Snowdon is a dummy

@Frank Apisa,

Don't get a Frenchman started about his balls. You'd be hitting more than you can chew. Figuratively speaking.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Don't get a Frenchman started about his balls. You'd be hitting more than you can chew. Figuratively speaking.

Class!

Work on it, Olivier.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And YOU are the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

We'll, I do have a moral conscience, as I hope you do.

Quote:

Edward Snowden is the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

He does have a moral conscience to. He can make that determination.

Quote:

The courts of the United States are the determiners of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

They are the LEGAL determiner in this case. Like for a case in Botswana, it would be the Botswana courts.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I'm low class and proud of it. Suck it up.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

By the way, how's daily no 3182 going?

I solved no 3183 (hard) yesterday. Took me hours but it has it's rewards. Very tricky puzzle. Moving on to 3184 (extreme)...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
And YOU are the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

We'll, I do have a moral conscience, as I hope you do.

Quote:
Edward Snowden is the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

He does have a moral conscience to. He can make that determination.

Quote:
The courts of the United States are the determiners of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

They are the LEGAL determiner in this case. Like for a case in Botswana, it would be the Botswana courts.

Olivier, you wrote:

Quote:

Yes he did break the law. But in some cases, this can be justifiably done for a greater good.

I responded:

Quote:

And YOU are the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

Edward Snowden is the determiner of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

The courts of the United States are the determiners of whether or not it is justifiable or not?

Now you are trying one of your “Let’s see if I can weasel out of this with some fancy footwork” routine.

If the laws of the United States are broken…the legal system of the United States will determine whether or not there are extenuating circumstances that justify the action. Almost always, a trial is needed to make that determination.

If Snowden presents his case before a court in a fair trial…the court, in the legal process, will determine if the circumstances are sufficient.

YOU do not make that determination no matter that you have a moral code…and neither do I or anyone else.

Said another way: Weasel all you want. It is not going to work.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I'm low class and proud of it.

As you probably guessed...this is finally an area where we agree!

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

By the way, how's daily no 3182 going?

Actually ended up doing it with very little trouble on the second try. I even recognized where I got in trouble the first effort. It got to the "regular Sudoku" stage rather quickly...and at that point, it is solved.

Quote:

I solved no 3183 (hard) yesterday. Took me hours but it has it's rewards. Very tricky puzzle. Moving on to 3184 (extreme)...

I've solved several hard ones, but I prefer to stick with moderate.

By now, you should realize that Killer Sudoku is only distantly related to regular Sudoku. Regular Sudoku (even the most difficult ones) are logic problems...and can just as easily have letters substituted for the numbers.

Not so in Killer Sudoku...which is more a math puzzle in the early stages...and only becomes a logic problem when it gets to the "regular Sudoku" stage.

Very difficult regular Sudoku are probably harder than Killers...but the extreme Killers may be the toughest.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yes he did break the law. But in some cases, this can be justifiably done for a greater good.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Yes he did break the law. But in some cases, this can be justifiably done for a greater good.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity

necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.

Yup...AS DETERMINE PURSUANT TO LAW.

We here in A2K are not going to make that determination...and neither is the general public.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

From what I understand, Snowden and his lawyers are asking for that justification defense be granted before he comes back rather than the usual way through the court. Once again asking for special favors and calling a fair trial.

Like I sad, at this point, since most of the damage has been done, I think Snowden should just remain where he is. If he comes back, the whole thing will dragged up again, putting the OJ Simpson and Travon Martin trials in the shade as far as public consumption. However, for his own sake, I would think he want to at least try and clear his name so that he has a chance to be free to do as he wants.

3 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

From what I understand, Snowden and his lawyers are asking for that justification defense be granted before he comes back...

An absurd request...no matter how worded.

Essentially it would be like a bank robber asking that a defense be allowed indicating that he had given the money to poor people...as justification.

Snowden can come back...and have his lawyers attempt to submit to a jury such defense as they want...and which a trial judge will allow. If they feel certain elements of defense were erroneously denied...they can appeal...and the appeals can go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The guy can get a fair trial...although it appears that is not what he and his defense team actually want.

They...and some of the people here...have already decided that what Snowden did was in the greater interest of humankind...and they want the trial stacked to sustain that view.

I don't think it is going to happen.

Quote:

Like I sad, at this point, since most of the damage has been done, I think Snowden should just remain where he is.

I am beginning to feel that way myself. This is a bed he made...now he should sleep in it. If he does not want to submit to a fair trial...he should stay put and enjoy his extra freedom; greater personal privacy; and the general better government afforded him in Russia.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If he does not want to submit to a fair trial...he should stay put and enjoy his extra freedom; greater personal privacy; and the general better government afforded him in Russia.

I do suggest, Frank, that you update your knowledge what asylum seekers are allowed in general (see: United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) and in Russia in particular (see: Russian Federation’s Law on Refugees ).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, keep in mind that the U.S has been in thousands of scams and anti-humane interests for as long as it has been crumbling after taking everything the founding fathers had built for granted, but they target Snowden like this for a specific reason - that "reason" is above all, corrupt.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Snowden doesn't need to 'clear his name.' Those of us who support what he did to expose our government's unlawful "mass data collection of American communication" has our support and good wishes for a 'REAL' fair trial. Until the US allows that to happen, I hope other countries will provide him with asylum.

It's up to the US to provide him with a fair trial based on our Constitution.

Quote:

Fourth Amendment--freedom from 'unreasonable' search and seizure. No search without a warrant issued based on probable cause. Evidence illegally gathered is not admissible in the trial.

Fifth Amendment--no trial without a legitimate indictment by a grand jury. No double jeopardy (can't be tried twice for the same offense). A person can't be required to testify against himself. And no punishment without due process.

Sixth Amendment--Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a speedy, public trial (i.e. can't be held indefinitely awaiting trial, and trials are open to the public, not secret). The trial must be in his own city or neighborhood where he is known. A defendant is entitled to know the charges against him, to confront and cross-examine his accuser and the witnesses against him. He's entitled to a lawyer to help him defend himself. He may -compel- witnesses to testify on his behalf. And his guilt is to be decided by a jury of his peers.

Eighth Amendment--No excessive bail. No cruel and unusual punishment. (But Supreme Courts have said punishment that is either cruel OR unusual, that's okay. 8^) ).

These are the BASIC rights guaranteed to every person in the US by federal law. You may have more rights granted and protected by individual states.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If he does not want to submit to a fair trial...he should stay put and enjoy his extra freedom; greater personal privacy; and the general better government afforded him in Russia.
I do suggest, Frank, that you update your knowledge what asylum seekers are allowed in general (see: United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees) and in Russia in particular (see: Russian Federation’s Law on Refugees ).

If you know something that impacts on what I've said or what Revelette has said ...why not tell me and everyone else?

1 Reply

As I said, Revelette...there are legal scholars here who have already decided that Snowden is not guilty...and who want a trial stacked in his favor rather than a truly fair trial which would abide by the laws now in place.

You know how it is arguing with legal scholar of the caliber of ci, though.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I know, makes you want to pull out your hair..

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you know something that impacts on what I've said or what Revelette has said ...why not tell me and everyone else?

I wasn't replying to revelette. Sorry that my response gave that indication.

Â²youÂ² wrote:

... he should stay put and enjoy his extra freedom; greater personal privacy; and the general better government afforded him in Russia.

I just think that you have not a correct idea about the rights of asylum seekers. It might well be that they enjoy a good live in the USA. But at least here in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe), it's rather miserable for them - but according to national and international law.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

In your opinion. And of course he wont return to find out if it is the citizens of the U S of A's opinion. Unless of course he can be guaranteed he'll be found innocent.

1 Reply

Snowdon is a dummy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know