No, it doesn't matter where the crime is committed, you are first and foremost covered by the UCMJ then any applicable civil laws. Usually, the military will defer prosecution until local/state/federal trials have run their course, THEN they will try you under the UCMJ.
He was held as a prisoner of war / enemy combatant. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. The UCMJ treats him as a POW and revokes those rights that would otherwise apply to normal military personnel.
Having been active duty military, you are obliged to enter into any criminal proceedings, as a member (juror), with impartiality the same as in the civilian world.
People are under the impression that the UCMJ is some oddball, ignores the constitution document. It isn't. The rules make less sense to civilians,and it is harsher than the average civvy law, but it's also quite fair.
Court martial is very much a criminal prosecution. They got away with avoiding the 6th amendment by not filing charges against him until they felt like it. he's been kept as a prisoner of war for 1.5 years so that they could circumvent the rest of the constitution and federal laws.
Does not detract from what he said, he is not asking to declare a new inalienable right, he is asking for it to be recognized by congress. Recognition is not creation.
exactly, which is what those of us who understand the difference, want implemented with the internet. To deny the government the ability to deny or otherwise limit our ability to access the internet. With that being said, you could argue that the 2nd amendment is limited by the government dictating what types of firearms you are allowed to possess.
actually, it's exactly what it means : "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred". So he is correct. His version would mean that you can have access to the internet if you so choose, but that right cannot be taken away by the government at their leisure. It does not mean that private companies have to give it to you for free (see 2nd amendment, when was the last time you were given a free gun?)
No, he is saying that access to the web should not be able to be revoked from a citizen at will, as well as it would be a citizen's right to be able to access an unfiltered internet.
I don't bother muting, I just at the incompetent statements as they are making them in hopes that the meeting sponsor will actually have the balls to ask me what I find so funny...
Also because applying pressure from several billion, or at the least, several hundred million people from around the globe is a hell of a lot more of a statement than applying pressure from a few million. These jackasses in the capital need to understand that the internet is not US domain, that it is worldwide and that what they do with laws regarding the internet will have repercussions world wide. When they are shutting down on-line businesses willy-nilly in the US because of laws like this, and they all start moving out of the country, they [congress] will start to understand. Shit, I'd love it if the big tech companies (Google, M$, Apple, Facebook et al) threatened to pick up and move to Canada/Mexico/China.
Computers were not part of my childhood and I am in my 30's. I didn't even get to touch a computer until I was ~12 or 13. And even then, it was to play civilization, Spaceward Ho and Tetris.
The lawyers only battle through the wording because they can battle through it. I know, I have a whole family full of them. Every last one of them will agree, rewriting in plain speech is not a problem and can easily be done with a little thought thrown at it.
That's a crock of shit. There are bills out there that are nothing but legal rhetoric when they could have just as easily said "No corporation can force an employee to sign a contract that would in any way hinder their ability to gain employment after they leave the corporation" "A corporation is defined as any business that is legally registered as a business in any state".
Holy shit, I just re-wrote non-compete laws in less than 90 pages....AND people can understand it.
The company is NOT a person, the people working there are. Yet, the government has seen fit to give corporations the rights of the individuals. I think you will find, as I have, that most people really don't give a shit about the corporation other than keeping it going so that they can do what they like to do and/or get paid. And yes, I own stock in quite a few companies.
I will complain until something is actually done about it
Also, you are completely clueless if you think your paltry 1000 odd shares of stock in any major corporation actually means anything. It means nothing to them. Apple has roughly 929,000,000 shares of stock. hell, even if you owned 1,000,000 shares (valued at 329M), you would still only own.001% of the company. So no, you are most definitely NOT the corporation. It's a rolling juggernaut pressing it's agenda on anything in it's way until it get all that it wants, then sets new wants.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't matter where the crime is committed, you are first and foremost covered by the UCMJ then any applicable civil laws. Usually, the military will defer prosecution until local/state/federal trials have run their course, THEN they will try you under the UCMJ.
He was held as a prisoner of war / enemy combatant. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. The UCMJ treats him as a POW and revokes those rights that would otherwise apply to normal military personnel.
Having been active duty military, you are obliged to enter into any criminal proceedings, as a member (juror), with impartiality the same as in the civilian world.
People are under the impression that the UCMJ is some oddball, ignores the constitution document. It isn't. The rules make less sense to civilians ,and it is harsher than the average civvy law, but it's also quite fair.
Yes, it does.
Court martial is very much a criminal prosecution. They got away with avoiding the 6th amendment by not filing charges against him until they felt like it. he's been kept as a prisoner of war for 1.5 years so that they could circumvent the rest of the constitution and federal laws.
Until a jury says he is guilty, he's fucking presumed innocent.
cause being held without due process is full of awesome in this country.
Agreed.
Does not detract from what he said, he is not asking to declare a new inalienable right, he is asking for it to be recognized by congress. Recognition is not creation.
exactly, which is what those of us who understand the difference, want implemented with the internet. To deny the government the ability to deny or otherwise limit our ability to access the internet. With that being said, you could argue that the 2nd amendment is limited by the government dictating what types of firearms you are allowed to possess.
They own servers and pipes. That does not mean "Owning" the internet. I do agree that they own certain sections that allow for access.
An amendment would guard against them making any law that would give them power over the internet: re: SOPA / PROTECT IP Act.
actually, it's exactly what it means : "a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred". So he is correct. His version would mean that you can have access to the internet if you so choose, but that right cannot be taken away by the government at their leisure. It does not mean that private companies have to give it to you for free (see 2nd amendment, when was the last time you were given a free gun?)
No, he is saying that access to the web should not be able to be revoked from a citizen at will, as well as it would be a citizen's right to be able to access an unfiltered internet.
Other rights are yanked from you for certain criminal acts. Your right to possess firearms, voting etc. So there is already precedent for it to exist.
Not according to the MAFIAA. $0 dollars earned by you means millions lost by them that you owe...
You can take out the ambiguity and still use simple speech.
I still can't figure out how to do the side to side bobble head thing, hurts the hell out of my neck.
I don't bother muting, I just at the incompetent statements as they are making them in hopes that the meeting sponsor will actually have the balls to ask me what I find so funny...
Also because applying pressure from several billion, or at the least, several hundred million people from around the globe is a hell of a lot more of a statement than applying pressure from a few million. These jackasses in the capital need to understand that the internet is not US domain, that it is worldwide and that what they do with laws regarding the internet will have repercussions world wide. When they are shutting down on-line businesses willy-nilly in the US because of laws like this, and they all start moving out of the country, they [congress] will start to understand. Shit, I'd love it if the big tech companies (Google, M$, Apple, Facebook et al) threatened to pick up and move to Canada/Mexico/China.
Computers were not part of my childhood and I am in my 30's. I didn't even get to touch a computer until I was ~12 or 13. And even then, it was to play civilization, Spaceward Ho and Tetris.
The lawyers only battle through the wording because they can battle through it. I know, I have a whole family full of them. Every last one of them will agree, rewriting in plain speech is not a problem and can easily be done with a little thought thrown at it.
You instance is not pertinent to the statement I made.
That's a crock of shit. There are bills out there that are nothing but legal rhetoric when they could have just as easily said "No corporation can force an employee to sign a contract that would in any way hinder their ability to gain employment after they leave the corporation" "A corporation is defined as any business that is legally registered as a business in any state".
Holy shit, I just re-wrote non-compete laws in less than 90 pages....AND people can understand it.
The company is NOT a person, the people working there are. Yet, the government has seen fit to give corporations the rights of the individuals. I think you will find, as I have, that most people really don't give a shit about the corporation other than keeping it going so that they can do what they like to do and/or get paid. And yes, I own stock in quite a few companies.
I will complain until something is actually done about it
Also, you are completely clueless if you think your paltry 1000 odd shares of stock in any major corporation actually means anything. It means nothing to them. Apple has roughly 929,000,000 shares of stock. hell, even if you owned 1,000,000 shares (valued at 329M), you would still only own .001% of the company. So no, you are most definitely NOT the corporation. It's a rolling juggernaut pressing it's agenda on anything in it's way until it get all that it wants, then sets new wants.