Yes, that's right. It's nothing but rubbish that existed in the past that no one without an agenda ever brings up- even the scientists who should have scientifically discounted or explained away it by now id they are stating the opposite.
All we need to know is what is told us but the non-biased global warming cult members who don't want to hear anything about anything that doesn't sing their own tune.
And no, Faraday did not anticipate the global average temp increasing, he gave us a mathematical formula concerning the retention of heat as Co2 increased. This formula by the way has not products any significant models that I am aware of that are any more accurate in predictions then the previous methods.
And if you haven't guess by now, I'm not criticizing the concept of global warming, I'm criticizing your ability to chastise others for essentially what you are doing yourself.
Actually, it's been called both for about the same period of time.
In was 1992 I think when the UN commissioned the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their course of study was if the science showed that Humans had an impact on the climate- most notably the warming trends being stated since the mid 1980's. So the IPCC was set to study warming and any connections to humans.
The warming couldn't be proven conclusivly outside of a mere association. Models got it wrong on predictions but for some reason were always able to be adjusted to replay information that would again get it wrong on predictions. This latest note in this ongoing battle is just illustrative of that little problem.
The reason why the dumbasses don't get it is two fold. First it is specifically because people who didn't get it made assertions that proved to be untrue time and time again and even rejected feed back and forcing corrections based around someone's association with an oil company years ago. Second, it is because the entire science has been hijacked for political motivation in efforts to push through unpopular policies and redistribute wealth in which exaggerating the first reason made possible. In short, the reason the dumbasses don't get it is because it's not pure science on the level being approached or interacting by them.
Restrictions over copying and distributed copyrighted materials or knowingly giving the enemy information about bases, equipment, troop strength, operations, personnel and so on as define in the espionage act.
the point is that there are limits to the freedom of the press and the press cannot just do anything it wants in some regards.
I'm not sure about that. I forget which case exactly, but a guy attempted to fight a public indecency charge in court by having his wife testify that no one could make out his genitalia from a distance as far away as the closest witness claimed to be because of it's size.
I don't think he won the case either. After a quick search, I couldn't find the specific case I was thinking of, but claiming you have a small endowment appears to be happening more and more.
You will have to follow some of the links on that page to read more about the specific cases..
It is entirely possible to have two bad entities here and to only speak about one of them. The lack of speaking about the other, or even considering the other does not in any way change the one.
If you can't understand that, think of it this way. Suppose there were crimes that happened and you couldn't figure out who actually committed them but the evidence pointed to three or four likely suspects. Now knowing that only one of them could have committed the crime but you can't prove which one, the state locks them all up for the crime. Does locking up the innocent people get excused because the criminal was actually caught? Of course the answer it no, and the state doesn't absolve itself from those wrongs because it turned out that one was right.
In the same sense, just because one entity is breaking the law(s) doesn't mean another entity is absolved from breaking laws in exposing that. Two wrong do not make a right, even if the information released stops one of the wrongs. And neglecting to talk about the other in no way makes the wrong disappear.
IT doesn't matter because the point he was making is that even with a free press there are still restrictions on what can be released by the press.
Saying that Government e-mail is not copyrighted says nothing about the restrictions in the first place and only ignores that they are there and capable of being in place.
The US hasn't taken action against Wikileaks. As far as I (we) know, these companies acted in their own interests of not being wrapped up in legal charges that are likely to happen against Wikileaks.
If you own a business and that business knowingly offers services or products to aid the commission of a crime, in the US, that business and anyone making the decisions to continue doing that business is facing charges themselves.
When you have this much publicity surrounding an entity that has done an act that many are claiming to be illegal, it's obvious that US businesses want to sever liability associated with doing business with them to avoid prosecutions- both civil and criminally.
You are right, due process should happen. But I can't fault someone or some entity for not wanting to get sucked into someone else' legal battles. This isn't the US taking from wikileaks, it's companies attempting to limit potential liability under US law that has existed long before wikileaks was a wet dream in it's founder's loins.
What part of should be facing the death penalty is where I want him killed. As I already expained, I think he should be getting the most severe punishment possible and in his case that happens to be the death penalty. If the max were 10 years in prison, I would have said he should be facing the 10 years in prison.
Now, that does not in any way mean to say I want him killed. I want the most severe punishment possible applied which is killing him in this instance. And pointing that difference out does not mean in any way that I retracted anything. I did no pretend I didn't write he should be killed, I said I have no personal reason to see him dead other then that's the strongest punishment available under the law and he should get it.
I cannot withdraw any allegations that you are insane because all appearances set forward by yourself seem to indicate that is an accurate depiction. You should seek professional help at your earliest opportunity possible.
Peasants flocked to their kings as not to piss them off and suffer their wrath. Well, that and you are lead to believe that the kind or president is so important that he doesn't have time for the likes of you. When that changes, it does get somewhat exciting.
The best way to combat leaks is to offer misinformation. All they have to do is flood the gates with garbage, taint certain portions of it to close down in where it came from, and let it go.
In this type of handling leaks, it won't take long to find out where they are coming from and put a stop to that but more importantly, it would prove the information wasn't reliable and it wouldn't gain that much attention.
I mean seriously, how serious would the Iraq war leaks been taken if scattered all throughout them was documents pertaining to assistance receive in battle from the justice league and Superman? How about payment vouchers to mickey mouse and Pluto? How about the diplomat cables if there was realistic looking communications to an embassy office on mars pertaining to a military base on pluto and the categorizing of pluto to something other then a planet was just a cover to take attention away from the base?
I mean what would you think if you saw crap like that in a document dump claimed to be secret communications and files stolen from the US government? You probably already think there is something wrong in the government, but would you trust the information claimed to be secret when it talks about Superman flying over metropolis and noticing Wonder Woman sunbathing nude on her balcony?
Well, maybe your solution would appear too much like Obama was attempting to bring back child labor. Wait a minute, it said school children will be holding the mirrors- maybe that is the point, to get kids back into the work force so America can start being competitive in the manufacturing industry like china.
Politicians should not be giving speeches in places where people are obligated by law to attend. That's not how freedom works. It's really that simple.
Now do not confuse speeches with government functions like giving information on a state of emergency. Obama's speech was not in any way going to be part of an official government function.
It's rumored that the target is the remaining identification number parts that could be used to validate it was issued when it's claimed it was. I guess the hope would be to change it and blame it on a science experiment so it was no fault of his own.
I think you are holding Assange to a higher pedigree then he deserves. In all investigative jounalism, there is context in the story. Wikileaks is not providing anything other then raw information. Jounalism tells a story. No matter what story that is, it tells the who, what, when, where and attempts to place why in there too. Those are the five tenents of good jounalism.
Suppose I duped you into giving me your bank account and credit card information somehow and broke the laws to do so. You can liken Assange's journalism attempts to the New York times putting your bank account and credit card information in the paper along with all the times you spent money at the strip bar and how much because I gave it to them then they said "find the who, what, when, where, how, or why, yourself"- there is no context or perspective and the information was originally obtained illegally.
But back to the analogy though, lets suppose there is no law saying I couldn't stand in the middle of any street and shoot my gun and there was a constitutional right to do so. But there was a law saying you can't have a stolen gun when doing this and you can't harm anyone when doing this. Now we are back to the cops not doing anything until I actually broke the law.
But I guess maybe the analogy is starting to become a distraction now as it's not practical or directly comparable given the extended meanings it's taking on. I think we both agreed that it wouldn't absolve me from being a bad person and that was my point.
Well, you are also forgetting that the US government was supposed to be little more then a head of state (read foreign affairs) for the several states and settle or set rules to avoid disputed between the states. It was never intended to be this omnipotent being that has jurisdiction over the entire country in every matter. This is evident by how it doesn't have any ability to enforce most of it's laws unless they are violated on government property or somehow cross state lines.
I'm asking because you answered in the form of a question and I don't know if you were suggesting it might have happened or it might be because that happened. I was never any good at Jeopardy anyways.
Well, to be more accurate if we must change the comparisons, he gave them the gun and gave them the chance to unload it first.
I'm glad your conclusion is the same though, I would still be a terrible person- even if the cops missed a bullet. But I'm not sure the cops would be the bad person too. You see, nothing obligated them to prevent you from breaking a law outside of the punishment of the law. If you are still going to violate the law, their inaction until certain other actions happen doesn't make them bad people.
please note: I'm not sticking up for the cops, I just believe that if we are going to have freedom, then we can't have cops stopping us from doing things because of what they think might happen. They can only stop us when it is happening or bring us to justice after it happens. And yes, that's a little different then the leaks as censoring the leaks would also be confirming the validity of anything potentially damaging to the US or allies in the battlefield. The US government was in a no win situation as if they stepped in, they were basically confirming that Omar was the guy who tipped them off about the weapons stash and given wikileaks' aggressive posture to the US, we don't know if they would have given that information to the enemy or not. There is nothing saying that wikileaks wouldn't have just done a diff on the documents and passed on the now refined information to our enemies. Do you or anyone else think that would be a wise position to get behind? I mean you are basically telling a foreign entity that their spies got the real information at this point.
And even if you think wikileaks reputation is incapable of this and they would never encroach a situation like that, you have to assume that others might have copies of the information and could run the diffs on the documents wikileaks released themselves. The case is not clear at all of the US is bad TOO because it didn't help wikileaks do something it shouldn't have done in the first place.
The post I fucking replied to in the first place. What a pointless waste of time talking to a deluded piece of shit.
You replied to a bunch of posts. I'm not even sure if you know who wrote it and are attributing something to me or not. Fuck, I mean it's not like I haven't asked you to cite the crap you were referring to before and now you cannot explain this simple little task or point to a statement I made? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse in some effort to conceal your own ignorance or something?
Giving Iran and fucking Hezbolla stuff to kill Americans is OK in your book but something that might get make Hillary Clinton accountable for giving illegal orders is not?
I never said it was ok, I said there was/is a difference between the two and there is. Do I need to list those differences out in bullet points and draw you a fucking picture? We weren't in armed conflict with Iran and Hezbullah at the time the arms transfers were made. And even if we were, the administration has the right under the constitution and several laws to make that choice. Manning does not have any right to make that choice and swore he wouldn't.
There are processes and procedures that are in place to notify authorities is a government official or superior officer is doing something wrong or illegal and if Manning would have followed those processes first- he wouldn't be in this situation. But because he failed to take the proper action and in turn gave secrets to the enemy and foreign nations at a time of war, he is facing the death penalty and my championing the enforcement of the law changes nothing on that. Face it, you are wrong, he was wrong and just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that is wrong.
Laws for the weak but the mighty run free?
And where is that happening? You have misconstrued and attempted to strong disimular situations together to paint a picture that does not exist. At best, all that you have shown is that you are a delusional idiot not worth the electrons wasted in the posts you wrote.
You sicken me and you are the exact opposite of the man you attempt to portray yourself as.
Judging from your lack of understanding about the situations and scenarios you attempted to speak about, I'm thinking you couldn't figure out what I attempt to portray myself as. There is a difference between what you have brought up, that difference is encoded in law as well as the punishment. If you seriously think that someone shouldn't get the punishment the law offered because someone else who broke a different law at another time altogether didn't get the same punishment the law provides for Manning, then you have a lot more problems then you and I can deal with. I suggest you seek professional help.
Your rambling about "secret pardons" is shown for the ignorance it is by a simple google search. Try a search for "pardon bush iran conta" and the top link is link to the New York Times with the heading "Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial". You really have no clue so please stop pretending I'm making things up. Time to throw this back in your face after your accusation about me making things up over the pardons - "It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable".
And did you read those links you found? It was pardons for Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, obert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George. North and Poindexter WERE NOT PARDONED.
Your action of calling for the death of somebody that committed a relatively trivial crime and then pretending you didn't sickens me.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I suggest less mindless cheerleading and less of a royalist attitude and something more closely resembling adult behaviour
The death penalty is the strictest punishment available under the law, Getting or stating you want the strictest punishment applied is not cheerleader at all. It's hoping that someone get in the most trouble possible for the crime they committed. And again, no the crime Manning did is not even close to Iran Contra in scope, effect, or available punishments.
That "might makes right" attitude is why we have problems with countries that practice it, such as China and Iran.
You are showing your delusions again. It's not might makes right, it's the punishment under the law and Manning new all about it well before ho chose on his own free will, to put the lives of his fellow service members in danger by releasing the information to foreigners including the enemies he was fighting.
You may pretend to be a patriot by cheering on your political team right or wrong and calling for the deaths of those that embarrass the state but you are really pushing to create a little piece of Iran at home (complete with revisionist history when reality is inconvenient).
Nope, I'm simply calling for the law to be enforced as written. And I'm not really any different then you, you seem to be foaming so bad you are imagining things about Oliver North and kin. Manning knew the penalty that was possible and he should have to face it.
As for the "everyone else", you'll find that you are a rarity and almost everyone in the entire western world values the rule of law over the rule of force.
Does the Espionage act say the penalty for giving information to the enemy in a time of war is death? I'm pretty sure it does. And don't get caught up on formal declarations of war because the war powers act specifically define what we are doing as a war. Manning knew what he was doing, he now should have to pay the piper, It's that simple. I'm sorry you don't like that but from our conversation, it seems that there is a lot you don't like. As I said before, this isn't a problem with the rest of the world, it's a problem with you.
I believe he was repeating a joke line from some movie or famous quote of some sort. I've heard it before several times before this internet thing really existed in most areas.
Are you suggesting that someone is righteous in doing a disturbing thing because someone else declined to aid them in doing it?
Are you suggesting that because the police doesn't stop something from happening, it's somehow justified in happening no matter how many people it endangered?
I mean because if this is the case and prevailing wisdom, I always wanted to run into the middle of a busy street and pull my glock and empty the clip while closing my eyes and turning in circles. Do you suppose if I yell, I'm going to do this so help me get everyone out of danger first, I will be exonerated from the potential deaths and injury that would occur when the cops don't stop me first or move the innocents out of the way first?
You see, I have always been of the thinking that if I did something like that, I was a bad person and this wouldn't change no matter who failed or refused to stop me or get the lives I could potential take our of harms way first.
Yes, and you don't need to look any furthur than the block of text you quoted where I said "a pardon after a guilty verdict is very different to "not guilty" you know". From what you have said it is extremely obvious that you know very little about it and are just cheering for what you think are members of your political team (which they are not because they were self serving criminals merely exploiting connections).
Really, Do you really think so? Here is a hint, there was never any pardon. Their cases were thrown out on appeal. An over turned case is not a pardon no matter how much you want it to be. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Even after I told you that you are wrong, you could have at minimum attempted to look it up and make sure you were right, you didn't because there isn't any pardon and you know it but don't want to admit to it. If there had been some secret pardon no one but you knows about, I'm sure you would have provided links instead of closing your eyes and insisting it to be true.
It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable. So when we check that out and find no fucking evidence of the sorts, you then attempt to claim it's my political bias for not believing what you cannot produce.
As for the other bits they just demonstrate the view that some people are above the law that I was pointing out earlier, and a weasel excuse of policy or the President said so is not enough to put somebody above the law if US values are to be respected.
When you are the constitutional being that is supposed to create and shape policy, then you changing that policy- if only for a short period of time, is a lot different then someone with absolutely no authority to do so making changes. You may not like it, It's certainly apparent that you don't understand it, but it's simply not on the same levels as your attempting to make out. And it's a pointless bullshit argument because it doesn't change anything concerning Manning because the two situations are so dissimilar, the same laws don't even apply.
Also the sales were still going on right until they were uncovered in 1987, so that is why other events in 1987 were happening at the same time! Give up on the clueless cheerleading for people that are your enemy and just happened to have connections with the part you cheer for.
Are you just making shit up now? The last arms transfer happened in October of 1986 and was something like 500 tow missiles. The Lebanese news paper outed the deals in march of 1987. They were not ongoing and if you would have checked, you would have known this. Stop calling people stupid cheerleaders when you can't even get your facts straight.
East Timor was no more "communist/socialist" than Washington and probably less so than Franklin! Try reading more than just excuses for a very sudden reversal in policy that just happend the day Ford was in Jakarta accepting a large donation for the Republican party from a foreign head of state.
Yawn.... I'm sorry the world is much different then you let yourself believe. I'm also sorry that your delusions camp out in your mind above reality. I've gotten my information from many places and they all say something completely different then you. East Timor was run but member of the communist party whether you want to admit to it or not. It wasn't a sudden reversal of policy.
Nobody wants to write that the USA was for sale that day and we didn't really know it was until about five years ago.
You right, nobody want to write false and incorect lies. Trust me, it's not the world or everyone out to get you, it's not everyone trying to make you look funny or feed you a bunch of crap, it's you who is confused and probably delusional. Yep, it's you- not everyone else that wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's right. It's nothing but rubbish that existed in the past that no one without an agenda ever brings up- even the scientists who should have scientifically discounted or explained away it by now id they are stating the opposite.
All we need to know is what is told us but the non-biased global warming cult members who don't want to hear anything about anything that doesn't sing their own tune.
And no, Faraday did not anticipate the global average temp increasing, he gave us a mathematical formula concerning the retention of heat as Co2 increased. This formula by the way has not products any significant models that I am aware of that are any more accurate in predictions then the previous methods.
And if you haven't guess by now, I'm not criticizing the concept of global warming, I'm criticizing your ability to chastise others for essentially what you are doing yourself.
Actually, it's been called both for about the same period of time.
In was 1992 I think when the UN commissioned the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their course of study was if the science showed that Humans had an impact on the climate- most notably the warming trends being stated since the mid 1980's. So the IPCC was set to study warming and any connections to humans.
The warming couldn't be proven conclusivly outside of a mere association. Models got it wrong on predictions but for some reason were always able to be adjusted to replay information that would again get it wrong on predictions. This latest note in this ongoing battle is just illustrative of that little problem.
The reason why the dumbasses don't get it is two fold. First it is specifically because people who didn't get it made assertions that proved to be untrue time and time again and even rejected feed back and forcing corrections based around someone's association with an oil company years ago. Second, it is because the entire science has been hijacked for political motivation in efforts to push through unpopular policies and redistribute wealth in which exaggerating the first reason made possible. In short, the reason the dumbasses don't get it is because it's not pure science on the level being approached or interacting by them.
Restrictions over copying and distributed copyrighted materials or knowingly giving the enemy information about bases, equipment, troop strength, operations, personnel and so on as define in the espionage act.
the point is that there are limits to the freedom of the press and the press cannot just do anything it wants in some regards.
I'm not sure about that. I forget which case exactly, but a guy attempted to fight a public indecency charge in court by having his wife testify that no one could make out his genitalia from a distance as far away as the closest witness claimed to be because of it's size.
I don't think he won the case either. After a quick search, I couldn't find the specific case I was thinking of, but claiming you have a small endowment appears to be happening more and more.
You will have to follow some of the links on that page to read more about the specific cases..
Two wrongs, or any wrong does not make a right.
It is entirely possible to have two bad entities here and to only speak about one of them. The lack of speaking about the other, or even considering the other does not in any way change the one.
If you can't understand that, think of it this way. Suppose there were crimes that happened and you couldn't figure out who actually committed them but the evidence pointed to three or four likely suspects. Now knowing that only one of them could have committed the crime but you can't prove which one, the state locks them all up for the crime. Does locking up the innocent people get excused because the criminal was actually caught? Of course the answer it no, and the state doesn't absolve itself from those wrongs because it turned out that one was right.
In the same sense, just because one entity is breaking the law(s) doesn't mean another entity is absolved from breaking laws in exposing that. Two wrong do not make a right, even if the information released stops one of the wrongs. And neglecting to talk about the other in no way makes the wrong disappear.
IT doesn't matter because the point he was making is that even with a free press there are still restrictions on what can be released by the press.
Saying that Government e-mail is not copyrighted says nothing about the restrictions in the first place and only ignores that they are there and capable of being in place.
The US hasn't taken action against Wikileaks. As far as I (we) know, these companies acted in their own interests of not being wrapped up in legal charges that are likely to happen against Wikileaks.
If you own a business and that business knowingly offers services or products to aid the commission of a crime, in the US, that business and anyone making the decisions to continue doing that business is facing charges themselves.
When you have this much publicity surrounding an entity that has done an act that many are claiming to be illegal, it's obvious that US businesses want to sever liability associated with doing business with them to avoid prosecutions- both civil and criminally.
You are right, due process should happen. But I can't fault someone or some entity for not wanting to get sucked into someone else' legal battles. This isn't the US taking from wikileaks, it's companies attempting to limit potential liability under US law that has existed long before wikileaks was a wet dream in it's founder's loins.
What part of should be facing the death penalty is where I want him killed. As I already expained, I think he should be getting the most severe punishment possible and in his case that happens to be the death penalty. If the max were 10 years in prison, I would have said he should be facing the 10 years in prison.
Now, that does not in any way mean to say I want him killed. I want the most severe punishment possible applied which is killing him in this instance. And pointing that difference out does not mean in any way that I retracted anything. I did no pretend I didn't write he should be killed, I said I have no personal reason to see him dead other then that's the strongest punishment available under the law and he should get it.
I cannot withdraw any allegations that you are insane because all appearances set forward by yourself seem to indicate that is an accurate depiction. You should seek professional help at your earliest opportunity possible.
Relax. The USDA doesn't do a whole bunch of mission critical crap anyways.
It could be worse, you could be stuck in Detroit.
Peasants flocked to their kings as not to piss them off and suffer their wrath. Well, that and you are lead to believe that the kind or president is so important that he doesn't have time for the likes of you. When that changes, it does get somewhat exciting.
Not really.
The best way to combat leaks is to offer misinformation. All they have to do is flood the gates with garbage, taint certain portions of it to close down in where it came from, and let it go.
In this type of handling leaks, it won't take long to find out where they are coming from and put a stop to that but more importantly, it would prove the information wasn't reliable and it wouldn't gain that much attention.
I mean seriously, how serious would the Iraq war leaks been taken if scattered all throughout them was documents pertaining to assistance receive in battle from the justice league and Superman? How about payment vouchers to mickey mouse and Pluto? How about the diplomat cables if there was realistic looking communications to an embassy office on mars pertaining to a military base on pluto and the categorizing of pluto to something other then a planet was just a cover to take attention away from the base?
I mean what would you think if you saw crap like that in a document dump claimed to be secret communications and files stolen from the US government? You probably already think there is something wrong in the government, but would you trust the information claimed to be secret when it talks about Superman flying over metropolis and noticing Wonder Woman sunbathing nude on her balcony?
Well, maybe your solution would appear too much like Obama was attempting to bring back child labor. Wait a minute, it said school children will be holding the mirrors- maybe that is the point, to get kids back into the work force so America can start being competitive in the manufacturing industry like china.
Nah.. That can't be it.,
Politicians should not be giving speeches in places where people are obligated by law to attend. That's not how freedom works. It's really that simple.
Now do not confuse speeches with government functions like giving information on a state of emergency. Obama's speech was not in any way going to be part of an official government function.
Yep..
It's rumored that the target is the remaining identification number parts that could be used to validate it was issued when it's claimed it was. I guess the hope would be to change it and blame it on a science experiment so it was no fault of his own.
I think you are holding Assange to a higher pedigree then he deserves. In all investigative jounalism, there is context in the story. Wikileaks is not providing anything other then raw information. Jounalism tells a story. No matter what story that is, it tells the who, what, when, where and attempts to place why in there too. Those are the five tenents of good jounalism.
Suppose I duped you into giving me your bank account and credit card information somehow and broke the laws to do so. You can liken Assange's journalism attempts to the New York times putting your bank account and credit card information in the paper along with all the times you spent money at the strip bar and how much because I gave it to them then they said "find the who, what, when, where, how, or why, yourself"- there is no context or perspective and the information was originally obtained illegally.
But back to the analogy though, lets suppose there is no law saying I couldn't stand in the middle of any street and shoot my gun and there was a constitutional right to do so. But there was a law saying you can't have a stolen gun when doing this and you can't harm anyone when doing this. Now we are back to the cops not doing anything until I actually broke the law.
But I guess maybe the analogy is starting to become a distraction now as it's not practical or directly comparable given the extended meanings it's taking on. I think we both agreed that it wouldn't absolve me from being a bad person and that was my point.
Well, you are also forgetting that the US government was supposed to be little more then a head of state (read foreign affairs) for the several states and settle or set rules to avoid disputed between the states. It was never intended to be this omnipotent being that has jurisdiction over the entire country in every matter. This is evident by how it doesn't have any ability to enforce most of it's laws unless they are violated on government property or somehow cross state lines.
Did this happen or are you guessing?
I'm asking because you answered in the form of a question and I don't know if you were suggesting it might have happened or it might be because that happened. I was never any good at Jeopardy anyways.
We don't agree often so I think I should say "good job on putting this into a thoughtful and rational perspective".
Well, to be more accurate if we must change the comparisons, he gave them the gun and gave them the chance to unload it first.
I'm glad your conclusion is the same though, I would still be a terrible person- even if the cops missed a bullet. But I'm not sure the cops would be the bad person too. You see, nothing obligated them to prevent you from breaking a law outside of the punishment of the law. If you are still going to violate the law, their inaction until certain other actions happen doesn't make them bad people.
please note: I'm not sticking up for the cops, I just believe that if we are going to have freedom, then we can't have cops stopping us from doing things because of what they think might happen. They can only stop us when it is happening or bring us to justice after it happens. And yes, that's a little different then the leaks as censoring the leaks would also be confirming the validity of anything potentially damaging to the US or allies in the battlefield. The US government was in a no win situation as if they stepped in, they were basically confirming that Omar was the guy who tipped them off about the weapons stash and given wikileaks' aggressive posture to the US, we don't know if they would have given that information to the enemy or not. There is nothing saying that wikileaks wouldn't have just done a diff on the documents and passed on the now refined information to our enemies. Do you or anyone else think that would be a wise position to get behind? I mean you are basically telling a foreign entity that their spies got the real information at this point.
And even if you think wikileaks reputation is incapable of this and they would never encroach a situation like that, you have to assume that others might have copies of the information and could run the diffs on the documents wikileaks released themselves. The case is not clear at all of the US is bad TOO because it didn't help wikileaks do something it shouldn't have done in the first place.
You replied to a bunch of posts. I'm not even sure if you know who wrote it and are attributing something to me or not. Fuck, I mean it's not like I haven't asked you to cite the crap you were referring to before and now you cannot explain this simple little task or point to a statement I made? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse in some effort to conceal your own ignorance or something?
I never said it was ok, I said there was/is a difference between the two and there is. Do I need to list those differences out in bullet points and draw you a fucking picture? We weren't in armed conflict with Iran and Hezbullah at the time the arms transfers were made. And even if we were, the administration has the right under the constitution and several laws to make that choice. Manning does not have any right to make that choice and swore he wouldn't.
There are processes and procedures that are in place to notify authorities is a government official or superior officer is doing something wrong or illegal and if Manning would have followed those processes first- he wouldn't be in this situation. But because he failed to take the proper action and in turn gave secrets to the enemy and foreign nations at a time of war, he is facing the death penalty and my championing the enforcement of the law changes nothing on that. Face it, you are wrong, he was wrong and just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean that is wrong.
And where is that happening? You have misconstrued and attempted to strong disimular situations together to paint a picture that does not exist. At best, all that you have shown is that you are a delusional idiot not worth the electrons wasted in the posts you wrote.
Judging from your lack of understanding about the situations and scenarios you attempted to speak about, I'm thinking you couldn't figure out what I attempt to portray myself as. There is a difference between what you have brought up, that difference is encoded in law as well as the punishment. If you seriously think that someone shouldn't get the punishment the law offered because someone else who broke a different law at another time altogether didn't get the same punishment the law provides for Manning, then you have a lot more problems then you and I can deal with. I suggest you seek professional help.
And did you read those links you found? It was pardons for Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, obert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George. North and Poindexter WERE NOT PARDONED.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The death penalty is the strictest punishment available under the law, Getting or stating you want the strictest punishment applied is not cheerleader at all. It's hoping that someone get in the most trouble possible for the crime they committed. And again, no the crime Manning did is not even close to Iran Contra in scope, effect, or available punishments.
You are showing your delusions again. It's not might makes right, it's the punishment under the law and Manning new all about it well before ho chose on his own free will, to put the lives of his fellow service members in danger by releasing the information to foreigners including the enemies he was fighting.
Nope, I'm simply calling for the law to be enforced as written. And I'm not really any different then you, you seem to be foaming so bad you are imagining things about Oliver North and kin. Manning knew the penalty that was possible and he should have to face it.
Does the Espionage act say the penalty for giving information to the enemy in a time of war is death? I'm pretty sure it does. And don't get caught up on formal declarations of war because the war powers act specifically define what we are doing as a war. Manning knew what he was doing, he now should have to pay the piper, It's that simple. I'm sorry you don't like that but from our conversation, it seems that there is a lot you don't like. As I said before, this isn't a problem with the rest of the world, it's a problem with you.
I believe he was repeating a joke line from some movie or famous quote of some sort. I've heard it before several times before this internet thing really existed in most areas.
Are you suggesting that someone is righteous in doing a disturbing thing because someone else declined to aid them in doing it?
Are you suggesting that because the police doesn't stop something from happening, it's somehow justified in happening no matter how many people it endangered?
I mean because if this is the case and prevailing wisdom, I always wanted to run into the middle of a busy street and pull my glock and empty the clip while closing my eyes and turning in circles. Do you suppose if I yell, I'm going to do this so help me get everyone out of danger first, I will be exonerated from the potential deaths and injury that would occur when the cops don't stop me first or move the innocents out of the way first?
You see, I have always been of the thinking that if I did something like that, I was a bad person and this wouldn't change no matter who failed or refused to stop me or get the lives I could potential take our of harms way first.
Really, Do you really think so? Here is a hint, there was never any pardon. Their cases were thrown out on appeal. An over turned case is not a pardon no matter how much you want it to be. You are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Even after I told you that you are wrong, you could have at minimum attempted to look it up and make sure you were right, you didn't because there isn't any pardon and you know it but don't want to admit to it. If there had been some secret pardon no one but you knows about, I'm sure you would have provided links instead of closing your eyes and insisting it to be true.
It's little inaccuracies like that which makes most of everything else you say seem so unbelievable. So when we check that out and find no fucking evidence of the sorts, you then attempt to claim it's my political bias for not believing what you cannot produce.
When you are the constitutional being that is supposed to create and shape policy, then you changing that policy- if only for a short period of time, is a lot different then someone with absolutely no authority to do so making changes. You may not like it, It's certainly apparent that you don't understand it, but it's simply not on the same levels as your attempting to make out. And it's a pointless bullshit argument because it doesn't change anything concerning Manning because the two situations are so dissimilar, the same laws don't even apply.
Are you just making shit up now? The last arms transfer happened in October of 1986 and was something like 500 tow missiles. The Lebanese news paper outed the deals in march of 1987. They were not ongoing and if you would have checked, you would have known this. Stop calling people stupid cheerleaders when you can't even get your facts straight.
Yawn.... I'm sorry the world is much different then you let yourself believe. I'm also sorry that your delusions camp out in your mind above reality. I've gotten my information from many places and they all say something completely different then you. East Timor was run but member of the communist party whether you want to admit to it or not. It wasn't a sudden reversal of policy.
You right, nobody want to write false and incorect lies. Trust me, it's not the world or everyone out to get you, it's not everyone trying to make you look funny or feed you a bunch of crap, it's you who is confused and probably delusional. Yep, it's you- not everyone else that wrong.