Rule 1: Be civil.
Rule 2: No zionists/tankies.
Our Sibling Community:
Related:
Cunningham, who said that he’d skimmed the op-ed, testified that he “didn’t see anything in the op-ed that suggested she’d committed a crime.”
“I did contact our legal counsel to make sure that we’re on solid legal ground.”
I can help you with that one sir
Note: the first question the fed asked was 'is this legal' not 'is this completely shitfuckedbananas evil nonsense'. It just wants to cover its own ass.
It's also not legal. I don't really know the details, I feel like usually in practice in the US it's a civil penalty instead of criminal charges for the cops, but it is certainly illegal to arrest people for things that aren't crimes, even if all your friends are doing it too.
I would argue it's not illegal in practice, especially when it's on orders, but thats more an argument about what laws are than what the rules as written say
Yeah. We basically made all of this up. It's just down to what the traditions are, what judges have habits of ruling on, how the police and courthouse staff and attorneys are all in the habit of listening to people and conducting themselves and what they do and don't enforce.
We can have Jim Crow, or Nuremberg, or Daniel Ellsberg getting found not guilty for what the White House said was basically high treason. Or we can have the French Revolution. We can have whatever we want. It's all just kind of how people set up their habits, at the end of the day. I'm just saying that if you look it up in the law books, and follow the details, it's illegal.
And the law botherers never play rules-as-written; it's always calvinball contrivances. There's no consistency but 'the strong will crush the weak'.
Not really dude. That's why I brought up things like Dan Ellsberg. That's why Derek Chauvin is in prison right now.
That thinking is true sometimes. Not always.
Took a lot of public outrage to make those happen.
In the chauvin case, i think several of the people who organized protests were suicided or car bombed, but i might be mixing up my famous cops.
Took a lot of public outrage to make those happen.
Correct. Almost as if a lot of it is up to us, not this fatalist thing where the strong always crush the weak.
I mean it's not even fully correct. It's partly correct. Dan Ellsberg didn't have any public outrage directly on his side except for a handful of Weathermen, it was just a general sentiment of the time that worked in his favor. Which, again, was my point. Of course that was a while ago, things have gotten worse since then. On the other hand, we are where we are.
In the chauvin case, i think several of the people who organized protests were suicided or car bombed
Car bombed?
You "think"?
Well i forget which victim perpetrator and year match up. I know they killed a bunch of organizers of protests of police do'in murder with no consequence but i forget which wave that started in. I think it was mostly 2020 organizers who died 'mysteriously'?
Ellsberg was deep throat right? The shit he leaked made a lot of outrage, and he did hide for a while.
I think it was mostly 2020 organizers who died 'mysteriously'?
Citation? I don't think this is true. If it is true, I want to know more about it.
Ellsberg was deep throat right? The shit he leaked made a lot of outrage, and he did hide for a while.
Close. Ellsberg was a contractor for the Pentagon (more or less) who smuggled thousands of pages of secret documents out, detailing all the lies the American government was telling people about the war. Once they were all out of the building and he'd had time to take out anything that would actually put any American individual person in danger, he leaked the whole thing in huge chunks to the press, and they printed the entire thing in the newspapers, huge massive pages of super-secret government stuff just filling up the pages so it could all go into the public record irrevocably.
The executive branch, predictably, lost its goddamned mind, and was hunting him to make him stop (and also screaming at the newspapers and the courts to stop publishing the stuff, since it took quite a while to get it all into print one section at a time, the newspapers kind of took turns publishing big chunks of it). Because the press back then had integrity, they told the executive branch to go fuck itself, and kept doing it. Ellsberg was able to avoid the FBI with the help of the Weathermen, basically through the single and sufficient method of never saying a damn thing on the phone. Since the FBI's whole MO was phone surveillance, they couldn't catch him until it was all in print, at which point he turned himself in to face charges. What the press had done wasn't illegal, no matter how much the White House wanted to scream about it, but what he had done had been a crime, since he'd been the one with the security clearance. Anyway, once what was done was done, he showed up to face the music.
I don't know too many of the details of the trial, but I know that he went free on everything. Basically, the press, the courts, and most of the public opinion felt he had done the right thing (especially after reading what he had leaked), and so history wrote him down as a hero and he was fine.
The world has changed since then, surveillance has gotten better and the spine has gone out of a lot of those institutions that went to bat for him back then. But, also, in some ways the world of the middle 1960s was way more authoritarian than the world we currently inhabit.
What I'm saying is, your simplistic picture where the people on top are all on one team, and they always 100% of the time protect each other with violence and there's nothing we on the bottom can do, isn't accurate. People are just people. Sometimes they do wrong, sometimes they do right. Doesn't really matter where in the hierarchy they are; actually what's a lot more important is what habits they have and where public opinion and public narratives are at.
So he went free... Because peolpe were angry as fuck?
I am admittedly sleepy and a little high, but isnt that what i was saying?
Re: mysterious deaths: not even gonna try to cite sources right now. Hope i remember or start looking into it yourself!
Re:more complex
In most ways, but upper class solidarity is stronger than it used to be.
Re: mysterious deaths: not even gonna try to cite sources right now. Hope i remember or start looking into it yourself!
I'm going to assume it's just some kind of nonsense you cooked up, unless you decide to get motivated to do a single Google search or something and share it with me.
So he went free... Because peolpe were angry as fuck?
I am admittedly sleepy and a little high, but isnt that what i was saying?
Yes, which is why when you said it, I said, "Correct" and similar things.
Some people really like to model a conversation as a thing where one person has to be "right" and one person has to be "wrong," and it's impossible for people to agree or being saying the same thing about some aspect, and they get confused and try to continue the argument they think is going on when someone partially agrees with them.
model a conversation as
Seemed like the kind we were having?
mysterious death
Things are spicy here and im on a vpn but it's not mull. Also, dobt use google; that's trash now. Good luck
I will make it legal. tickles supreme courts balls