They don't challenge the legality of a law at trial. The Jury's role in deciding whether a law should be enforced is restricted solely to Jury Nullification, a practice that every Judge ever appointed has done his damndest to minimize because of it's unsavory use in the past. That means that if you're talking about the legality of a law, and you're using any legal phrase that includes the word "trial" you're being unforgivably imprecise. Trial is a completely different stage of the process, a challenge to the NSA's practices would happen pre-trial.l If the Judge ruled in favor of the defense there's no trial because (as a matter of law) the Judge has ruled Snowden's behavior was not illegal. Since there's no trial, the Prosecution can appeal. OTOH if the Judge rules against the defense, the Espionage Act allows no public interest defense, so Snowden's only hopes would be to prove he didn't leak any documents. But the Defense could also appeal that ruling post-trial, which could be very complicated if they won.
And, as I said, The Ellsberg debacle is why his trial will be perfectly fair. The reason you think that Judge was biased isn't that he was applying the law improperly, it's that you think the law is already written the way you want when that is clearly not the case. I don't blame you for that. The English Majors who dominate the media aren't any better at actually comprehending technical legal documents then they are at comprehending any other sort of technical document; and most of them are so busy cheering for the cub reporters who beat Nixon on getting those Pentagon Papers published they literally haven't looked into what the law says about Ellsberg.They thought Nixon sucked, so they thought that when Blume ruled for Nixon Blume sucked, and it never occurred to them that if Blume was half as bad as they say nobody would ever have heard of Nixon's offer to make him FBI Director.
They really truly are clueless about the rules.
For example, have you read the Whistleblower Protection Act? It's pretty dense, but It says Snowden can't be fired for reporting misconduct through proper channels. Which would mean if he'd done what the Founders intended, and snitched to Congress, while staying in Hawaii, it would be more difficult to fire him (altho since he was a contractor they could probably fuck with his contract). But he left his job (which makes a bill that stops his boss in Hawaii from penalizing him at work somewhat superflous), he went through a ex-lawyer journalist who lives abroad (and thus is not a proper channel), etc.
In short, it simply does not apply to this case, or any other that uses the 1917 Espionage Act.
But since the media don't know that, they'll continue to go along in their belief that their sources are absolutely protected, they'll continue to tell you said sources are protected, they'll continue to imply that Obama's leaker conviction-spree is so bad the Courts will have to stop it soon, people like Snowden will continue leaking through them, which makes their ratings go up, makes future leakers likely to use them, and also (incidentally) makes said leakers go to prison; and people like you will continue to contribute to the process.
Seriously. A voice-mail to your Congressman asking him to call you back with his position on a) whether Snowden broke the law as it is currently enforced, and b) if so what changes to the law could fix that problem so the poor fucker could come home; would probably have taken you a lot less time then researching when that Whistleblower Act got passed. But you won't do it because you're in total denial about how the law works, and the media will continue to tell you you;re right about how the law works because if they didn't they'd feel incredibly guilty about grabbing eyeballs via leaks that will get Ed Snowden sent to prison.
"If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply."
Well that's already been done, but you seem unable to stick to the thread of discussion. I should you step right back to the beginning and start again, because you're arguing that I can't bring something up, that is relevant to the actual thread of discussion based on the summary. Believe it or not, discussions on forums can arch from the strict bounds of the original summary.
Here's my problem with that: Nobody (except me) has presented any reason why the ECHR should intervene that actually uses legal terms correctly.
In particular you tech geek types seem so fixated on the "fair" bit of "fair trial" that you literally cannot comprehend that, legally speaking, a Fair Trial for Ed Snowden always results in a conviction; and therefore the ECHR is not able to keep him in Europe due to the likelihood of an unfair trial.
I have explained, several times, why a Fair Trial would always convict Snowden, and that the typical tech geek's strong belief that a trial that does not allow you to tell the Jury the Law is Evil is not unfair, it's fucking Tuesday. That does not happen at trial. It cannot happen at trial. If it happens at trial the trial is, by definition, unfair. That can happen pre-trial, or in appeals. But "Trial" is a very specific legal term, that is used for extremely limited legal purposes, and you do not, absolutely do not, ever, have the right to tell a Jury that you should not be convicted of leaking information because said information needed to be leaked.
What you guys are doing is analogous to what happens when one of your non-geek family members latches on to one word in a multi-word technical term and then takes hours of convincing before they realize that "Universal Serial Bus" products are not universal, and no their Amiga is not supposed to have a port for their iPhone.
For the record, yes I know I'm being fucking pedantic. Even for the internet. But we're not talking about the Chicago Bears here, we're talking about the law, and the law is the most pedantic subject ever created by the mind of man, so it's pretty important that you actually understand the terminology you're using.
Roughly 99% of the anguish caused by the EFF's failure to get the Courts to stop PRISM is caused by people not understanding how difficult it is to win a case like this, which is directly related to their difficulties parsing legal terminology.
"A fair trial is a trial where the defendant has the right to properly respond to the evidence. If said evidence is truly overwhelming, the tiral is basically a formality. Just ask Lars Ulbricht."
No, that's not a fair trial, that's a kangaroo court. A fair trial is where no assumptions are made before hand, yet you're arguing that the trial is largely irrelevant (a formality).
There's normal legal pedantic, and then there's dumb legal pedantic.
The Jury is not allowed to make assumptions. Which is actually one of Snowden's problems, because if the Defense can't call a witness who says the NSA programs were illegal, and the Judge is required to throw out anyone on the Jury who seems to know the difference between PRISM and Klingons (they already know about the case) then it's highly unlikely anyone in the Jury room is going to try for Jury nullification and let Ed free.
But the entire cases of both Prosecution and Defense are assumptions about a) the evidence that will be presented, and b) how that evidence will play in the Jury room. Both sides have their own ideas about how the case should bed, and it's the Jury's job to decide whether the Prosecution's idea has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge sees the evidence before the Jury does, and is told the lines of argumentation the two sides will use (Ulbricht's lawyers, for example, got their asses handed to them by the Judge because they waited until mid-trial to tell him what
> because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest
No, it's not "literally illegal". to mention that. The judge may give explicit directions against it, but intent is a critical and normal part of a legal defense, especially if Mr. Snowden cited the protections of the various "whistleblower" laws. There's also a great tendency of judges to shut down any attempt by a defense attorney to invoke "jury nullification", which is always available to a jury even when the judge explicitly says "you must only convict or acquit on *this* basis".
> There's no need for secrecy, special assassination teams, or anything special.
There's also "no need" for the excessive and abusive monitoring that Mr. Snowden disclosed.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers?
The government got that Judge to rule that Ellsberg could not present a public interest defense. That meant no witnesses saying "it's great he leaked this, I needed to know that," no documents saying he should have leaked it, if his attorney seems to be getting in a bunch of digs and questions that would give the Jury the impression it was a good idea he leaked it the only way to make the Trial fair for the Prosecution (remember: "Fair Trial" goes both ways) is let them present the widow of a Green Beret crying her eyes about how evil Danny Ellsberg dishonored her husband's memory, etc. Ellberg was fucked.
Then Nixon tried to rig the trial by refusing to disclose the source of evidence, attempting to bribe the Judge, etc. So Ellsberg today is a free man.
They're not gonna risk that agin.
Snowden will get a perfectly fair trial. Since he leaked the documents, and the question answered at trial will be "Did Ed Snowden leak these documents?," he will be found Guilty unless there is a reasonable case that some other person leaked those documents.
Except that, there is a _compelling_ need for people involved in such criminal, illegal behavior to punish whistleblowers, and for the people who've invested their professional lives in such abuse to vindicate themselves in anger, and especially for thise still involved in it to prevent any further disclosures or credible disclosures. What does Edward Snowden have left that he refused to leak before now to protect real intelligence assets? What might he feel free to reveal in a US court that might be leaked by the jury or the judge, and recorded in the court record?
Thee's also "no need" for a prosecutor to fail to present witnesses or for witnesses from the intelligence community, called by the defense, to lie under oath about illegal activity documented by Edward Snowden. But it's extremely likely to happen.
I'm not sure you understand what a "Trial" is.
A trial is the bit the Jury hears.
No Jury, ever, in the history of the United States, has been asked whether to let someone off on an espionage charge because the public interest outweighed the law. That's a Question of Law, and it is decided pre-trial, or (if a conviction happens) post-trial during the Appeals process. The entire basis of the Jury system is that Juries decide Questions of Fact (in this case: has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ed Snowden leaked the documents in question?), rather then Questions of Law (everything you're arguing, which is basically that his actions did enough good that he should not be Prosecuted). Therefore precedent is that the "public interest" is not a valid defense. Snowden's lawyers will try to make that case pre-trial, the Judge will shoot their asses down because his job is to enforce the law as it has been enforced for years.
This means the defense cannot legally call a witness who will testify that PRISM was evil. If he (and his lawyers) threaten additional leaks then there will be additional charges of Obstruction of Justice, and the
"And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?"
I'm not sure you know how such conventions work. European conventions are imposed on member states as things that must be implemented. Each member state has a legal implementation that is binding, and that can be ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights (they can also rule whether the implementation meets the standards of the legally bound to implement convention).
This thread is not about a Convention.
It is about a non-binding resolution passed by a Legislative body which would not have the authority to pass a binding resolution.
If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply.
"He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US."
None of which has any relevance as to whether he'd get a fair trial. I'm not sure you really get how this whole justice thing works - hint: judgements are not decided upon what did or didn't happen in the spotlight of the media, only what happens in the court room.
I;'m not sure you uinderstand the meaning of the term fair trial.
A fair trial is a trial where the defendant has the right to properly respond to the evidence. If said evidence is truly overwhelming, the tiral is basically a formality. Just ask Lars Ulbricht.
In this case, the evidence is overwhelming. Snowden's on video saying he leaked the documents. His media partners have made numerous statements he leaked the documents. His Allies have made numerous statements that he's being persecuted because he leaked the documents. He's engaged in numerous actions that only make sense if he's on the run for leaking documents. Under US Law his defense (that it was in the public interest to expose unconstitutional behavior) is simply not allowed.
Granted, in theory a Jury could decide that he did not leak documents, but for that to work he'd have to convince them that his televised confessions were the delusional ravings of a madman and the media went along with it to protect the real leaker.
So in the real world, if the ECHR rules he can't be extradited they won't be ruling on whether his trial would be fair, because (as a very lady said about a similar gentleman) "a fair trial results in a hanging," they'd be ruling that European Human Rights law requires a public interest defense, and therefore no European law is allowed to be equivalent to the Espionage Act.
"The absolute last person in the world who wants a fair trial is Ed Snowden, because a fair trial results in a conviction. The absolute last people in the world who want to unfairly try Ed Snowden are the US Government, because the only way for them to lose a case like this is unfairly try it."
Yep, and that's why Guantanamo detainees were treated so fairly over the yea... oh wait, no, they weren't. It's a bit of a stretch to pretend the US circa 1971 is the same as the UK circa 2015. The last 15 years has provide a plethora of evidence that the quality of the US justice system has seen a profound slide away from fairness.
Don't play stupid.
GitMo detainees are non-citizens, non-white, and too poor to afford their own lawyers. Snowden is none of those things.
I think if you look for examples of white males with enough resources to pay $20-30k for a defense getting wrongfully convicted in the US you'll find that number's lower then the British number, because the US System is specifically designed to be racist and classist in favor of middle-class white guys.
"And again, this isn't the ECHR that's ruled. I doubt it could rule, seeing as he's not in Europe. It probably needs him to be there, and a US request for ext
And how would that be authorized by the Constitution?
Seriously, this is a fucking simple trial. This is what happens:
1) The Prosecutor reads the statute, which bans leaking of Classified info. 2) The Prosecutor shows a document, any document, from the stash that Snowden leaked. 3) The Prosecutor cues up a video of him explaining why he leaked it. 4) The defense does something, probably involving blaming Karpeles, because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest. Any Juror likely to know that the leaks were in the publci interest, exposed PRIMS, etc. would have been banned by the Judge for knowing too much about the case pre-trial. 5) The Jury convicts because it is extremely unreasonable to conclude that Ed Snowden did not leak the documents.
There's no need for secrecy, special assassination teams, or anything special.
Not one extradition treaty in an EU member state overrules the European Convention on Human Rights which all EU member states are signatories to and members of.
And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?
The lack of the US' ability to guarantee Snowden will be granted a fair trial, means that any extradition treaty will be irrelevant in the face of a European Court of Human Rights challenge using the European Convention on Human Rights and it's implementations.
He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US.
The absolute last person in the world who wants a fair trial is Ed Snowden, because a fair trial results in a conviction. The absolute last people in the world who want to unfairly try Ed Snowden are the US Government, because the only way for them to lose a case like this is unfairly try it.
When you're on international TV saying "I leaked these classified documents for the following reasons..." there just isn't much wiggle room regarding the Questions of Fact asked at a trial: 1) did Snowden leak those documents?, and 2) were they Classified?
If his so-called friends in the US had any brains at all they'd be calling for Louie Gohmert to introduce a bill forcing tyrant Obama to allow public interest defenses in cases like Ed Snowden's. That could actually get through Congress, and become enough of an issue that the next president would sign the damn thing.
But that would involve going through Congress, which is apparently verbotten until they've failed every possible way they can in Court.
This is precisely why the convention and court exist - to prevent any member state treating someone unfairly in violation of their fundamental rights by acting as a higher power that can determine if a member government is treating people within it's borders fairly or not. It's a fine example of the importance of it all, it's one entity that can tell governments it doesn't give a shit how much they wish to kowtow to the US, fundamental human rights come first.
Of course a nation state could break protocol and ignore an ECHR ruling, but then it also doesn't get to dictate to places like China, Russia, and so forth about human rights anymore, because it would then be hypocritical and meaningless to do so.
And again, this isn't the ECHR that's ruled. I doubt it could rule, seeing as he's not in Europe. It probably needs him to be there, and a US request for extradition,l before it can consider the issues.
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
In the US the Military actually has it's own Court System, with it's own law-code.
Snowden would be in the civilian system. His conviction is pretty much a slam-dunk. Revealing Classified Info to people who don't have clearance is illegal,and he did that shit. Since Congress has not seen fit to adda public interest defense, or exception, or really anything of value to a Federal whistle-blower, you claims that he had to do it to reveal NSA misconduct are simply irrelevant legally.
Couldn't they just ask? It's not like these are state secrets...
They're the Chinese Security State. They don't know that. They just know that we tell them that, and then refuse to tell them what the health system actually does on an individual level on the basis of privacy rights.
Remember when the Russians places a super-deep-cover spy program in the US, and used it almost entirely to verify that what we write in out publicly available media is actually true?
So I could actually believe some bureaucrat in China with a hacking team decided too get this data in hopes it would help him in some bureaucratic Kung-Fu when preparing their universal health program.
OTOH, if you hear hooves horses are more likely then zebras. It's more likely that this was a criminal hack, probably to get people's names, birthdays, and SSNs.
If this guy was improperly charged for a hospital stay pre-ObamaCare, it was at least five figures, probably closer to six. They would have charged him the uninsured price, which is the highest price they can charge anybody because the way insurance worked pre-ObamaCare a hospital would start at it's high price and the insurers would negotiate a hefty discount (generally at least 50%, frequently in the 90s)*. It would not be killing his chance of getting a mortgage if it was $600 or even $6,000.
A collection agency is not gonna write off that much debt without a fight. A fight he would win, but which would take up time. They would rather dispute it knowing they'll lose, and provide whatever documentation the hospital gave in the first place to the credit reporting agency. Then the OP has to get the credit rating agency to talk to the hospital, verify the debt the collection agency is talking about is tied to that hospital, etc.
Since that that fight will take time that the OP does not have (because he's trying to close on the house NOW), the collection agency hopes that he'll send them $4k-5k to get them to go away.
*Post-ObamaCare the uninsured get the best price that any insurer has negotiated, which means that if your insurance company sucks your co-pay can be more then a waitress would pay. But, OTOH, the waitress is not getting stuck with a $60k bill because she drank a bit too much, took a nasty fall, and got driven to a hospital that strongly believed in high-balling it's prices in insurance negotiations.
You don't get enough info to call them yourself, because they do not want enraged people tracking them down at the office. They call you. They hear sob stories all the time. They do not have the resources to actually check any of them out, and they're kinda scummy, so you tell them anything but "this is my new Credit Card number," they simply ignore it. Your debt stays on their books, on your credit report, and you keep getting calls. Eventually they sell your debt to a new agency, and you have to start over.
In theory the hospital should have refunded them the money they paid for the debt in the first place, but sine it's likely that the original agency resold the debt, and that agency re-resold, etc. they'd have to find the guys who currently have the debt. Then, since that company paid cash for the debt they'd have to find some way to compensate them for giving up their claim to that debt.
I think they're paid on commission. In that case the guy who keeps the job tends to be the guy who ignores the rules when they get in the way of his commission.
It's the only way you could get them to be so aggressive.
There was this time I was 10 months into a 12-month phone contract, and it wasn't the cheap voice and text-only contract. I also had a mobile internet contract. I got fired. They wouldn't let me switch to a lower-tier plan for two months because I had a Blackberry, which I had purchased myself. Then the Blackberry got stolen.
I needed a phone so I bought a Trakphone and ported my number. And I had no money to pay their bill anyway, so I did not pay it.
Sprint had an unimpeachable legal case that I owes them some ridiculous a mount of money for cancelling both contracts early ($600, IIRC), and they sold my debt to debt collectors.
It does not matter if I win $300 million in the next lottery, I am never paying those bastards a fucking dime.
1) In Ohio the typical benefit is $132 a month per person. That's $4 per day. It's possible to pull that off if you eat very little, don't mind eating poorly, and budget really well. If you have a little one around, and you aren't really good at saying no, you can end up short really easily, at which point you're shopping for food hungry the day your EBT card fills up.
2) And if you're shopping for food hungry with a little one in tow that perfectly calculated $264 budget that would last the two of you all month goes out the door real fast. They love snacks. They are hungry so they need something. And they are in a store that has been specifically designed to show them a snack every 30 second. It's very, very hard to tell your kid "no we can't have that," 50 times while food shopping, when you know he's only asking because you failed to feed him an adequate breakfast this morning, particularly if his friends are either not on food stamps or have moms who suck at budgeting, so the little munchkin thinks that Oreos are just something that loved children eat ALL THE TIME because when he's at his friends' houses he eats Oreos and his little friends don't tell him they're only eating Oreo's because it's the 8th, the EBT card filled up on the 4th, they have a friend over, and on the 3rd they'd be eating ramen and Ritz and no friends would be allowed.
3) Most people can't even conceive of eating this poorly, much less feeding kids this poorly. A 250-calorie TV Dinner is gonna be $1. That's not a meal, but it's a full quarter of your budget. More in October (31 days), less in February (28). You could probably spend under $1 on breakfast if you used those ginorous bags of cereal, and the cheapest brand of milk; but that's only gonna be another couple hundred calories and you've blown almost half your budget. And you;re eating the same thing every morning.
So you need lunch, fruits/vegetables, and drinks that add up to 1,400 calories or so a day if you're a woman (a man would need to stretch that cash to 2,000 or so calories). For $2. That's probably doable, but when I was on food stamps I never pulled that shit off. Maybe if I'd been a good cook. I was making enough part-time to eat really big lunches (600-1,500 calorie) at fast food joints, and that's how survived.
I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.
The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.
If you're saying they can get a guy convicted of rape, despite the fact he claims to have never seen the women, and the DNA test doesn't rule his cousins out, then you are indeed arguing that it's possible to get convicted based solely on DNA.
From other stories on Nelson Bernard Clifford it sounds like a) he was really good at convincing people the accuser might (just might) be a slut who invited him in for sex and is now scorning him because she's an evil bitch, and b) Maryland Judges consistently ruled that the Jury could not be told that this was the fourth time he'd been accused of rape by one of his "willing" partners. He's one of a very select group of defendents who actually profited from testifying at trial.
I know some of the lawyers at the Innocence Project and the National Associaton of Chriminal Defense Lawyers (not "Attorneys," sorry), and I also know some public defenders. I've heard them speak and read their articles and books. I've read their case files. What you're saying is simply not true.
There are "expert" witnesses who work for the defense and the prosecution (the prosecution has more money to hire them) who can often distort the scientific evidence and convince juries, even though the facts go against it. There were expert witnesses who used to claim that DNA matches were infalliable.
So you're paying a lawyer at least $1,000 per trial day, and $150 per hour otherwise; and you don't have $10k for a witness? Your lawyers retainer damn well better have been in the five-figures or you're an idiot who under-spent.
Hell, get the guy who only charges $5k. And, as a defendant, the expert doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to convince a single Juror there's "reasonable doubt."
I've been involved in the system quite a few times, from both perspectives. It's true that Jury's occasionally fuck up and convict someone for good reason. This is the nature of the system. Juries are not computers, and they are not predictable. Particularly in older cases, where DNA was not well understood and eyewitness accounts were given too much weight. But the system is designed so that a defendant can get off if he can convince one guy his side of the story isn't totally ridonkulous, which means that (barring terrible luck in the Jury room, and/or black skin, and/or a prior record), someone who has the funds for a defense (even a black guy with a prior record like Nelson Bernard Clifford) is likely to get off much more lightly then he deserves.
Which, of course, the system compensates for by over-convicting the more easily convictable people who are fund-free.
You think DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape? Let me introduce you to Nelson Bernard Clifford, who managed to convince three juries in three years that three near-identical sets of allegations, with DNA evidence, were actually consensual sex. Fifth time turned out to be the charm for that guy. I suspect they won that one because he ran out of money for decent defense attorneys, not because their case was actually stronger.
The databases you mentioned are filled with files from shitty lawyers, generally over-worked public defenders who don't have the time to deal with evidentiary hearings and can't pay 23andme $10k to send their witness over to explain why the test doesn't work the way the prosecution says. Hell, most of the time a public defender won't have the budget to schedule a phone call with the guy at 23andme who would know which person you'd need to talk to to effectively rebuke a prosecution case.
For the hack to work the headphones have to be plugged in. They are the attack vector. I can't think of a lot of use-cases where the headphones would be plugged in, but not in your ears.
Just have Siri or Ok Google say something whenever interpreting a voice command. Something simple like "OK Boss," would let the user know something is going on with their phone.
Which, of course, leaves the problem of how a non-tecvh-savy person would know that when your phone is doing weird shit you unplug the headphones, which is probably the harder thing to figure out, but hey.
Any record of you is accessible by a court-ordered warrant. That is the entire point of those Court Orders, they can make people give data about you to law enforcement.
And in fact, even under HIPAA, a mere subpoena will legally require them to turn over the information if it's signed by the right guy.
The nightmare scenario (your brother rapes a women, and you get convicted because 23andme had your blood sample, not his) is virtually impossible in the real world for anyone who can afford an attorney*, because if your lawyer points out that their evidence could also apply to him there's 50% doubt, and generally Juries think 50% doubt is reasonable doubt. To actually be convicted you'd have to either have a lawyer so inept that he wouldn't bring this shit up, or be in a very unique circumstance (ie: you're identical twins who went clubbing together that night, and the victim is also pretty sure you're the twin who drugged her) which would lead to your conviction anyway.
*As the Founders intended, it is virtually impossible for a person too poor to afford their own lawyer to successfully use any of his Constitutional rights.
Competitive target shooters start at 25 yards, or 25 meters, depending on the event. Most of them use air weapons that would be totally unsuitable for self-defense, such as air-guns, but some use.22s and Bullseye events can use.30s and.45s. The top actual competition has a maximum range of 50 meters with a.22.
If you're a gun hobbyist you probably shoot at targets at many different ranges, some quite close, with a weapon that could actually drop a man with one shot, particularly if you got into the hobby because you wanted a weapon for self-defense; but in that case you're not a competitive target-shooter.
I don't think most people would go for that, especially people who do target shooting competitively. The harder you have to squeeze the trigger, the more it fucks up your aim.
But a target pistol's shitty at self-defense. It's sighted for relatively long range, and (except for certain Bullseye events) small-caliber. For a self-defense weapon you'd want some stopping power, and you have virtually no use for ranges above 30 ft.
Bombing cities on the other side of the world is not going to convince the inhabitants that your culture is better or more "moral". Let's try not doing that for a change.
Who cares what the population wants if the taliban are the only game in town with guns?
Poli and Military Science fun fact: a dictator will retain power until his support drops below 20%, because of coordination issues. You need more then a handful of people to over-throwe the government, and if each one you talk to adds a 25% chance of snitching you're screwed. The Taliban have that 20%, and since they're willing to die for their cause (like ISIS in Northern Iraq, they took Kunduz with a much smaller force then the government, largely because nobody on the government side was willing to risk their lives), they win the Endmic Warfare-types battles that dominate Afghanistan.
stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name
I'm atheist and believe that all governments based on religion are the truest evil in the world. I'd like to see the Muslim extremists go too. That isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. At any rate, groups like the Taliban cannot keep returning unless they have support from the people around them. Afghanistan is not the U.S.
Now, what I would advocate for is to open our borders to refugees running from the wars we've started.
Your use of ad hominems is immature.
I'd like a lot more open immigration policy myself. But that's less likely then a stable Afghanistan with no Sharia Law*. Right now the GOP is freaking out that Catholics from Mexico might vote for a welfare state the size of the one that Mexico tries to have (they have universal health care, and it doesn't work too well because they can't afford it), how do you think they'd react to semi-literate Muslims who all have cousins in the Taliban?
*Strictly speaking we have some elements of Sharia law. If two Muslims sue each-other, and want to use Islamic Law to settle the dispute, they can hire a Sharia arbitrator, and we can't stop them.
MSF is not a friendly. It is not an ally. It's not a military unit fighting the Taliban. If you'd called them friendly, an ally, or tried to station a liaison officer in their hospital, a week ago they would have been the first to tell you to go fuck yourself because to do their jobs they need to be seen as neutral. Thus the Military is characterizing the incident as "collateral damage" rather then "Friendly fire."
The actual friendlies were either Afghan police or US Special Forces (the New York Times story implies there were SpecOps guys on the scene) were looking at the hospital building, and they were claiming to take fire from the hospital.
And you're saying that they should trust that a) the MSF has not lost the hospital to the Taliban while said Taliban controlled Kunduz, and b) the US Air Force should immediately trust a guy from a building we're bombing (because Afghan police told us to bomb it) when he pinky swears he's not Taliban over the phone.
Dude why are you so angry? Have a beer and chill out.
I'm not really angry, but I do not suffer fools gladly.
And, IMO, if you're in a debate on morality on the internet, and your response to "but if we do what you say 37,000 innocent people will die every year forever" is to say "chill out" you're a fool.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the term morality.
As this Kunduz debacle proves, it would be virtually impossible for a US-Air Force-free Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from taking over.
Obviously, the Taliban IS taking over. 14 years of bombing runs haven't prevented it. So, your suggestion is to keep bombing cities? It doesn't work.
You got another solution?
One that doesn't involve standing by while the Taliban massacre tens of thousands and saying "at least it's not our fault, let's go get drunk."
their interpretation of the Koran is very heavy on the "kill them all and let God sort them out" principle.
Does that include bombing hospitals and then chalking it up to "collateral damage"? Because that's what we just did.
Cheers!
Nope.
It involves stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name, and then acting really surprised when their cousins react by turning the province into a war zone. During the war male medical personal are inevitable targets for kidnapping (good ransoms, and the chaos created makes the local Governor look weak), and female medical personal are no longer employed.
Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."
No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.
Check the dictionary. "An arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus the procedures by which a person is arrested must comply with the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment or the arrest will be invalidated and any evidence seized during the arrest or confessions made after the arrest will typically be suppressed."
I believe I posted quite a bit of information on what, precisely, the Courts have decided constitutes "reasonable." It's got nothing to do with Cletus. People get searches thrown out all the time, assuming they're wealthy enough to have their own attorney.
The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.
Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.
Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.
Reread the Fourth Amendment. It specifically says that reasonable searches are legal. It specifically authorizes a procedure to legalize unreasonable searches. By use of the legal phrase "search and seizure" it specifically exempts all government information-gathering that is related to the President's Commander-in-Chief power. None of this is Judicial tinkering, none of it is unconstitutional, and none of it was opposed by the Founders or they would have written a very different Fourth Amendment.
I really, truly, feel for the poor fools who have deluded themselves into thinking their Sixth Grade teacher was not lying through her teeth when she described the Founders solely as champions of freedom; and implied that the Constitution was intended to do anything but create a strong enough state-structure to keep the Brits out with exactly enough freedom to keep the hoi polloi appeased. Anti-freedom elements require to keep said hoi polloi appeased were included with nary a blink.
The Fourth is actually probably the worst of the lot. It's sold as a "Right to Privacy," when it's written solely as a restriction on data-gathering for legal proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude,
They don't challenge the legality of a law at trial. The Jury's role in deciding whether a law should be enforced is restricted solely to Jury Nullification, a practice that every Judge ever appointed has done his damndest to minimize because of it's unsavory use in the past. That means that if you're talking about the legality of a law, and you're using any legal phrase that includes the word "trial" you're being unforgivably imprecise. Trial is a completely different stage of the process, a challenge to the NSA's practices would happen pre-trial.l If the Judge ruled in favor of the defense there's no trial because (as a matter of law) the Judge has ruled Snowden's behavior was not illegal. Since there's no trial, the Prosecution can appeal. OTOH if the Judge rules against the defense, the Espionage Act allows no public interest defense, so Snowden's only hopes would be to prove he didn't leak any documents. But the Defense could also appeal that ruling post-trial, which could be very complicated if they won.
And, as I said, The Ellsberg debacle is why his trial will be perfectly fair. The reason you think that Judge was biased isn't that he was applying the law improperly, it's that you think the law is already written the way you want when that is clearly not the case. I don't blame you for that. The English Majors who dominate the media aren't any better at actually comprehending technical legal documents then they are at comprehending any other sort of technical document; and most of them are so busy cheering for the cub reporters who beat Nixon on getting those Pentagon Papers published they literally haven't looked into what the law says about Ellsberg.They thought Nixon sucked, so they thought that when Blume ruled for Nixon Blume sucked, and it never occurred to them that if Blume was half as bad as they say nobody would ever have heard of Nixon's offer to make him FBI Director.
They really truly are clueless about the rules.
For example, have you read the Whistleblower Protection Act? It's pretty dense, but It says Snowden can't be fired for reporting misconduct through proper channels. Which would mean if he'd done what the Founders intended, and snitched to Congress, while staying in Hawaii, it would be more difficult to fire him (altho since he was a contractor they could probably fuck with his contract). But he left his job (which makes a bill that stops his boss in Hawaii from penalizing him at work somewhat superflous), he went through a ex-lawyer journalist who lives abroad (and thus is not a proper channel), etc.
In short, it simply does not apply to this case, or any other that uses the 1917 Espionage Act.
But since the media don't know that, they'll continue to go along in their belief that their sources are absolutely protected, they'll continue to tell you said sources are protected, they'll continue to imply that Obama's leaker conviction-spree is so bad the Courts will have to stop it soon, people like Snowden will continue leaking through them, which makes their ratings go up, makes future leakers likely to use them, and also (incidentally) makes said leakers go to prison; and people like you will continue to contribute to the process.
Seriously. A voice-mail to your Congressman asking him to call you back with his position on a) whether Snowden broke the law as it is currently enforced, and b) if so what changes to the law could fix that problem so the poor fucker could come home; would probably have taken you a lot less time then researching when that Whistleblower Act got passed. But you won't do it because you're in total denial about how the law works, and the media will continue to tell you you;re right about how the law works because if they didn't they'd feel incredibly guilty about grabbing eyeballs via leaks that will get Ed Snowden sent to prison.
"If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply."
Well that's already been done, but you seem unable to stick to the thread of discussion. I should you step right back to the beginning and start again, because you're arguing that I can't bring something up, that is relevant to the actual thread of discussion based on the summary. Believe it or not, discussions on forums can arch from the strict bounds of the original summary.
Here's my problem with that:
Nobody (except me) has presented any reason why the ECHR should intervene that actually uses legal terms correctly.
In particular you tech geek types seem so fixated on the "fair" bit of "fair trial" that you literally cannot comprehend that, legally speaking, a Fair Trial for Ed Snowden always results in a conviction; and therefore the ECHR is not able to keep him in Europe due to the likelihood of an unfair trial.
I have explained, several times, why a Fair Trial would always convict Snowden, and that the typical tech geek's strong belief that a trial that does not allow you to tell the Jury the Law is Evil is not unfair, it's fucking Tuesday. That does not happen at trial. It cannot happen at trial. If it happens at trial the trial is, by definition, unfair. That can happen pre-trial, or in appeals. But "Trial" is a very specific legal term, that is used for extremely limited legal purposes, and you do not, absolutely do not, ever, have the right to tell a Jury that you should not be convicted of leaking information because said information needed to be leaked.
What you guys are doing is analogous to what happens when one of your non-geek family members latches on to one word in a multi-word technical term and then takes hours of convincing before they realize that "Universal Serial Bus" products are not universal, and no their Amiga is not supposed to have a port for their iPhone.
For the record, yes I know I'm being fucking pedantic. Even for the internet. But we're not talking about the Chicago Bears here, we're talking about the law, and the law is the most pedantic subject ever created by the mind of man, so it's pretty important that you actually understand the terminology you're using.
Roughly 99% of the anguish caused by the EFF's failure to get the Courts to stop PRISM is caused by people not understanding how difficult it is to win a case like this, which is directly related to their difficulties parsing legal terminology.
"A fair trial is a trial where the defendant has the right to properly respond to the evidence. If said evidence is truly overwhelming, the tiral is basically a formality. Just ask Lars Ulbricht."
No, that's not a fair trial, that's a kangaroo court. A fair trial is where no assumptions are made before hand, yet you're arguing that the trial is largely irrelevant (a formality).
There's normal legal pedantic, and then there's dumb legal pedantic.
The Jury is not allowed to make assumptions. Which is actually one of Snowden's problems, because if the Defense can't call a witness who says the NSA programs were illegal, and the Judge is required to throw out anyone on the Jury who seems to know the difference between PRISM and Klingons (they already know about the case) then it's highly unlikely anyone in the Jury room is going to try for Jury nullification and let Ed free.
But the entire cases of both Prosecution and Defense are assumptions about a) the evidence that will be presented, and b) how that evidence will play in the Jury room. Both sides have their own ideas about how the case should bed, and it's the Jury's job to decide whether the Prosecution's idea has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge sees the evidence before the Jury does, and is told the lines of argumentation the two sides will use (Ulbricht's lawyers, for example, got their asses handed to them by the Judge because they waited until mid-trial to tell him what
> because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest
No, it's not "literally illegal". to mention that. The judge may give explicit directions against it, but intent is a critical and normal part of a legal defense, especially if Mr. Snowden cited the protections of the various "whistleblower" laws. There's also a great tendency of judges to shut down any attempt by a defense attorney to invoke "jury nullification", which is always available to a jury even when the judge explicitly says "you must only convict or acquit on *this* basis".
> There's no need for secrecy, special assassination teams, or anything special.
There's also "no need" for the excessive and abusive monitoring that Mr. Snowden disclosed.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers?
The government got that Judge to rule that Ellsberg could not present a public interest defense. That meant no witnesses saying "it's great he leaked this, I needed to know that," no documents saying he should have leaked it, if his attorney seems to be getting in a bunch of digs and questions that would give the Jury the impression it was a good idea he leaked it the only way to make the Trial fair for the Prosecution (remember: "Fair Trial" goes both ways) is let them present the widow of a Green Beret crying her eyes about how evil Danny Ellsberg dishonored her husband's memory, etc. Ellberg was fucked.
Then Nixon tried to rig the trial by refusing to disclose the source of evidence, attempting to bribe the Judge, etc. So Ellsberg today is a free man.
They're not gonna risk that agin.
Snowden will get a perfectly fair trial. Since he leaked the documents, and the question answered at trial will be "Did Ed Snowden leak these documents?," he will be found Guilty unless there is a reasonable case that some other person leaked those documents.
Except that, there is a _compelling_ need for people involved in such criminal, illegal behavior to punish whistleblowers, and for the people who've invested their professional lives in such abuse to vindicate themselves in anger, and especially for thise still involved in it to prevent any further disclosures or credible disclosures. What does Edward Snowden have left that he refused to leak before now to protect real intelligence assets? What might he feel free to reveal in a US court that might be leaked by the jury or the judge, and recorded in the court record?
Thee's also "no need" for a prosecutor to fail to present witnesses or for witnesses from the intelligence community, called by the defense, to lie under oath about illegal activity documented by Edward Snowden. But it's extremely likely to happen.
I'm not sure you understand what a "Trial" is.
A trial is the bit the Jury hears.
No Jury, ever, in the history of the United States, has been asked whether to let someone off on an espionage charge because the public interest outweighed the law. That's a Question of Law, and it is decided pre-trial, or (if a conviction happens) post-trial during the Appeals process. The entire basis of the Jury system is that Juries decide Questions of Fact (in this case: has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ed Snowden leaked the documents in question?), rather then Questions of Law (everything you're arguing, which is basically that his actions did enough good that he should not be Prosecuted). Therefore precedent is that the "public interest" is not a valid defense. Snowden's lawyers will try to make that case pre-trial, the Judge will shoot their asses down because his job is to enforce the law as it has been enforced for years.
This means the defense cannot legally call a witness who will testify that PRISM was evil. If he (and his lawyers) threaten additional leaks then there will be additional charges of Obstruction of Justice, and the
"And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?"
I'm not sure you know how such conventions work. European conventions are imposed on member states as things that must be implemented. Each member state has a legal implementation that is binding, and that can be ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights (they can also rule whether the implementation meets the standards of the legally bound to implement convention).
This thread is not about a Convention.
It is about a non-binding resolution passed by a Legislative body which would not have the authority to pass a binding resolution.
If you want to change the subject to the ECHR you can do that, but you'll have to explain why the ECHR would apply.
"He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US."
None of which has any relevance as to whether he'd get a fair trial. I'm not sure you really get how this whole justice thing works - hint: judgements are not decided upon what did or didn't happen in the spotlight of the media, only what happens in the court room.
I;'m not sure you uinderstand the meaning of the term fair trial.
A fair trial is a trial where the defendant has the right to properly respond to the evidence. If said evidence is truly overwhelming, the tiral is basically a formality. Just ask Lars Ulbricht.
In this case, the evidence is overwhelming. Snowden's on video saying he leaked the documents. His media partners have made numerous statements he leaked the documents. His Allies have made numerous statements that he's being persecuted because he leaked the documents. He's engaged in numerous actions that only make sense if he's on the run for leaking documents. Under US Law his defense (that it was in the public interest to expose unconstitutional behavior) is simply not allowed.
Granted, in theory a Jury could decide that he did not leak documents, but for that to work he'd have to convince them that his televised confessions were the delusional ravings of a madman and the media went along with it to protect the real leaker.
So in the real world, if the ECHR rules he can't be extradited they won't be ruling on whether his trial would be fair, because (as a very lady said about a similar gentleman) "a fair trial results in a hanging," they'd be ruling that European Human Rights law requires a public interest defense, and therefore no European law is allowed to be equivalent to the Espionage Act.
"The absolute last person in the world who wants a fair trial is Ed Snowden, because a fair trial results in a conviction. The absolute last people in the world who want to unfairly try Ed Snowden are the US Government, because the only way for them to lose a case like this is unfairly try it."
Yep, and that's why Guantanamo detainees were treated so fairly over the yea... oh wait, no, they weren't. It's a bit of a stretch to pretend the US circa 1971 is the same as the UK circa 2015. The last 15 years has provide a plethora of evidence that the quality of the US justice system has seen a profound slide away from fairness.
Don't play stupid.
GitMo detainees are non-citizens, non-white, and too poor to afford their own lawyers. Snowden is none of those things.
I think if you look for examples of white males with enough resources to pay $20-30k for a defense getting wrongfully convicted in the US you'll find that number's lower then the British number, because the US System is specifically designed to be racist and classist in favor of middle-class white guys.
"And again, this isn't the ECHR that's ruled. I doubt it could rule, seeing as he's not in Europe. It probably needs him to be there, and a US request for ext
And how would that be authorized by the Constitution?
Seriously, this is a fucking simple trial. This is what happens:
1) The Prosecutor reads the statute, which bans leaking of Classified info.
2) The Prosecutor shows a document, any document, from the stash that Snowden leaked.
3) The Prosecutor cues up a video of him explaining why he leaked it.
4) The defense does something, probably involving blaming Karpeles, because it is literally illegal for them to mention to the Jury that Snowden thought the leak was in the public interest. Any Juror likely to know that the leaks were in the publci interest, exposed PRIMS, etc. would have been banned by the Judge for knowing too much about the case pre-trial.
5) The Jury convicts because it is extremely unreasonable to conclude that Ed Snowden did not leak the documents.
There's no need for secrecy, special assassination teams, or anything special.
Not one extradition treaty in an EU member state overrules the European Convention on Human Rights which all EU member states are signatories to and members of.
And how is the European Convention on Human Rights related to a non-binding resolution passed by a body which does not have the legal authority to make a binding resolution in the first place?
The lack of the US' ability to guarantee Snowden will be granted a fair trial, means that any extradition treaty will be irrelevant in the face of a European Court of Human Rights challenge using the European Convention on Human Rights and it's implementations.
He's accused of leaking classified information. He did it. He's admitted as much in several public interviews. There is no leaker's defense in the US.
The absolute last person in the world who wants a fair trial is Ed Snowden, because a fair trial results in a conviction. The absolute last people in the world who want to unfairly try Ed Snowden are the US Government, because the only way for them to lose a case like this is unfairly try it.
When you're on international TV saying "I leaked these classified documents for the following reasons..." there just isn't much wiggle room regarding the Questions of Fact asked at a trial: 1) did Snowden leak those documents?, and 2) were they Classified?
If his so-called friends in the US had any brains at all they'd be calling for Louie Gohmert to introduce a bill forcing tyrant Obama to allow public interest defenses in cases like Ed Snowden's. That could actually get through Congress, and become enough of an issue that the next president would sign the damn thing.
But that would involve going through Congress, which is apparently verbotten until they've failed every possible way they can in Court.
This is precisely why the convention and court exist - to prevent any member state treating someone unfairly in violation of their fundamental rights by acting as a higher power that can determine if a member government is treating people within it's borders fairly or not. It's a fine example of the importance of it all, it's one entity that can tell governments it doesn't give a shit how much they wish to kowtow to the US, fundamental human rights come first.
Of course a nation state could break protocol and ignore an ECHR ruling, but then it also doesn't get to dictate to places like China, Russia, and so forth about human rights anymore, because it would then be hypocritical and meaningless to do so.
And again, this isn't the ECHR that's ruled. I doubt it could rule, seeing as he's not in Europe. It probably needs him to be there, and a US request for extradition,l before it can consider the issues.
Sorry, I hit submit by accident... Meant to add that, given what happened to Chelsey Manning, the prospect of being locked up on US soil rather than Guantanamo is hardly reassuring.
In the US the Military actually has it's own Court System, with it's own law-code.
Snowden would be in the civilian system. His conviction is pretty much a slam-dunk. Revealing Classified Info to people who don't have clearance is illegal,and he did that shit. Since Congress has not seen fit to adda public interest defense, or exception, or really anything of value to a Federal whistle-blower, you claims that he had to do it to reveal NSA misconduct are simply irrelevant legally.
Couldn't they just ask? It's not like these are state secrets...
They're the Chinese Security State. They don't know that. They just know that we tell them that, and then refuse to tell them what the health system actually does on an individual level on the basis of privacy rights.
Remember when the Russians places a super-deep-cover spy program in the US, and used it almost entirely to verify that what we write in out publicly available media is actually true?
So I could actually believe some bureaucrat in China with a hacking team decided too get this data in hopes it would help him in some bureaucratic Kung-Fu when preparing their universal health program.
OTOH, if you hear hooves horses are more likely then zebras. It's more likely that this was a criminal hack, probably to get people's names, birthdays, and SSNs.
How much was your debt for?
If this guy was improperly charged for a hospital stay pre-ObamaCare, it was at least five figures, probably closer to six. They would have charged him the uninsured price, which is the highest price they can charge anybody because the way insurance worked pre-ObamaCare a hospital would start at it's high price and the insurers would negotiate a hefty discount (generally at least 50%, frequently in the 90s)*. It would not be killing his chance of getting a mortgage if it was $600 or even $6,000.
A collection agency is not gonna write off that much debt without a fight. A fight he would win, but which would take up time. They would rather dispute it knowing they'll lose, and provide whatever documentation the hospital gave in the first place to the credit reporting agency. Then the OP has to get the credit rating agency to talk to the hospital, verify the debt the collection agency is talking about is tied to that hospital, etc.
Since that that fight will take time that the OP does not have (because he's trying to close on the house NOW), the collection agency hopes that he'll send them $4k-5k to get them to go away.
*Post-ObamaCare the uninsured get the best price that any insurer has negotiated, which means that if your insurance company sucks your co-pay can be more then a waitress would pay. But, OTOH, the waitress is not getting stuck with a $60k bill because she drank a bit too much, took a nasty fall, and got driven to a hospital that strongly believed in high-balling it's prices in insurance negotiations.
Ever dealt with these guys?
You don't get enough info to call them yourself, because they do not want enraged people tracking them down at the office. They call you. They hear sob stories all the time. They do not have the resources to actually check any of them out, and they're kinda scummy, so you tell them anything but "this is my new Credit Card number," they simply ignore it. Your debt stays on their books, on your credit report, and you keep getting calls. Eventually they sell your debt to a new agency, and you have to start over.
In theory the hospital should have refunded them the money they paid for the debt in the first place, but sine it's likely that the original agency resold the debt, and that agency re-resold, etc. they'd have to find the guys who currently have the debt. Then, since that company paid cash for the debt they'd have to find some way to compensate them for giving up their claim to that debt.
I think they're paid on commission. In that case the guy who keeps the job tends to be the guy who ignores the rules when they get in the way of his commission.
It's the only way you could get them to be so aggressive.
There was this time I was 10 months into a 12-month phone contract, and it wasn't the cheap voice and text-only contract. I also had a mobile internet contract. I got fired. They wouldn't let me switch to a lower-tier plan for two months because I had a Blackberry, which I had purchased myself. Then the Blackberry got stolen.
I needed a phone so I bought a Trakphone and ported my number. And I had no money to pay their bill anyway, so I did not pay it.
Sprint had an unimpeachable legal case that I owes them some ridiculous a mount of money for cancelling both contracts early ($600, IIRC), and they sold my debt to debt collectors.
It does not matter if I win $300 million in the next lottery, I am never paying those bastards a fucking dime.
A couple points about food stamps.
1) In Ohio the typical benefit is $132 a month per person. That's $4 per day. It's possible to pull that off if you eat very little, don't mind eating poorly, and budget really well. If you have a little one around, and you aren't really good at saying no, you can end up short really easily, at which point you're shopping for food hungry the day your EBT card fills up.
2) And if you're shopping for food hungry with a little one in tow that perfectly calculated $264 budget that would last the two of you all month goes out the door real fast. They love snacks. They are hungry so they need something. And they are in a store that has been specifically designed to show them a snack every 30 second. It's very, very hard to tell your kid "no we can't have that," 50 times while food shopping, when you know he's only asking because you failed to feed him an adequate breakfast this morning, particularly if his friends are either not on food stamps or have moms who suck at budgeting, so the little munchkin thinks that Oreos are just something that loved children eat ALL THE TIME because when he's at his friends' houses he eats Oreos and his little friends don't tell him they're only eating Oreo's because it's the 8th, the EBT card filled up on the 4th, they have a friend over, and on the 3rd they'd be eating ramen and Ritz and no friends would be allowed.
3) Most people can't even conceive of eating this poorly, much less feeding kids this poorly. A 250-calorie TV Dinner is gonna be $1. That's not a meal, but it's a full quarter of your budget. More in October (31 days), less in February (28). You could probably spend under $1 on breakfast if you used those ginorous bags of cereal, and the cheapest brand of milk; but that's only gonna be another couple hundred calories and you've blown almost half your budget. And you;re eating the same thing every morning.
So you need lunch, fruits/vegetables, and drinks that add up to 1,400 calories or so a day if you're a woman (a man would need to stretch that cash to 2,000 or so calories). For $2. That's probably doable, but when I was on food stamps I never pulled that shit off. Maybe if I'd been a good cook. I was making enough part-time to eat really big lunches (600-1,500 calorie) at fast food joints, and that's how survived.
I never said that DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape.
The cases of Nelson Bernard Clifford show that you also have to prove lack of consent. I don't have the details of the case, and I can't understand why the jury would acquit 4 times based on the evidence as reported by the Baltimore Sun. But it looks like he had a good defense lawyer.
If you're saying they can get a guy convicted of rape, despite the fact he claims to have never seen the women, and the DNA test doesn't rule his cousins out, then you are indeed arguing that it's possible to get convicted based solely on DNA.
From other stories on Nelson Bernard Clifford it sounds like a) he was really good at convincing people the accuser might (just might) be a slut who invited him in for sex and is now scorning him because she's an evil bitch, and b) Maryland Judges consistently ruled that the Jury could not be told that this was the fourth time he'd been accused of rape by one of his "willing" partners. He's one of a very select group of defendents who actually profited from testifying at trial.
I know some of the lawyers at the Innocence Project and the National Associaton of Chriminal Defense Lawyers (not "Attorneys," sorry), and I also know some public defenders. I've heard them speak and read their articles and books. I've read their case files. What you're saying is simply not true.
There are "expert" witnesses who work for the defense and the prosecution (the prosecution has more money to hire them) who can often distort the scientific evidence and convince juries, even though the facts go against it. There were expert witnesses who used to claim that DNA matches were infalliable.
So you're paying a lawyer at least $1,000 per trial day, and $150 per hour otherwise; and you don't have $10k for a witness? Your lawyers retainer damn well better have been in the five-figures or you're an idiot who under-spent.
Hell, get the guy who only charges $5k. And, as a defendant, the expert doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to convince a single Juror there's "reasonable doubt."
I've been involved in the system quite a few times, from both perspectives. It's true that Jury's occasionally fuck up and convict someone for good reason. This is the nature of the system. Juries are not computers, and they are not predictable. Particularly in older cases, where DNA was not well understood and eyewitness accounts were given too much weight. But the system is designed so that a defendant can get off if he can convince one guy his side of the story isn't totally ridonkulous, which means that (barring terrible luck in the Jury room, and/or black skin, and/or a prior record), someone who has the funds for a defense (even a black guy with a prior record like Nelson Bernard Clifford) is likely to get off much more lightly then he deserves.
Which, of course, the system compensates for by over-convicting the more easily convictable people who are fund-free.
You think DNA evidence alone is enough to convict for rape? Let me introduce you to Nelson Bernard Clifford, who managed to convince three juries in three years that three near-identical sets of allegations, with DNA evidence, were actually consensual sex. Fifth time turned out to be the charm for that guy. I suspect they won that one because he ran out of money for decent defense attorneys, not because their case was actually stronger.
The databases you mentioned are filled with files from shitty lawyers, generally over-worked public defenders who don't have the time to deal with evidentiary hearings and can't pay 23andme $10k to send their witness over to explain why the test doesn't work the way the prosecution says. Hell, most of the time a public defender won't have the budget to schedule a phone call with the guy at 23andme who would know which person you'd need to talk to to effectively rebuke a prosecution case.
For the hack to work the headphones have to be plugged in. They are the attack vector. I can't think of a lot of use-cases where the headphones would be plugged in, but not in your ears.
Just have Siri or Ok Google say something whenever interpreting a voice command. Something simple like "OK Boss," would let the user know something is going on with their phone.
Which, of course, leaves the problem of how a non-tecvh-savy person would know that when your phone is doing weird shit you unplug the headphones, which is probably the harder thing to figure out, but hey.
Really. Really. Not shocking at all.
Any record of you is accessible by a court-ordered warrant. That is the entire point of those Court Orders, they can make people give data about you to law enforcement.
And in fact, even under HIPAA, a mere subpoena will legally require them to turn over the information if it's signed by the right guy.
The nightmare scenario (your brother rapes a women, and you get convicted because 23andme had your blood sample, not his) is virtually impossible in the real world for anyone who can afford an attorney*, because if your lawyer points out that their evidence could also apply to him there's 50% doubt, and generally Juries think 50% doubt is reasonable doubt. To actually be convicted you'd have to either have a lawyer so inept that he wouldn't bring this shit up, or be in a very unique circumstance (ie: you're identical twins who went clubbing together that night, and the victim is also pretty sure you're the twin who drugged her) which would lead to your conviction anyway.
*As the Founders intended, it is virtually impossible for a person too poor to afford their own lawyer to successfully use any of his Constitutional rights.
Stupid Slashdot, with no edit button.
The Olympic event I mentioned at 50 meters is the only Olympic pistol event.
Competitive target shooters start at 25 yards, or 25 meters, depending on the event. Most of them use air weapons that would be totally unsuitable for self-defense, such as air-guns, but some use .22s and Bullseye events can use .30s and .45s. The top actual competition has a maximum range of 50 meters with a .22.
If you're a gun hobbyist you probably shoot at targets at many different ranges, some quite close, with a weapon that could actually drop a man with one shot, particularly if you got into the hobby because you wanted a weapon for self-defense; but in that case you're not a competitive target-shooter.
(make it really hard to squeeze?)
I don't think most people would go for that, especially people who do target shooting competitively. The harder you have to squeeze the trigger, the more it fucks up your aim.
But a target pistol's shitty at self-defense. It's sighted for relatively long range, and (except for certain Bullseye events) small-caliber. For a self-defense weapon you'd want some stopping power, and you have virtually no use for ranges above 30 ft.
You got another solution?
Bombing cities on the other side of the world is not going to convince the inhabitants that your culture is better or more "moral". Let's try not doing that for a change.
Who cares what the population wants if the taliban are the only game in town with guns?
Poli and Military Science fun fact: a dictator will retain power until his support drops below 20%, because of coordination issues. You need more then a handful of people to over-throwe the government, and if each one you talk to adds a 25% chance of snitching you're screwed. The Taliban have that 20%, and since they're willing to die for their cause (like ISIS in Northern Iraq, they took Kunduz with a much smaller force then the government, largely because nobody on the government side was willing to risk their lives), they win the Endmic Warfare-types battles that dominate Afghanistan.
stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name
I'm atheist and believe that all governments based on religion are the truest evil in the world. I'd like to see the Muslim extremists go too. That isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. At any rate, groups like the Taliban cannot keep returning unless they have support from the people around them. Afghanistan is not the U.S.
Now, what I would advocate for is to open our borders to refugees running from the wars we've started.
Your use of ad hominems is immature.
I'd like a lot more open immigration policy myself. But that's less likely then a stable Afghanistan with no Sharia Law*. Right now the GOP is freaking out that Catholics from Mexico might vote for a welfare state the size of the one that Mexico tries to have (they have universal health care, and it doesn't work too well because they can't afford it), how do you think they'd react to semi-literate Muslims who all have cousins in the Taliban?
*Strictly speaking we have some elements of Sharia law. If two Muslims sue each-other, and want to use Islamic Law to settle the dispute, they can hire a Sharia arbitrator, and we can't stop them.
Horseshit yourself.
MSF is not a friendly. It is not an ally. It's not a military unit fighting the Taliban. If you'd called them friendly, an ally, or tried to station a liaison officer in their hospital, a week ago they would have been the first to tell you to go fuck yourself because to do their jobs they need to be seen as neutral. Thus the Military is characterizing the incident as "collateral damage" rather then "Friendly fire."
The actual friendlies were either Afghan police or US Special Forces (the New York Times story implies there were SpecOps guys on the scene) were looking at the hospital building, and they were claiming to take fire from the hospital.
And you're saying that they should trust that a) the MSF has not lost the hospital to the Taliban while said Taliban controlled Kunduz, and b) the US Air Force should immediately trust a guy from a building we're bombing (because Afghan police told us to bomb it) when he pinky swears he's not Taliban over the phone.
Dude why are you so angry? Have a beer and chill out.
I'm not really angry, but I do not suffer fools gladly.
And, IMO, if you're in a debate on morality on the internet, and your response to "but if we do what you say 37,000 innocent people will die every year forever" is to say "chill out" you're a fool.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the term morality.
As this Kunduz debacle proves, it would be virtually impossible for a US-Air Force-free Afghanistan to keep the Taliban from taking over.
Obviously, the Taliban IS taking over. 14 years of bombing runs haven't prevented it. So, your suggestion is to keep bombing cities? It doesn't work.
You got another solution?
One that doesn't involve standing by while the Taliban massacre tens of thousands and saying "at least it's not our fault, let's go get drunk."
their interpretation of the Koran is very heavy on the "kill them all and let God sort them out" principle.
Does that include bombing hospitals and then chalking it up to "collateral damage"? Because that's what we just did.
Cheers!
Nope.
It involves stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name, and then acting really surprised when their cousins react by turning the province into a war zone. During the war male medical personal are inevitable targets for kidnapping (good ransoms, and the chaos created makes the local Governor look weak), and female medical personal are no longer employed.
No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.
Check the dictionary. "An arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus the procedures by which a person is arrested must comply with the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment or the arrest will be invalidated and any evidence seized during the arrest or confessions made after the arrest will typically be suppressed."
I believe I posted quite a bit of information on what, precisely, the Courts have decided constitutes "reasonable." It's got nothing to do with Cletus. People get searches thrown out all the time, assuming they're wealthy enough to have their own attorney.
Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.
Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.
Reread the Fourth Amendment. It specifically says that reasonable searches are legal. It specifically authorizes a procedure to legalize unreasonable searches. By use of the legal phrase "search and seizure" it specifically exempts all government information-gathering that is related to the President's Commander-in-Chief power. None of this is Judicial tinkering, none of it is unconstitutional, and none of it was opposed by the Founders or they would have written a very different Fourth Amendment.
I really, truly, feel for the poor fools who have deluded themselves into thinking their Sixth Grade teacher was not lying through her teeth when she described the Founders solely as champions of freedom; and implied that the Constitution was intended to do anything but create a strong enough state-structure to keep the Brits out with exactly enough freedom to keep the hoi polloi appeased. Anti-freedom elements require to keep said hoi polloi appeased were included with nary a blink.
The Fourth is actually probably the worst of the lot. It's sold as a "Right to Privacy," when it's written solely as a restriction on data-gathering for legal proceedings.