This case is a pathetic travesty of justice. The border guards could have raped him, his wife, shot his kids, and as long as they had previously "instructed" him to comply, and he acted exactly as he had in reality, he STILL would be in the same position as he is today. And, more absurdly, the jury would still have been able to use the "well, he didn't follow instructions, so, as the law was explained to us, he was guilty". This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system. No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer. This is what's happening here.
This case sticks. The border cops who knew they are untouchable, the DA who is pushed this, the judge who 'instructed' the jury, the whole bloody lot of them stink. And the jurors who went along with it, the 'peers' who were the man's final line of defense let him down. They are moral cowards.
Truly. "We couldn't do anything". "It wasn't our fault".
No, you're right. It wasn't your fault that the DA structured the case so that the man WOULD be convicted. They didn't bring up any of those pesky unprovable charges, so they got a "letter of the law" technicality.
I'm just curious - did the thought of simply voting "not guilty" not cross your mind. How about jury nullification? How about simply being a dick to the DAs who were defending the border guards?
Was following the letter of the precious law worth a potential 2-year jail sentence for a man who is not bad "by any stretch of the imagination"?
Nice job. Go home and tell your kids what a hero you were for "following the law".
Why not go along with? How about "moral stance"? Or if that's too abstract, how about this: the man is a bona fides genius. If anyone's got the right to ignore fatuous platitudes, I think his intellectual accomplishment confers the privilege. The better question is this: why do you think everyone needs to conform to your notion of "graciousness"?
Perhaps this was not your intent, but you come across as that annoying neighborhood old lady that wants to see to it that everyone "conform", and gossips behind your back when you don't. Such small-mindedness in this community is embarrassing. Yeah, yeah. I'm new here.
Hm...let me see if I can fix that... let's see if this works for, say, education...
We have scarce education resources, so we should only educate smart people. Stupid people, and people with disabilities shouldn't be education - that'd be like charity. If you want to educate them, we need a separate bill.
1) Yes, but does it run Linux.... 2) Imagine a beowulf cluster of these... 3) I can't understand 200 pages/minute, what's that in LOC/furlough? 4) I can't read you insensitive clod. 5) In Soviet Russia, the book scans the book scanner...wait that's not quite right...ah, got it,... the book scans you! 6.1) Scan books real fast 6.2) Tie into massive database that indexes every perceivable medium on the planet 6.3) Get sued by publishers. 6.4).... 6.5) Profit!! 7) How fast can it build a 3d model of Natalie Portman with hot gritz? 8) The CIA will use this to scan every page of the manuscripts you've stored in your apartment and will come for your tin foil. 9) Netcraft confirms: reading is dying... 10) A book scanner is like a car that drives really fast over a highway full of book pages...
The nature of political debate and commentary shifts. I can see it now...
* "We need to allocate more funds for Congressional statutory drinking" * "I can't drink - my religion prohibits this. This law is unconstitutional, waaa!" * "If you don't drink (Johnny Walker/White Horse/Jack Daniels) you're not a REAL American" * (In Texas) "...how can we entertain a notion inspired by those East-coast ivory-tower appletini-drinking fag^H^H^H^H liberals...." * (In Mass) "...how can we entertain a notion espoused by those cow-herding, tequila swilling hick^H^H^H^H conservatives..." * "The honor'ble member is a MORON! (barf)" * 100 drunk Senators song * "More hookers!" * Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the temperance movement? (Follows the "I have here a list of non-drinking employees of the Department of State" speech) * Read my lips: no more scotch! * "Trickle down" economics gets a whole new twist.
... and finally...
* "Mr. President, we must not allow a distillery gap!"
You've not said anything that one could disagree with. "To you" there is no difference. Ok. To me there is.
I won't comment on the B5 point, but as far as anime goes....do you know Japanese? Do you know anything about the culture, and how the voice acting style, word choice and pronunciation affect the viewer's perception of the character? Love Hina is funny in both versions, it's just that the English one is missing much of the context. Oh, and the implications of the English voice actors screws up the character dynamic. But, hey, if it works for you...
"Rights" as well as "fees" are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs. The issue of the impossibility of having "rights" for something you consider a service is very much open to debate. You have the "right" to travel on highways - which are arguably a service. In some instances there is a fee, e.g. toll roads, and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore. So there you go - a right that is not free.
Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right?
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.
Uhm...citation needed?
It couldn't be because people think that Guantanamo is morally offensive, could it? No, it's because people are irresponsible little twits who need a stern government hand to keep them in line, right? I don't know what your background is, be it security, espionage, or military that you hold such adamant views, but let me suggest this: the aggregate "harm" of all wikileaks' activities is less than the active harm caused by the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame. And those bastards did it on purpose.
Now, talk to me again about "lack of consequences".
identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers...
I can understand that the government can harass, hound, and persecute those it does not like into oblivion. Comes with the turf. But if their objective is to destroy wikileaks, then this method, is, to put it bluntly, bass ackwards. How is it that the armchair wafflebutt who came up with this crock of sh*t never heard of the Streisand Effect?
Seriously, these are the people keeping the US safe? That their brilliant plan is to do precisely the kind of thing the Internet is really good at defeating?
Slashdot Mirror
I call BS. Some of us, as teens, did not have sex. It's highly debatable whether that was a "choice", however.
This case is a pathetic travesty of justice. The border guards could have raped him, his wife, shot his kids, and as long as they had previously "instructed" him to comply, and he acted exactly as he had in reality, he STILL would be in the same position as he is today. And, more absurdly, the jury would still have been able to use the "well, he didn't follow instructions, so, as the law was explained to us, he was guilty". This is a sick collusion between members of the justice system. No judge wants to prosecute the police or any law enforcement officer. This is what's happening here.
This case sticks. The border cops who knew they are untouchable, the DA who is pushed this, the judge who 'instructed' the jury, the whole bloody lot of them stink. And the jurors who went along with it, the 'peers' who were the man's final line of defense let him down. They are moral cowards.
This stinks.
You are pathetic.
Truly. "We couldn't do anything". "It wasn't our fault".
No, you're right. It wasn't your fault that the DA structured the case so that the man WOULD be convicted. They didn't bring up any of those pesky unprovable charges, so they got a "letter of the law" technicality.
I'm just curious - did the thought of simply voting "not guilty" not cross your mind. How about jury nullification? How about simply being a dick to the DAs who were defending the border guards?
Was following the letter of the precious law worth a potential 2-year jail sentence for a man who is not bad "by any stretch of the imagination"?
Nice job. Go home and tell your kids what a hero you were for "following the law".
It's so very embarrassing when one goes for the throat, and realizes not only was it an overreaction, the throat belongs to a better man.
I shouldn't have attacked like that. I apologize. Thank you for being so controlled in your response. I will debate better henceforth.
(And I agree, generally it's not ok to be rude. I have a math background so this whole melodrama stirred some ugly feelings.)
Since when is an insult flamebait?
Alternatively: are you really that delicately thin-skinned?
Alternatively: Read beyond the first 4 words.
No I didn't, apparently. Good job. (Come on, man! No one RTFA's, you want people to RTFP?! ) :)
Why not go along with? How about "moral stance"? Or if that's too abstract, how about this: the man is a bona fides genius. If anyone's got the right to ignore fatuous platitudes, I think his intellectual accomplishment confers the privilege. The better question is this: why do you think everyone needs to conform to your notion of "graciousness"?
Perhaps this was not your intent, but you come across as that annoying neighborhood old lady that wants to see to it that everyone "conform", and gossips behind your back when you don't. Such small-mindedness in this community is embarrassing. Yeah, yeah. I'm new here.
You do know that Colbert is a *parody* of a right-winger, right?
Not a troll! Come on!
Hm...let me see if I can fix that... let's see if this works for, say, education...
We have scarce education resources, so we should only educate smart people. Stupid people, and people with disabilities shouldn't be education - that'd be like charity. If you want to educate them, we need a separate bill.
I think that works. FIFY.
</sarcasm>
Impassioned, not flamebait.
Mods, get it together. Feelings will run a little high on this one. Stop being little spoiled opinion nazis.
Nothing is as bad for the future of America as Fox says.
Well, except Fox itself.
New political insult:
"He couldn't get elected dog DNA sequencer in this county!"
+5 Insightful!
1) Yes, but does it run Linux.... ... the book scans you! ....
2) Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
3) I can't understand 200 pages/minute, what's that in LOC/furlough?
4) I can't read you insensitive clod.
5) In Soviet Russia, the book scans the book scanner...wait that's not quite right...ah, got it,
6.1) Scan books real fast
6.2) Tie into massive database that indexes every perceivable medium on the planet
6.3) Get sued by publishers.
6.4)
6.5) Profit!!
7) How fast can it build a 3d model of Natalie Portman with hot gritz?
8) The CIA will use this to scan every page of the manuscripts you've stored in your apartment and will come for your tin foil.
9) Netcraft confirms: reading is dying...
10) A book scanner is like a car that drives really fast over a highway full of book pages...
Someone needs to fix the above list for me.
The nature of political debate and commentary shifts. I can see it now...
* "We need to allocate more funds for Congressional statutory drinking"
* "I can't drink - my religion prohibits this. This law is unconstitutional, waaa!"
* "If you don't drink (Johnny Walker/White Horse/Jack Daniels) you're not a REAL American"
* (In Texas) "...how can we entertain a notion inspired by those East-coast ivory-tower appletini-drinking fag^H^H^H^H liberals...."
* (In Mass) "...how can we entertain a notion espoused by those cow-herding, tequila swilling hick^H^H^H^H conservatives..."
* "The honor'ble member is a MORON! (barf)"
* 100 drunk Senators song
* "More hookers!"
* Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the temperance movement? (Follows the "I have here a list of non-drinking employees of the Department of State" speech)
* Read my lips: no more scotch!
* "Trickle down" economics gets a whole new twist.
* "Mr. President, we must not allow a distillery gap!"
...welcome our new, non-scarring, regenerating....
too easy, forget it.
You've not said anything that one could disagree with. "To you" there is no difference. Ok. To me there is.
I won't comment on the B5 point, but as far as anime goes....do you know Japanese? Do you know anything about the culture, and how the voice acting style, word choice and pronunciation affect the viewer's perception of the character? Love Hina is funny in both versions, it's just that the English one is missing much of the context. Oh, and the implications of the English voice actors screws up the character dynamic. But, hey, if it works for you...
"There are no stupid questions, but there are alot of inquisitive idiots"
"Rights" as well as "fees" are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs. The issue of the impossibility of having "rights" for something you consider a service is very much open to debate. You have the "right" to travel on highways - which are arguably a service. In some instances there is a fee, e.g. toll roads, and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore. So there you go - a right that is not free.
Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right?
I kiiid, I kiiiid :)
Were you also implying that everything down there is on the subatomic scale?
Permit me to add my own heartfelt support to your aforementioned sentiment.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences.
Uhm...citation needed?
It couldn't be because people think that Guantanamo is morally offensive, could it? No, it's because people are irresponsible little twits who need a stern government hand to keep them in line, right? I don't know what your background is, be it security, espionage, or military that you hold such adamant views, but let me suggest this: the aggregate "harm" of all wikileaks' activities is less than the active harm caused by the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame. And those bastards did it on purpose.
Now, talk to me again about "lack of consequences".
identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers...
I can understand that the government can harass, hound, and persecute those it does not like into oblivion. Comes with the turf. But if their objective is to destroy wikileaks, then this method, is, to put it bluntly, bass ackwards. How is it that the armchair wafflebutt who came up with this crock of sh*t never heard of the Streisand Effect?
Seriously, these are the people keeping the US safe? That their brilliant plan is to do precisely the kind of thing the Internet is really good at defeating?
Epic fail.