some point after many years of sitting lock-up in a pre-trial detention.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Ask JFK about the results of messing with power.
I thought he preferred more secure and private ways to communicate.
The US Constitution guarantees that the NSA would not fucking spy on everyone too, but we all see how that worked out!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Has he not seen Making a Murderer?
can he pay a jury more then $50 a day? for a long trail?
To get a good one you may need to pay $100-$150 a day to people so they don't try to get out of it.
Same as Julian Assange, who will leave Ecuadorian embassy under some conditions. Until either of those things happens, it's just talk. My guess is that Snowden would return for a fair trial under laws where disclosing state secrets to journalists is potentially legal if it's in public interest, even in a non-emergency situation.
A fair trial? When a murder conviction against a mentally handicapped man is allowed to stand even though the JUDGE had to keep waking up his public defender lawyer because the lawyer was snoring too loudly? The appeal court said he had a fair trial so it must be true, even though it obviously isn't.
Or all those murder convictions that get tossed years later because DNA evidence proves it was someone else?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
and yet both of them would be waves better than the options the democrats are giving us
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So, where in the US are you going to find an impartial jury for THIS case? That's pretty much impossible, unless the juror has been in a decades-long coma.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Whatever excesses were committed by certain Christian elements The last time we let them get away with it .
FTFY
Nullius in verba
thats only the numbers they tell us.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The US Constitution guarantees him a fair trial. This is just grandstanding in the style of Julian Assange.
Edward Snowden has been charged under the Espionage Act which presents an impossible burden to defend one's self against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is discussed some by defense lawyers during the movie Citizenfour.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...
I sat in the public gallery on an arson case last year where the "evidence" consisted of a half empty bucket of paint. Everything else was conjecture. The JUDGE totally illegally instructed the jury to find a guilty verdict notwithstanding the glaring fact that there was NO EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ON. Not only that, he also SPECIFICALLY and totally illegally DENIED appeal to his sentence.
Look up Melanie Shaw.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I hope he already knows that the difference between what promises they will make to get him to the US, and what they will actually do after they have him in custody, are two totally different things.
Why would you say he wouldn't get a fair trial?
Because the government was embarrassed by him and has no incentive of any kind to provide a fair trial. Remember that this is the same government that for the last 15 years has been holding people without charges in Cuba because they know the prosecution would lose if it came before a jury or unbiased judge because the government broke the law.
But the thing is a Fair trial doesn't mean he isn't guilty, it just means they will weigh all the evidence.
A fair trial also means that if he is guilty that the punishment is proportional to the crime and any mitigating considerations. It means that he would have the right to face his accuser, have all evidence presented publicly and on the record, have an impartial jury of his peers, have the reasons for his actions considered and weighed, to consider whether his actions were reasonable and/or justified, that he has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, that the laws he is being judged by are consistent with the Constitution, that the prosecution isn't withholding evidence, etc. A fair trial means a lot of things. There is no reason to believe the US government has shown the slightest interest in giving Mr Snowden a fair trial based on previous actions and public statements.
The UK just made an order in its secret Court of Protection to force a woman to undergo an abortion. Last month, a woman was told that the CoP had ordered her baby cut out of her. An italian woman had similar treatment some months ago simply because she'd taken a leave of absence from work to deal with stress. Her baby was cut out of her and trafficked.
Compared with that, the US has an absolutely SPOTLESS judicial record.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Well, also the incarceration rates.
Also, executed isn't incarcerated.
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
When 97% of federal cases end in plea bargains - i.e. don't get to trial, since the "defendant" chooses <cough> to plead guilty to something, there is something deeply and profoundly wrong. That sort of "guilty" record would generally be an indicator of some of the worst dictatorships the world has seen (along with the other tell-tale: 99% majority in elections).
So yes, it is fair to say that the one thing the american justice system does not provide is justice
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
1. Snowden did his deed in time of war. Yes. The War On Terror. It's a declared state of war.
2. In time of war, any and all Constitutional guarantees are fair game for suspension.
3. This includes the right to a fair trial.
4. Snowden not only admitted to his deed, he bragged about it. He published the documents he stole for all to see.
5. Notwithstanding the deed, which in a civil court would be enough to attract a summary judgement against him, in time of war and due to the nature of the theft, he also gets the attention of the US Military, hence the UCMJ would apply?
6. The UCMJ doesn't have juries. It has a panel of judges drawn from legally trained military officers.
7. Snowden wouldn't be able to claim mitigation or justification in this circumstance, the UCMJ is NOT INTERESTED in intent - all he can do is to admit to what is clearly evidenced, bend over and accept the punishment.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Agreed. I'd buy "most hypocritical" or something else which translates into "doesn't walk the talk", but it's a long stretch to call it worse than justice systems which prosecute people for witchcraft.
Log in or piss off.
Bull shit. What in espionage act prevents him from having a fair trial?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Talk to the GOP about that. They pushed patriot act and then removed most congressional oversight of nsa for that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For all intents and purposes, snowden should remain in the totalitarian sphere. If he ever comes back to the west, he will be tried, fairly, and almost certainly get life, or executed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What did Hillary report to the world? For what you are looking for, that would be W and his neo-cons band.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Uh-huh. Sounds familiar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial.
Why does the only coverage of her show up on conspiracy and indy news sites? Plus, that was under British legal jurisdiction, not American.
OK, that was a single incident, which is a long way from a trend, much less from an institutionalized system, but hey, you played to the slashtard crowd and got modded up. Congratulations.
No, actually, this is a basic tool of jury selection. The thing that most influences the jury's work is the position of the foreperson; the thing that most influences foreperson selection is who sits at the head of the table; and the person most likely to sit at the head of a table is a man. Each side tries to eliminate the men they see as most likely to a be jury foreman sympathetic to the other side.
Sometimes eliminating intelligent people backfires. I know a guy who served on a case where all of the scientists on the jury realized a murderer had cremated his wife in a barrel in the backyard, and none of the laypeople believed it, so the murderer went free.
His next line was that he's made this offer and the USG's response was only that they wouldn't torture him.
[source: I was in the audience.] Good job with the reporting thing, TheHill.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Now we just need assurances that they'll actually obey the Constitution this time.
Snowden would actually be happier in jail. At the end of the day, this is going to eat away at him and lead to a life of fear and self doubt. Why bother talking about coming back to the U.S. if everything is fine right where he is at and our government is corrupt. Better to make your case and take the punishment than spend a life on the run. His case is so famous I seriously doubt he could be swept under the rug at this point.
On Saturday, Snowden said some of his former colleagues at the NSA and CIA said "the Constitution doesn't really matter."
If you don't believe the COTUS really matters, then you don't believe in "the rule of law" and that law must be followed in all situations. What it really means is what people currently in power consider important overrides "the rule of law".
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Kind of amazing how every time I say this, it gets reported like it's the first time. It's been the same since 2013.
https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...
Is this what you and Mr. Snowden have in mind?
There are men who take first steps . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For a "secret court" the CoP isn't very secret considering that there is a link to it on the UK gov's own web site https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/court-of-protection
Bold claims are not worth the pixels they are displayed with if you can 't back it up with interdependently verifiable facts.
Citations please.
You're a bit out of line claiming the US has the worst justice system in the world.
Maybe a more correct phrasing would be: "The US justice system falls the shortest in comparison to its stated principles and the number of people who continue to believe in those principles"?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Surely Snowden is aware of the NDAA indefinite detention law and given all the Constitutional violations he observed the government performing he needs strong public assurances he will receive the legal protections he is entitled to.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
Good riddance.
GOP started it; Democrats failed to stop it. They both need lined up against the proverbial wall.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Maybe parent is assuming the USA is the entire world, as some Americans are wont to do.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
In Snowden's case? The Espionage Act has likely been violated, so a fair trial likely would involve a guilty verdict.
But make no mistake, that's not what Snowden or his supporters want. They want to make this into a referendum on the moral and ethical affects of the Espionage Act, specifically as it applies to Snowden and his multiple acts that violated various parts of the law as written. They want to make this into a huge moral crusade and attempt to claim that Snowden shouldn't be punished and try this case in the court of public opinion, not in a "fair trial" based on long standing legal principles, rules of evidence and other such established traditions that few younger people today actually understand.
The problem here is that it's impossible for Snowden and his supporters to define exactly what constitutes a "fair trial" in legal terms. I don't think Snowden "gets it" here. A fair trial is one where the jury is impartial, where the evidence presented is controlled by the process and where the jury is charged with deciding if the law was broken. Snowden's defense will not be allowed to try this case "in the court of public opinion" any more than the prosecution would be allowed to do so. There would likely be gag orders on both sides, which would have the Snowden support crowd up in arms about how unfair things are, but the truth would be that both sides are required to argue their cases "in court before the jury" where the facts matter and are tightly controlled.
The only hope Snowden has is Jury Nullification, which is where the jury chooses to not enforce the law as written. Where this is always an option, it's usually NOT an option presented to a jury by the judge after the trial is over but before deliberations start. I also don't think a judge would allow a discussion of nullification during the trial, but if Snowden wants to hold that as a requirement, that he will give himself up for trial if the jury is allowed to hear arguments about nullification, I'm interested in that option. If THAT's what Snowden is talking about, not trying his case in the court of public opinion but asking for the nullification of the law, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I'd think he'd loose that case too, but as long as he isn't allowed to turn this into a three ring circus, let him try.
I would suggest not putting me on the jury though....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I cannot shake the feeling this is grandstanding. Why now? If a fair trial is what he wanted then back when he leaked the documents he could have had a press-release and a lawyer ready in advance, and immediately turned himself into the nearest public police department. That would still have grabbed the country's attention such that the military/gov't would have to pause in their retaliation, but choosing to flee degrades his conscientious objector position. I am suspicious of why he's trying to negotiate for a "fair" trial now.
You're allowed to defend your actions. Plenty of those accused have.
No, you're not always allowed to defend your actions. Consider Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked top-secret documents in 1971. Here's part of wikipedia's description of the trial:
Ellsberg tried to claim that the documents were illegally classified to keep them not from an enemy but from the American public. However, that argument was ruled "irrelevant". Ellsberg was silenced before he could begin. According to Ellsberg, his "lawyer, exasperated, said he 'had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did.' The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now. And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment".
That said, the judge eventually dismissed the case because the government broke a number of rules, including wiretapping Ellsberg without a warrant. However, if the government had bothered to follow the rules, you can bet that Ellsberg would be in the slammer because Ellsberg unequivocally violated the Espionage Act of 1917. Although releasing the information was the right thing to do, that simply isn't a legally valid defense. Period.
Likewise, Snowden has no inherent right to defend his actions, and unless the government did something dumb like illegally wiretap him, Snowden would be found guilty because he unequivocally broke the law (albeit for a good purpose, which is not a legally valid defense). Since the government can get rubber stamp warrants whenever it wants, government investigators may well have complied with the letter of the law. If you define a "fair trial" as a "a trial where the judge enforces the laws as they are written", then short of the government doing something stupid, Snowden be found guilty. I'm not saying that's a good thing (it's not), but thinking otherwise is delusional.
The fundamental problem here is that the laws are shitty. However, pointing out that the laws are shitty is not a valid defense unless you can prove they're unconstitutional, and for better or worse, the supreme court has blessed the Espionage Act of 1917.
Has he not seen Making a Murderer?
He could get a fair trial and still be found guilty of treason.
Trump is real? I thought it was only make-believe monster tales created by the American media.
Signed,
a Canadian.
You're mistaking the man for his hair.
No, actually in Europe it was found to be pretty horrible to have people of the same religion controlling government, and the English Civil War was fought over that, at least to the extent that both sides were "Christian."
Freedom of religion was about protecting Christians (and everybody else, incidentally) from other Christians in power. The pro-separation-of-Church-and-State side was the Puritan side!!!
and in what way, did China, AQ or ISIS have a right to know how we spied on them? That is the argument that you are making.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I worked on the PAT act. You think that the dems were not opposing this? Even before Snowden outed NSA, Colorado Senator Mark Udall (D) kept hinting to the press about this. He was trying to stop it.
However, do dems deserve blame for such things as pat act? All of those on the intelligence committee from 2003-2007 had decent knowledge about this. And obvious with Udall trying to out this info in 2012/2013, would indicate that it had come up again in that intelligence group.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In France they don't even have jury trials unless the sentence would be at least 15 years.
Accused of a crime and facing 10 years in prison? You'll be tried by a panel of professional judges, and they don't even need a unanimous verdict. Think about that... one of the professionals assigned to judge you isn't convinced you're guilty, that's not good enough!
I think the only way to settle this is to have a national referendum on whether Snowden should be granted amnesty for his actions. It is against public interest to let a small pool of jurors decide an issue as important as this. I believe his transgressions should be set aside because the means justify the end.
At the very least I feel that Congress should introduce a bill to pardon Snowden. Or vote on whether the Federal Court should be ordered to set aside any verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. The Federal Courts do operate under the authority of Congress.
there was nothing illegal with NSA spying on anybody/anything outside of America. There may be ethical issues with spying on allies, esp. merkel and any other ally gov. official, BUT, nothing illegal.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...that he has no good faith authority to deal with other than mebbe the public majority. And they ain't had a say in nothin' for a while now...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
Wait, what?
I've seen enough of your posts, you're not prone to hysterics or hyperbole. At least not generally - though you do have some subjects you're passionate about. So, what gives? There's got to be more to those stories? Got a link to a story about each of 'em so I can look it up and read more about that?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am presuming thing is just an awareness campaign on Snowden's part. Bring issues to the front again.
If he actually believes he could go home and the US govt would not arrange a rigged trial then he is suffering some sort of mental disorder. Delusion or other form of insanity.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Snowden broke many laws and confidential secrecy agreements, he put lives at risk, he notified enemies of the state about tactics, methods, and abilities in intelligence gathering. That allowed our enemies to change their tactics to avoid detection and to go after those names that were leaked. Not going to change the fact that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. Any trial that would occur would be purely about him breaking those laws and proving it. It is irrelevant that he uncovered shady government practices proving the spy agencies broke laws (well laws known to be public anyway). He won't be allowed to testify about any of the secrets he stole in a public court. This is intelligence and that game has always been less than legal. Spy agencies break laws, it's what they do and in the real world it is a necessary evil. So there is no way he will get a fair trial because his idea of a fair trial is to put the government on trial during his defense and he simply won't be allowed to do that. He cannot present secret evidence even if it is now public knowledge. In the 1940's he would have had a speedy secret clandestine trial and taken out back and shot by firing squad and his next of kin would have been fed a lie if his body was even returned. Enemies of the USA would have just disappeared him entirely. Maybe sending his personal belongings, teeth, jewelry, and a bit of ash back to the family in a cigar box delivered by a Nazi Youth courier on a bicycle.
9/11 changed things, the enemy is among us. The spy agencies now have to spy on Americans. The shooter in San Bernardino was an American with an immigrant wife from Pakistan. Americans are traveling to Syria to train and fight with ISIS. Americans are providing material support to terrorists. Enemies are crossing the Mexican and Canadian borders unopposed. Just look at the public list of terror attacks since 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000s). What do you think they are going to do? Of course they are going to spy on Americans, they have no choice. How many attacks have they prevented or stopped? We may never know...
Where do I stand on Apple's iPhone encryption? I like the fact that its heavily encrypted to protect my privacy but I hate the fact that terrorists will now use a newer iPhone 6 and up, disabling the finger print scanner, setting a strong password with a wipe after 10 attempts set, utilizing the secure enclave chip, turning off iCloud backup and Find my iPhone features, disabling GPS Location Services, disabling the control center and notifications while locked and using Messages iOS iOS for end to end encryption or maybe a third party app with similar encryption. Apple provides a pretty darn good solution for the terrorists. At the same time, I want that protection for myself but I also want the bad guys to get caught. It's a real world Catch-22 for sure... What's behind all this pressure on Apple? Well the 3 letter agencies are plenty cheesed off they can no longer spy on iOS devices like they used to. I mean a smartphone is a gold mine to them. Imagine turning on the microphone and using it to eavesdrop or obtain your GPS coordinates showing where you have been. The metadata alone is super useful. Snowden revealed they were accessing smartphones at will for quite some time!
At this point, it is not legal for the government to force Apple to comply there is no law that says they have to comply. The request is not a warrant because obtaining a warrant in this case is going to be difficult. I don't care what anyone says, this is not about one iPhone, not at all. Apple is right, once they do what the government wants it will open up thousands of additional requests and then foreign governments will do the same. Then the government will ask for more, they will want master private keys to iOS Messenger traffic and other encrypted data on iOS and iCloud. That's exactly how corporate America encrypts their systems with a PKI server issuing keys to each user. When a
The 97% is meaningless by itself. In fact, it doesn't indicate anything other than selection bias in the data. In other words, only 3% made it far enough in the system to get to the point where they were officially charged.
Now, we both know that's not true - but the number is meaningless by itself. It could just mean that the enforcement was doing its job well and that only 3 out of 100 people were wrongfully charged. People trying to use that number are trying to do your critical thinking for you and they're pulling at heart strings to do it. They're meaningless numbers, for the most part.
If you don't believe me then what should that number be and why should it be there? That's a rhetorical question. Answering it is up to you and how honest you want to be with yourself.
Should it be 100% conviction rate? Should we take away a person's right to plead guilty to an offense? No, those are rhetorical questions. No need to respond. How you answer isn't really important to me. You might be an exception but most people are not actually interested in dialogue and critical thinking and I'm not sure that I blame them for being the way they are and opting to not subject their views to critical thought.
That number's meaningless. Really... Stop and think about it for a moment - if you want.
Should that number be 100% or 0% and why? Again, rhetorical.
That doesn't mean you're wrong! No, not at all. It's just that it's actually an appeal to emotion and a non sequitur. It literally does not follow. 97% could mean that they all were guilty as charged. 97% could mean that almost nobody gets falsely arrested or accused. Now, we know that's bullshit but the 97% number is immaterial. After all, what should than number be and why?
And again, it doesn't mean you're wrong. In fact, I'm quite certain you're right. Hell, I'm positive you're right - to the point where I put my money where my mouth is. (I donate, a whole bunch, to EFF, ACLU, and to the Maine chapter of the ACLU in addition to the national chapter.) So, I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that you're probably gonna want a better argument than that number - or even that link.
Anyhow... I've got these in my favorites:
https://www.bja.gov/Publicatio...
http://legaltechdesign.com/The...
And, as this is Slashdot, I'll stress again that you're not wrong. You're just pulling at heartstrings and using a near meaningless number to make your case. The number doesn't, by itself, mean something is deeply and meaningfully wrong. The number, by itself, is mostly just an attempt to appeal to emotions and is still a non-sequitur. But, you're still not wrong. At least I don't think you are.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The supreme court, in Brandenburg v Ohio, allowed the 1st amendment as a defense in cases of sedition. So it's been done, it's legal. and he can argue for his first amendment rights with the blessing of the Supremes.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You don't actually get out much, do you? 'Cause I do and I have. I've stomped across the globe - literally. The only continent that I've not been on is Antarctica. I've not even been that close unless you want to say the southern part of Australia is close or if you want to say that near the tip of South America is close - I wasn't even at the edges or southern-most points.
If you think the US' justice system is that bad then you're broken in the head, delusional, or stupid. I don't know which one it is and I'm not the type that runs around calling people idiots. However, I'm not adverse to being able to adjust my views dynamically.
We'll presume you're not stupid. But...
You talk about the justice department, the thread and article is about the justice department, and you're talking about the police. For starters, believe it or not - the police aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think. At least not as a general rule. They're also a hell of a lot better than they are in much of the rest of the world - I know, I've interacted with 'em all over the place.
Yet, more importantly, I'm not actually sure you're qualified to opine. The judicial branch of the government is not the police. The police are the executive branch of the government. They are not the justice system - they do not administer justice in the United States. This is *not* a difference without distinction, it's an essential facet.
So, maybe it's wrong to presume you're not stupid? I try to give the benefit of doubt but some folks make that hard, I'm not sure if it's deliberate.
Speaking of the police, the executive branch... The nearest country, to my current physical location, is Cuba. Assuming I stay on land, the next nearest is Mexico. How about we do some justification for contrast? No? Yeah, you probably can't play that game honestly and the goal posts will get awfully heavy so I wouldn't want to put you out any. But, I can't say that I've ever had to produce my "documentaçion" (pay a bribe) to go from one town to the next without molestation. Hell, I can't even remember the last time a US police officer went on a spree-killing at the behest of the drug-lords.
Yeah, you don't actually get out much or you're 14? Or you're really, really dumb. And I don't say that lightly. I've written many things on Slashdot - scads of stuff. Very seldom do I feel inclined to call anyone dumb. It's almost as rare as hen's teeth for me to do so. You, in your brilliant display of wisdom and insight, managed to demonstrate to the world that you're a complete and total idiot who rants based on ignorance. You should not only be ashamed, you should go find your mother and smack her for failing to ensure you were given an adequate education or use the computer without supervision.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I was just linking to Court Room TV covering Mr. Snowden's fair trial where he is exonerated by a Jury Nullification on the part of a panel of 12 pencil necks reacting to his moving defense, testimony, and summation.
Yes, I dynamited those buildings but they were MY buildings.
The only way to overturn a court ruling is through a higher court ruling, and the only way to overturn the highest court (Supreme Court) ruling is through a constitutional amendment which requires a 2/3rd vote in BOTH house and senate to pass. (We have difficulty getting a 51% vote to pass).
Since contributions have already been held to be a form of speech, if you had an amendment restricting contributions, you'd have two amendments that directly conflict with one another. That would make for some interesting court cases.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
no reasonable person supports hillary, the others maybe, however I didnt bring them up
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Talk about a stretch of the imagination. Brandenburg v Ohio said that a KKK member had the right to express abstract advocacy of force or law violation. I.e. the KKK member could say "All Jews should be killed," since he wasn't advocating or planning a specific act of violence ("lets go to Synagogue X this evening and burn it down!").
What any of that has to do with Snowden is beyond me. Snowden didn't advocate leaking documents in an abstract sense. He actually leaked the documents. Moreover, who says that the court will treat government secrets in the same way they treat the speech of a KKK member? There is a first amendment right to say stupid stuff. There's no first amendment right to leak government secrets.
the CoP has no public gallery. Its proceedings are not open to the public. Judgements are not published. The only time we get to see the results of its machinations is the increasingly common case of mentally ill mothers to be being told that their babies are to be forcibly removed for adoption and they go to the papers.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... (the Pacchieri baby snatching case)
https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... (they even go so far as to prohibit the mentally ill from having sex)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (or those deemed to have learning difficulties to marry... Mark and Kerry have been happily married now for seven years and are very good friends of mine)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... (background on the CoP and the evils that it can order: abortions, caesarians, experimental surgery and medication, euthanasia (AKA Liverpool Care Pathway which is just another term for "withhold all food, water and painkillers"), sterilisation, forcible restraint, incarceration "for the public good" even if no danger to the public has been evidenced)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Laws would have to change, first. His attorneys would not be allowed to pursue certain lines of defense.
Details in "Data and Goliath". If you're read it recently enough or have it handy, post those details, please. I don't recall them.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Please, Ed, don't do anything stupid like voluntarily return to the US without a pardon. You've managed to make a point and stay free. Keep it that way.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Sorry for the slow response - I wanted to read 'em and do some looking. That's asinine. Completely and totally unacceptable.
I figured you weren't shitting me - as I mentioned in the first post. I've seen enough of your posts and interacted with you enough to know you weren't making it up. Otherwise, I'd have just rolled my eyes and said, "Okay, right. Where's the proof?" I'd have then expected either no links, to be told to do my own research, or given links that didn't actually support what they were saying but to be given them a few days later when nobody is in the thread.
So, when *you* said something along those lines, I knew something had to be up. As I said, based on my observations, you are not prone to exaggeration or hyperbole. You're not one for spouting rhetoric and being all that overzealous.
Err... Quite some time ago, I started reading the usernames when reading the threads. I've forced myself to keep that as a habit. It makes reading slower but it actually makes the threads make more sense. In my effort to be polite, some folks are rather consistent with their mannerisms and behaviors. For example, I've been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt a number of things to a number of people. Some of them will actually change and express their thanks for having made it more clear. Others... Well... The majority will just drop the subject, not reply, and will show up a few days later, in a new thread, and repeating the same damned wrong information. I'm reasonably polite about it and I'm generally a polite person in general. But, it's frustrating...
So, observations told me that you're one of the more unusual folks who isn't prone to making unfounded accusations, repeating misinformation, and trying to carve reality to suit your beliefs. I figured I'd ask for more information 'cause that's kind of disturbing and you're a good source.
Which is a long-winded way of saying thanks. Thanks!
Ah - I just took a quick trip to Google. I see you're interested in the subject. You're quite interested. Is Child Snatching By The State something I might want to watch? I'm rather fond of information dense documentaries. There's only one seed. I'm guessing that seeder is you? If it's worth watching then I'll let it finish downloading and then keep it reseeding for a while. At least I'm assuming you're that "Jim?"
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
yeah, that'll be me... :) I've done some seriously deep research into the problem over the years and discovered information in plain sight that only took a few hundred FOI enquiries to pull together. One particular report revealed that the local authorities in England and Wales have trafficked over 3,000 children of foreign nationals between 2006-2011. That's a low conservative estimate, the number could be two or three times that.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Through an odd turn of events, I know a couple of people who used to work for CPS-type services as "baby snatchers." Out of those, both quit. They've also both shared some of their experiences with me. I know exactly zero people who kept doing that job. There are times and places where it might be the safer choice to do some of the tings that are done by those groups (intentionally vague) but there's so much potential for abuse that it seems we might be better off just accepting the misfortune that comes from inaction.
The download stalled and never got meta data and proceeded. It's okay, I'll go searching and see if there are other documentaries that I can find.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
ok... keep reminding me and I'll upload the edit to a dropbox and link you, there may be an issue with the torrent (I'm nowhere near it at the minute so can't check)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Will do and thanks. I see you in enough threads and don't care about an O/T moderation here and there. I've got karma to burn. Hell, someone annoyed me so I turned on the karma bonus. That'll teach 'em. Well, probably not but I can hope.
At any rate, I'll remind ya, thanks!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."