The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2011, 02:03 AM   #271
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnyxCougar View Post
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Guantanamo. Secret Prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Patriot Act. Suspending Habeas Corpus. Abu Ghriad. Do any of these extremist approved actions form a pattern?

800 imprisoned in Guantanamo. Well over 600 were innocent. Sorry? Nope. They did not even get an apology. Extremism says that was (and is) acceptable. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either. Which continued into the 20th Century. No problem. We made the world safe for god – and his Patriots.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 10:34 AM   #272
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
[quote=OnyxCougar;711364 What happened to innocent until proven guilty?[/QUOTE]

That's not how it works in the military. He knew what he signed up for when he signed his paperwork to gain the security clearance. The documents are clear and the punishments are spelled out on paper. He would not be there if they did not have a rock solid case. Whistle Blower Acts do not apply.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 12:02 PM   #273
classicman
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,400
Sorry Onyx - thats more or less just a myth created to keep the sheep in line...
This is totally different though, This is a military issue. They play by another set of rules than the rest of the population.

Oh and your linky - http://www.commondreams.org/about-us ...
We publish breaking news from a progressive perspective.

Yeh not that I don't think its wrong that he is in solitary, because I do, but me thinks that site it spinning things a bit as well.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt
classicman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2011, 06:23 PM   #274
Uday
Poker Playing Fool
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary View Post
That's not how it works in the military. He knew what he signed up for when he signed his paperwork to gain the security clearance. The documents are clear and the punishments are spelled out on paper. He would not be there if they did not have a rock solid case. Whistle Blower Acts do not apply.
So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?
Uday is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 08:19 AM   #275
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uday View Post
So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?
Oh no. He will get a military trial called a General Court-Martial. When they have concluded their investigation.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 08:43 PM   #276
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uday View Post
So no trial for Manning? He is just to rot in the cell forever?
The real criminals are the fools who decided to put all these secrets available to the most trusted one half million people. Without any way to monitor who was accessing what and why. Well, this was the George Jr administration. The same administration that decided White House lawyers must rewrite all science papers.

Anyone of one half million people could access anything they wanted on that database. In responsible organizations, a person accessing secrets without good reason was investigated. But those half million were clearly right wing conservatives - therefore could be trusted.

Therein lies the person(s) who should be prosecuted for exercising power without sufficient intelligence. But that means again, the battle of moderates verses extremists. The problem will be ignored. Extremists line up to defend their people rather than advance the nation.

Stupidity apparently is not limited there. Consistent rumors suggest that in the 2000, the Chinese obtained plans for all of America's nuclear weapons. While hyping myths of an invented Al Qaeda under everyone's bed, they ignored basic cyber security. Even drove out of office Richard Clark who was warning of that problem.

The real criminals simply said one half million people can be trusted with those secrets. No questions asked.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 08:52 AM   #277
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Charges come to the surface. Manning may not see the light of day. Thank God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030205207.html
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2011, 07:37 PM   #278
Urbane Guerrilla
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw View Post
Guantanamo. Secret Prisons. Extraordinary rendition. Patriot Act. Suspending Habeas Corpus. Abu Ghriad. Do any of these extremist approved actions form a pattern?
Yeah. A pattern of winning a war with people who will never negotiate a settlement. If we're not practicing a war of extermination of this mindset, we are altogether stupid.

Quote:
800 imprisoned in Guantanamo. Well over 600 were innocent. Sorry? Nope. They did not even get an apology.
Just who apologizes for taking POW's, that being de facto who's in Gitmo. Those who demand an apology for this want humanity to lose to violent, inhuman extremists. Tw, that is you, and that is why you out-suck a black hole, you non-musical pig who cannot sing.
Quote:
Extremism says that was (and is) acceptable. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition either.
Irrelevancy piled upon fascist sympathy. No wonder you are still single.
__________________
Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.
Urbane Guerrilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 09:44 PM   #279
monster
Another Woman In Michigan
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perpetual Chaos
Posts: 30,194
WikiLeaks has no Osama Been Leaded pictures? FAIL
__________________
The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart
monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 10:09 PM   #280
footfootfoot
To shreds, you say?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet!
Posts: 18,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Stating you think someone should be killed, and actually plotting such a thing, are two very different things. Stating it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Not a hate crime. See Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Or the KKK. Sorry. Hate is ugly, but it's the other side of the free speech coin.
From:http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

(There is a greater discussion of these issues at the link.

Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:

Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity

(1) Defamation: Defamation consists of a publication of a statement of alleged fact which is false and which harms the reputation of another person.
(1) Our right to freedom of expression is restricted when our expressions (whether a spoken slander or written libel) cause harm to the reputation of another person. The courts recognize that words can hurt us, for example, by harming our ability to earn a living (economic harm).

This exception to freedom of expression can be difficult to apply in practice. Defamation requires an allegation of a fact which is in fact false. In contrast, the expression of an opinion is not considered defamation.


(2) Causing panic: The classic example of speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, because it causes panic, is falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. (2) This is narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person would know that it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harm to others. We can imagine works of art which might cause real panic among the audience, perhaps a contemporary version of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, which caused considerable panic when it first aired on the radio, and in turn was based on H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds.

(3) Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 [1942]) This famous exception is much discussed in recent decades, but rarely the basis for a decision upholding an abridgement of free speech.

This exception warrants scrutiny. Note that the harm involved is physical harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by another person!


(4) Incitement to crime: It is a crime to incite someone else to commit a crime, and such speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

If a budding rap group proposes to perform a work which includes the exhortation to "kill whitie" or "kill the cops" or "rape the babe," could that be incitement to a crime? Such records have been sold by commercial organizations, of course, yet there are no reported arrests of those artists or record companies for incitement to a crime. Should such rap lyrics be considered incitement to crime or is the causal relationship to any actual murders or rapes too tenuous?


(5) Sedition: Although not without controversy, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld statutes which prohibit the advocacy of unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government. As with prohibitions discussed earlier, the expressions in question are assessed according to the circumstances. Academic discussion of the theories of, say, Karl Marx presumably would not be prohibited under such a test, especially in this post-Soviet era. The theoretical consideration and even endorsement of these views could not remotely be considered to be reasonable expectations of the actual overthrow of the government. But it is possible that an artist might develop a project, perhaps guerrilla theater or an exhibit, that urged the destruction of the United States (the "Great Satan") by extremist religious groups. The likelihood of success by the latter group would seem as improbable as the likelihood of success by contemporary Marxists.


(6) Obscenity: In Miller v. California (413 U.S. 14 [1973]) the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-pronged test for obscenity prohibitions which would not violate the First Amendment:

(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Although much debated, this standard remains the law of the land, and elements of this language have been included in both the authorizing legislation for the National Endowment for the Arts (20 U.S.C. 951 et seq.) and the Communications Decency Act (4) prohibiting "obscenity" and "indecency" on the Internet. The Communications Decency Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1997. The NEA legislation was been struck down as unconstitutional by lower courts but was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. (NEA v. Finley, No. 97-371, 1998)
One controversy over this exception to free speech is whether obscenity causes real harm sufficient to justify suppression of free speech. Does viewing obscenity make it more likely that a man will later commit rape, or other acts of violence against women, obviously real harm to another person? Does reading about war make it more likely that someone will start a war? Even if there is some evidence of such causal relationships, however tenuous or strong, is it sufficient to justify this exception to free speech? Alternatively, could the prohibition on obscenity be a reflection of moral values and societal standards which should more properly be handled in the private sector through moral education, not government censorship?

Another problem area is determining what counts as "obscenity". In Miller, the court tried to fashion a standard which could be adapted to different communities, so that what counts as obscenity in rural Mississippi might not count as obscenity in Atlanta or New York City. Is this fair? Do the people in those areas themselves agree on community standards? What is the "community" for art that is displayed on-line on the Internet?

Another controversy in the Miller standard is the exception for "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Who decides what counts as "serious"? If some people consider Penthouse or the National Enquirer to be serious literature, is it elitist to deny them this exception from censorship as "obscenity"? Given the controversies in contemporary art (found objects, performance art, and so forth), what counts as artistic value? Has the Court solved the problem of defining "obscenity" or only made it more complicated?
__________________
the internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously? - Her Fobs
footfootfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 08:29 AM   #281
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402

Christian Science Monitor

James Bosworth
8/17/12

Assange asylum case ripples through Latin America
Quote:
Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
could have an impact on extradition cases throughout Latin America.

Ecuador has called for every acronym in the hemisphere (OAS, UNASUR, ALBA, UN, etc.)
to hold immediate meetings regarding the Julian Assange asylum case and the issue of its embassy in the UK.


Leaving aside the specifics of that case for a moment, one of the secondary consequences
of this event is that it could bring up questions about a whole host of other recent
high profile political asylum, embassy refuge, and extradition cases around the hemisphere
that have occasionally impacted bilateral relations.

[Several cases around the world are listed]<snip>

In every instance, you'll hear, "But this case is different because...."
Yes, yes, every asylum case is different. Yet, there are similarities.
In every case, one side claims there have been various crimes committed
that must be prosecuted while the other claims political persecution.
Balancing justice for crimes against potential abuse of power by governments is tough.
Sure, we all think we know it when we see it when it comes to asylum cases,
but many people disagree about the cases listed above and others.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2012, 10:02 AM   #282
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 70,002
.
Attached Images
 
__________________
The four horsemen ~ Hahn, Azar, Redfield, & Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013, 02:20 PM   #283
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
It's announced today that Pvt Bradley Manning is...

Guilty of 17 separate charges, Not Guilty of 2, and plead Guilty to 3.

The Biggy... Aiding the Enemy (maximum sentence: Life): NOT GUILTY

An Army judge finds Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of
aiding the enemy by disclosing secret U.S. government documents.

Military prosecutors had argued that the largest leak in U.S. history
had assisted al-Qaeda. But the judge, Col. Denise Lind, found Manning
guilty of most of the other charges.

The Washington Post has posted a breakdown of all the charges and the verdicts HERE.
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2013, 11:32 PM   #284
sexobon
^it sings^
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplighter View Post
It's announced today that Pvt Bradley Manning is...

... The Biggy... Aiding the Enemy (maximum sentence: Life): NOT GUILTY

An Army judge finds Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of
aiding the enemy by disclosing secret U.S. government documents.
Quote:
...was found not guilty. That does not mean, say, or imply he is innocent.

... In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent. ...

... Not guilty does not and never meant innocent. ...
sexobon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2013, 01:18 AM   #285
Lamplighter
Person who doesn't update the user title
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
...was found not guilty. That does not mean, say, or imply he is innocent.

... In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent. ...

... Not guilty does not and never meant innocent. ...

S,...
I don't think that quote mine, or in the link I posted.
But you've made it look as though it is.

Where does that quote come from ?
Lamplighter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.