42
   

Snowdon is a dummy

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:03 pm
@Olivier5,
Was it true Olivier that members of the French aristocracy before 1789 could only be charged with an offence by the King?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:03 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

"Idle charges brought by people with an ax to grind" seems to perfectly characterise the charges against Snowden. Smile


Well, the charges were brought by the United States Department of Justice...and I think they are anything but "idle."

You sound as though you don't have a high opinion of the DOJ...and that is your right. But the charges they bring should be decided by a jury.

Quote:
So who would be a "competent authority to make charges of the sort we are discussing" against Obama, if Paul is incompetent?


While in office...The House of Representatives. After leaving office, the DOJ.

Paul, in my opinion, is not incompetent...he is just bat-**** crazy...although I am hoping fiercely that he gets the nod to head the Republican ticket in the next presidential election.

But he most assuredly is not "competent authority" to bring charges of the sort we are discussing, Olivier.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I really do wish you would stop telling me what I understand or don't understand. I know the Patriot Act was written in haste due to 9/11. I was alive at the time and remember it well. It might well be that revisions need to be made and new laws written. If they are, I will not be adverse to them.
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:08 pm
@Olivier5,
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/11/12/us-refuses-to-cooperate-with-afghan-investigation-into-war-crimes/


US refuses to cooperate with Afghan investigation into War crimes

Last week, Matthieu Aikins at Rolling Stone shed light on evidence that U.S. forces committed war crimes against Afghans, including extra-judicial executions, torture, and disappearances of at least 17 men.

The following day, Human Rights Watch issued a statement urging an official investigation, but noted that “the U.S. has a meager record of investigating and prosecuting human rights abuses allegedly committed by its forces during its 12-year military presence in Afghanistan.”

Today, Reuters reports on the hard evidence that the U.S. has deliberately rebuffed efforts to investigate these murders:

Afghanistan’s intelligence service has abandoned its investigation into the murder of a group of civilians after being refused access to U.S. special forces soldiers suspected of involvement, according to a document obtained by Reuters.

…In the report authored by Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) intelligence agency, investigators said they had asked the United States for access to three U.S. Green Berets and four Afghan translators working with them but were rebuffed.

“Despite many requests by NDS they have not cooperated. Without their cooperation this process cannot be completed,” said the report, which was originally published on September 23.

Needless to say, it’s hard to investigate a crime committed by American forces in Afghanistan if the U.S. refuses to cooperate.

But even when investigations do occur, U.S. soldiers typically get off easy. Eight of the nine U.S. soldiers charged with the 2005 massacre of 24 Iraqi men, women, and children in Haditha, Iraq were not convicted. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who was charged with leading the slaughter, was convicted in a plea bargain of a single count of “dereliction of duty.” He was demoted to the rank of private and will serve no jail time.

The “Kill Team” in Afghanistan, the army unit that planned and committed executions of multiple innocent, unarmed Afghan civilians, framing the dead as having been a threat, and mutilating their corpses as trophies received light sentences as well. All but the ringleader of the Kill Team received reduced sentences and are eligible for parole in a handful of years. Even the ringleader, described as evil by one of the other defendants, was sentenced to life in prison, but could be eligible for parole in less than 10 years.

A State Department diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks revealed that U.S. forces committed a heinous war crime during a house raid in Iraq in 2006, wherein one man, four women, two children, and three infants were summarily executed. Not a single American soldier was prosecuted and no investigation was initiated.

In one notable and comparable incident in February of 2010, U.S. Special Operations Forces surrounded a house in a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan. Two civilian men exited the home to ask why they had been surrounded and were shot and killed. U.S. forces then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager).

U.S. troops lied and tampered with the evidence at the scene. Investigations eventually forced the Pentagon to issue an apology, but none of the soldiers were charged with a crime.

Most of these incidents were revealed to the public because of intrepid journalism and they almost certainly represent a tiny minority of the U.S. crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:12 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

I really do wish you would stop telling me what I understand or don't understand. I know the Patriot Act was written in haste due to 9/11. I was alive at the time and remember it well. It might well be that revisions need to be made and new laws written. If they are, I will not be adverse to them.


I agree with you here, Revelette. But what some of these good folk seem to miss is that the changes have to be made through dint of law, by the congress...or by decisions of the SCOTUS.

Until then...they ARE the laws of the land.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:13 pm
@revelette2,
I challenged what you said. You wrote,
Quote:
The author of the Patriot Act can't just years later (when it is no longer popular) say it was never intended to do all this and that be a legal law. (don't how to word what I am saying, but I think the gist got across)


Yes, he can! You're not the authority of how anyone changes their mind on something they were responsible for in the past.
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:13 pm
@revelette2,
Hi Rev.
Could you answer the question asked in the thread linked to below?

http://able2know.org/topic/234906-1#post-5580281
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:22 pm
@revelette2,
Using technology to spy on American citizens from outside the US instead of inside isn't just a loophole it's a crime.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
...and the courts will decide if the NSA broke any laws.


When?
anonymously99
 
  -2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:23 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Quote:
Hi Rev. Could you answer the question asked in the thread linked to below? http://able2know.org/topic/234906-1#post-5580281


Anon shared:
Maybe I was looking for a dumbass reason to butcher your thread.

As I have many others.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:23 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...and the courts will decide if the NSA broke any laws.


When?


That, in our system, Izzy...is up to them. They decide when to hear questions...and when to pass on them.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
How convenient.
anonymously99
 
  -1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Following footsteps

0 Replies
 
anonymously99
 
  -1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:29 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
How convenient.


:sincere smile while looking down being lost in thought:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:29 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

How convenient.


How would you change it?
JTT
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:35 pm
@anonymously99,
Thank you, A.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
(I'm just now listening to the United States Air Force in Europe Band' Wings of Dixie , playing patriotic music - hoping that helps!)

Indeed, I do have some problems with US-criminal law.
For instance, here theft is theft - if you get something unlawful from a homeless or a government agency.
My other problem certainly is that re Snowdon a law from the WW1-period is used ... which actually had a different purpose.

I do know that the Sedition Act was repealed by Congress but he Espionage Act remain part of United States law to the present day.
Criticizing the Espionage Act seems to be unlawful as well (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211).
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

(I'm just now listening to the United States Air Force in Europe Band' Wings of Dixie , playing patriotic music - hoping that helps!)

Indeed, I do have some problems with US-criminal law.
For instance, here theft is theft - if you get something unlawful from a homeless or a government agency.


I appreciate the fact that you have issues with US law...but I am not sure of what you were trying to illustrate here. Theft is theft here also...and murder is murder. Charges are brought...and a judge and jury decide the issue. Then it can be appealed...on up to the SCOTUS.

Quote:

My other problem certainly is that re Snowdon a law from the WW1-period is used ... which actually had a different purpose.


I am confident that somewhere along the line, people truly wanted to make it illegal to steal classified government documents...and release them to unauthorized persons. This law seems to do that...and he is charged under that act. I think the DOJ may be over-reaching on some of the charges...but that is not an unusual thing. The procedure will sort that out.

Quote:
I do know that the Sedition Act was repealed by Congress but he Espionage Act remain part of United States law to the present day.
Criticizing the Espionage Act seems to be unlawful as well (Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211).


Okay...but you do realize that we simply cannot do away with laws because some people think them to be unwarranted.

These laws are now on the books...and Snowden has been charged with violating them.

He has an opportunity to present a defense, but according to the law as it now stands, there doesn't seem to be a viable, reasonable defense.

So???
anonymously99
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 12:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So???


How are you today?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Thu 13 Feb, 2014 01:01 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Since you seem to be in the mood for "patriotic music" though, perhaps you'd enjoy listening to the national anthem I consider the most beautiful.

Here it is straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A71wdsTqkfM

Here it is jazzed up a bit...but probably my favorite version (for reasons that may seem obvious):



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_qm3Ym8-k

EDIT: Changed the second link.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Snowdon is a dummy
  3. » Page 290
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 07:49:28