Originally posted by OaklandA's
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Hr 347
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostGoogle News Search for "HR 347":
2 from the last 24 hours, 6 articles from 2 days ago, 22 articles from 1 week ago
Google News Search for "Jermaine Jones"
1914 in the last 6 hours"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Comment
-
Oakland A's surprises me that he can't see the ramifications of government policies like this one. Stuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs."I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mithrandir View PostStuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs.
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostGoogle News Search for "HR 347":
2 from the last 24 hours, 6 articles from 2 days ago, 22 articles from 1 week ago
Google News Search for "Jermaine Jones"
1914 in the last 6 hoursOriginally posted by Kevin SeitzerWe pinch ran for Altuve specifically to screw over Mith's fantasy team.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mithrandir View PostOakland A's surprises me that he can't see the ramifications of government policies like this one. Stuns me that people aren't pissed off about this type of bs.
1) The Secret Service has a right, make that a need, to make certain areas restricted when protected people are coming through.
2) People who knowingly enter the restricted area, and cause a disruption, should be arrested.
3) People are perfectly free to protest as much as they want outside of the restricted areas.
4) I am a supporter of the "Occupy" movements, and I don't see this law as restricting their activities.
Again, H.R. 347 enacts no new laws, and enacts no new penalties. Only the laws for convicting have become a little more lenient, because the "willful" part was removed, which obviously is extremely difficult to prove. Did the accused know they were committing a crime? Sheep's ACLU article linked above frames the issue correctly, with the title "How Big A Deal is H.R. 347?", and the conclusion, "Not much, but it should be watched for signs of abuse or misuse."
If the ACLU is not making a huge stink about it, then I wonder why so many others are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OaklandA's View PostWhy? I think:
1) The Secret Service has a right, make that a need, to make certain areas restricted when protected people are coming through.
2) People who knowingly enter the restricted area, and cause a disruption, should be arrested.
3) People are perfectly free to protest as much as they want outside of the restricted areas.
4) I am a supporter of the "Occupy" movements, and I don't see this law as restricting their activities.
Again, H.R. 347 enacts no new laws, and enacts no new penalties. Only the laws for convicting have become a little more lenient, because the "willful" part was removed, which obviously is extremely difficult to prove. Did the accused know they were committing a crime? Sheep's ACLU article linked above frames the issue correctly, with the title "How Big A Deal is H.R. 347?", and the conclusion, "Not much, but it should be watched for signs of abuse or misuse."
If the ACLU is not making a huge stink about it, then I wonder why so many others are.
If it's not a big deal why did they make the change? Imagine the kind of lobby pressure in the background that needs to happen to make a change like this ... why are they doing it, and why is it happening now?
The law was totally fine as it was. The burden of proof should always, and without exception, be on the prosecution. The only possible reason for enacting the change is to prosecute people without the necessary evidence that they have actually willfully done anything illegal.
The complacency with which some people are approaching things like this is really jaw dropping. People gave their lives to fight for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ... the reason they are codified and so hard to amend is to prevent future generations for eroding these principles. Things like this and the NDAA 2012 are gradually chipping away at these fundamental rights ... and it's almost as if no one cares.
Judging by Google News, this has basically gone unreported in the mainstream press. I find that quite shocking on the one hand, but on the other, I'm not at all surprised. It's been a while since the media were an effective political check and balance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostThe law was totally fine as it was. The burden of proof should always, and without exception, be on the prosecution. The only possible reason for enacting the change is to prosecute people without the necessary evidence that they have actually willfully done anything illegal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OaklandA's View PostA serious question - what evidence can there be that someone knew that they "willfully" broke the law? If the protestor says "I didn't know throwing rocks at the President was illegal", how is it supposed to be proven?
This casual acceptance of incarceration without trial (Guantanamo & NDAA 2012) and now conviction without necessary proof is really scary. These are not just simple laws and rules that they are playing with. These are fundamental principles of the liberal democratic justice system: every man has the right to a free trial by a jury of his peers, and no man should be convicted without the necessary evidence of their guilt being presented.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnnya24 View PostIt's not. If it can't be proven then that's the end of it. If there is sufficient evidence that the defendant threw rocks at the president ... eye witness, photographic, video, forensic etc ... then they can prove it, and a jury of his peers will judge him. Otherwise, they can't ... and if they can't prove it, then there should never be a conviction.
Comment
-
-
Can i invite the westboro baptist church to the white house?"You know what's wrong with America? If I lovingly tongue a woman's nipple in a movie, it gets an "NC-17" rating, if I chop it off with a machete, it's an "R". That's what's wrong with America, man...."--Dennis Hopper
"One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski
Comment
Comment