|
MrNemo posted:In the context of the Cold War Israel was pretty close to neutral, I used the phrase to differentiate from selling secrets to a nation that is actively antagonistic or at war with your own nation where I can see greater desire for the strongest possible deterrence. Ultimately I can't see a workable justification for treating this crime as different from what Manning or Snoweden did and I couldn't in all conscience endorse the death penalty or life imprisonment for either of them. I don't think legal cases should be decided on an ideological basis. Are you forgetting his contacts with South Africa and Pakistan? Ideology isn't a big factor here, he just really liked money.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:08 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:08 |
|
He's been in jail, has been a model prisoner, letting him out on parole seems fair to me and I hate Israel's guts.Gravel Gravy posted:Are you forgetting his contacts with South Africa and Pakistan? Ideology isn't a big factor here, he just really liked money. And what he did was wrong but he didn't do it yesterday. We should be ready to forgive people. He's done his penance. It would be the Christian thing to do.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:08 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:And what he did was wrong but he didn't do it yesterday. We should be ready to forgive people. He's done his penance. It would be the Christian thing to do. Forgiveness is only good when it's productive. In the case of people who are absolutely antisocial and are not driven to it by any sort of desperation or need, but simply greed, and whose existence causes political difficulties and serves as a rallying point for deranged nationalists, it is entirely reasonable to simply kill them.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:19 |
|
When has "Christian thing to do" ever factored into national security?
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:29 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:When has "Christian thing to do" ever factored into national security? Obviously during Iran-Contra. .....wait a minute. Mandy Thompson posted:And what he did was wrong but he didn't do it yesterday. We should be ready to forgive people. He's done his penance. It would be the Christian thing to do. He wanted to sell national security assets for profit. gently caress him.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:30 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Forgiveness is only good when it's productive. In the case of people who are absolutely antisocial and are not driven to it by any sort of desperation or need, but simply greed, and whose existence causes political difficulties and serves as a rallying point for deranged nationalists, it is entirely reasonable to simply kill them. The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:33 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics. Considering he is pretty insistent that he did this to 'support Israel', even going so far as to attempt to renounce his US Citizenship, and despite him attempting to open weapons and intel sales with Iran, South Africa, and Pakistan which flies in the face of his claims about his dedication to Israel, I think its safe to say he has in no way been rehabilitated. He's a scummy traitor, a liar, and a profiteer.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:35 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics. He sold out the security of at least 300 million people by selling as much information as he could to whoever would take it for material gain. Stop being willfully dense.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:37 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Considering he is pretty insistent that he did this to 'support Israel', even going so far as to attempt to renounce his US Citizenship, and despite him attempting to open weapons and intel sales with Iran, South Africa, and Pakistan which flies in the face of his claims about his dedication to Israel, I think its safe to say he has in no way been rehabilitated. And that is something to be take into consideration with the totality of what he has done in prison, by a blind, impartial, and objective parole board and court system rather than wrathful mobs based on whether they like Israel or not.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:39 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:He sold out the security of at least 300 million people by selling as much information as he could to whoever would take it for material gain. Stop being willfully dense. 30 years ago. We should be willing to forgive people.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:40 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:And that is something to be take into consideration with the totality of what he has done in prison, by a blind, impartial, and objective parole board and court system rather than wrathful mobs based on whether they like Israel or not. Oh, shut up. We're doing this based on the fact that he thought only of himself when stealing US National Intelligence assets and selling them to the highest bidder, while claiming to support a country who CLAIMS to be one of our greatest allies that then proceeded to TREAT US LIKE DIRT when we attempted to investigate a major security breach. We fund this same country with US Tax Dollars, so there is NO EXCUSE for their actions or their response. Mandy Thompson posted:30 years ago. We should be willing to forgive people. That isn't how being a spy works. Sorry. There is a strong chance some of the assets he stole led to agents being killed. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jul 30, 2015 |
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:41 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:30 years ago. We should be willing to forgive people. Why? How would this serve national interests?
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:42 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Why? How would this serve national interests? Justice isn't meant to serve national interests. Justice is blind. National interests aren't justice.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:43 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Justice isn't meant to serve national interests. Justice is blind. National interests aren't justice. Spies tend to ignore justice for personal gain or other nation's interests. He should be serving life in prison for possible endangering national security assets, which by the way includes living breathing people.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:43 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Justice isn't meant to serve national interests. Justice is blind. National interests aren't justice. So? There is only one abstract concept that has any relevance here.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:44 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Spies tend to ignore justice for personal gain or other nation's interests. As do any other common thieves, but we are willing to parole thieves.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:45 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:As do any other common thieves, but we are willing to parole thieves. What about murderers? Since its very likely some of the assets he stole might have gotten people killed.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:46 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:As do any other common thieves, but we are willing to parole thieves. In that sense should Jeffrey Dahmer be parolled since he only thieved other peoples' torsos?
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:48 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Spies tend to ignore justice for personal gain or other nation's interests. Do we know for a fact that someone was directly harmed? Even then, I still think 30 years is long enough. Prison should be for reform and deterrence and incapacitatation, not for revenge. What difference does it make in deterrence between 30 years and life? Future spies know they are in deep poo poo either way. Records show he has been well behaved. And it is extremely unlikely that he will commit a crime again.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:49 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, shut up. The point is your opinion of Israel shouldn't play into whether or not he gets granted parole or not. It should only be based on what it is for everyone else. Is he going to reoffend? No. He won't possibly have the capacity. If he's met the legal standard for release he should be released. CommieGIR posted:What about murderers? Since its very likely some of the assets he stole might have gotten people killed. Um, yeah, we parole murderers.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:49 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:So? There is only one abstract concept that has any relevance here. My loyalty is first to God, then to justice, and to the "national interests" of the international proletariat. quote:In that sense should Jeffrey Dahmer be parolled since he only thieved other peoples' torsos? Well first of all Jeffrey Dahmer is dead so that is a moot point. But even if he was still alive, he was not a model prisoner at all, showed no evidence of trying to change, and would be very likely to commit another crime if he was released. CommieGIR posted:What about murderers? Since its very likely some of the assets he stole might have gotten people killed. We sometimes parole murderers, depending on the curcumstances.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:52 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Well first of all Jeffrey Dahmer is dead so that is a moot point. But even if he was still alive, he was not a model prisoner at all, showed no evidence of trying to change, and would be very likely to commit another crime if he was released. Neither is Jonathan Pollard. He's shown zero remorse for the actions he took. So, what is your point? He's renounced his US Citizenship, openly admitted and PROUDLY proclaimed his actions were just. He's turned into a sideshow for the Israeli public, made a 'hero' and plays as much from within his cell. Obdicut posted:The point is your opinion of Israel shouldn't play into whether or not he gets granted parole or not. It should only be based on what it is for everyone else. Is he going to reoffend? No. He won't possibly have the capacity. If he's met the legal standard for release he should be released. He'll be released because that is the deal he got. I can't argue with that. I don't think he deserves to be released at all, considering how little remorse he's shown. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 30, 2015 |
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:53 |
|
CommieGIR posted:Neither is Jonathan Pollard. He's shown zero remorse for the actions he took. So, what is your point? Yet many of you still seem to be calling for the release of Chelsea Manning (I agree) and it doesn't seem as though she has shown remorse. Also the parole board seems to believe releasing him is consistent with their procedures.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:56 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:My loyalty is first to God, then to justice, and to the "national interests" of the international proletariat. Sounds like you are doing your Pledge of Allegiance all wrong, tbh Mandy Thompson posted:
But aren't you interested in arguing moot points given that it was determined he'd get out this year?
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:56 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Yet many of you still seem to be calling for the release of Chelsea Manning (I agree) and it doesn't seem as though she has shown remorse. CommieGIR posted:Uhhhhhhhh.....
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:57 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Yet many of you still seem to be calling for the release of Chelsea Manning (I agree) and it doesn't seem as though she has shown remorse. There is a very large difference in intent between Manning and Pollard. Pollard sold secrets and actively courted foreign nations.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:58 |
|
Don't forget the leaked cables
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 16:58 |
|
CommieGIR posted:
Remorse is only considered in so far as it has to do with recidivism. In addition, remorse is one of those things I think is shittiest and most manipulable about the parole system. Cry some tears, say you found Jesus, and you get out quicker than a guy who disagrees with the level of punishment he got for the crime. It is mostly a show, but then, so are almost all aspects of our system when it comes to rehabilitation. quote:There is a very large difference in intent between Manning and Pollard. Pollard sold secrets and actively courted foreign nations. This means Pollard committed an additional crime, which was the sale of the secrets. From a national security standpoint, though, broader release of the information is more damaging, and Manning released more than was necessary to just do whistle-blowing. She didn't even know everything she was releasing. It isn't inappropriate to note that if you want to be super-harsh on Pollard you give ammo to those who want to be harsh towards Manning--and Snowden.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:03 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics. Not really, espionage is one of the least justifiable crimes one can commit. It's moderately well off people who are well educated and well trained trying to make money off of attacking the inner workings of a society. They don't need to do it, they just want to. Violent crime and theft is predominantly crime of desperation and passion, people either aren't thinking or are in a position where they feel they have little alternative, so no amount of punishment is going to deter that, unless you provide a reasonable alternative. In the case of espionage there are plenty of reasonable alternative ways to live but the person consciously decides to behave antisocially to further their own goals. It isn't that they are in a desperate situation, it's that they are greedy to the point of showing a complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. In that instance I would consider it more expedient to simply shoot the fucker as an example to the rest. A single life is not so valuable and he doesn't seem inclined to work to undo the damage he's done, or tried to do. He is a net drain on the world and unlike with the vast majority of crime, just killing him won't contribute to a large trend of not actually addressing a major social problem. There is no social problem here, the dude is just a twat. Kill him and improve the world. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Jul 30, 2015 |
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:05 |
|
Obdicut posted:This means Pollard committed an additional crime, which was the sale of the secrets. From a national security standpoint, though, broader release of the information is more damaging, and Manning released more than was necessary to just do whistle-blowing. She didn't even know everything she was releasing. It isn't inappropriate to note that if you want to be super-harsh on Pollard you give ammo to those who want to be harsh towards Manning--and Snowden. True, the main problem being that Manning and Snowden was just releasing for general release, they didn't (as far as we know) seek to sell such assets or, even worse, arrange weapons sales with foreign nations like Pollard. OwlFancier posted:Not really, espionage is one of the least justifiable crimes one can commit. It's moderately well off people who are well educated and well trained trying to make money off of attacking the inner workings of a society. They don't need to do it, they just want to. Violent crime and theft is predominantly crime of desperation and passion, people either aren't thinking or are in a position where they feel they have little alternative, so no amount of punishment is going to deter that, unless you provide a reasonable alternative. In the case of espionage there are plenty of reasonable alternative ways to live but the person consciously decides to behave antisocially to further their own goals. It isn't that they are in a desperate situation, it's that they are greedy to the point of showing a complete disregard for the wellbeing of others. A good point. We're comparing crimes of people who generally suffer from poverty or poor upbringing to a guy who was moderately financially stable and, during his espionage days, raking in large amounts of cash and gifts.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:06 |
|
Obdicut posted:Remorse is only considered in so far as it has to do with recidivism. In addition, remorse is one of those things I think is shittiest and most manipulable about the parole system. Cry some tears, say you found Jesus, and you get out quicker than a guy who disagrees with the level of punishment he got for the crime. It is mostly a show, but then, so are almost all aspects of our system when it comes to rehabilitation. Not so, see Charles Manson.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:06 |
|
I'm very disappointed to see so many posters falling for the "He's a Jew so he did it for the shekels" meme.
----------------
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:08 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:My loyalty is first to God, then to justice, and to the "national interests" of the international proletariat. Oh boy, this will be an interesting gimmick! I was going to say it's been done by far more interesting and intelligent posters but I'm not sure if we've seen christo-marxism outside of lf. Mandy Thompson posted:Justice isn't meant to serve national interests. Justice is blind. National interests aren't justice. In reality-land that's exactly what it does. Mandy Thompson posted:As do any other common thieves, but we are willing to parole thieves. Totally the same scale here, right? Where's the vomiting rolleyes when you need it. CommieGIR posted:
This too, they aren't comparable at all.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:08 |
|
Narciss posted:I'm very disappointed to see so many posters falling for the "He's a Jew so he did it for the shekels" meme. Doesn't matter if he was Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist.... quote:Within a few days, in June 1984 Pollard started passing classified information to Sella. He was paid $10,000 cash and given a very expensive diamond and sapphire ring, which Pollard later offered to his girlfriend Anne when proposing to her. Pollard was paid well by the Israelis: he received a salary that eventually reached $2,500 a month, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash disbursements for hotels, meals, and jewelry. In his pre-sentencing statement to Judge Robinson, Pollard said the money was a benefit that was forced on him. "I did accept money for my services," he acknowledged, but only "as a reflection of how well I was doing my job." He said that he had later told his controller, Rafi Eitan, a longtime spy who at the time headed Lekem, a scientific-intelligence unit in Israel, that "I not only intended to repay all the money I'd received but, also, was going to establish a chair at the Israeli General Staff's Intelligence Training Center outside Tel Aviv."[26][27]
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:10 |
|
CommieGIR posted:True, the main problem being that Manning and Snowden was just releasing for general release, they didn't (as far as we know) seek to sell such assets or, even worse, arrange weapons sales with foreign nations like Pollard. Then consider the wall street banks that are the wealthiest among us who completely collapsed the economy. We give them very short sentences or fines even if what they do is often as destructive as any spy.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:10 |
|
Narciss posted:I'm very disappointed to see so many posters falling for the "He's a Jew so he did it for the shekels" meme. I agree he did it, so that he would be released 29 years later a stronger person than the bigots who placed him behind bars.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:10 |
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Not so, see Charles Manson. What do you mean by 'not so'? CommieGIR posted:True, the main problem being that Manning and Snowden was just releasing for general release, they didn't (as far as we know) seek to sell such assets or, even worse, arrange weapons sales with foreign nations like Pollard. Yes, as i said, that means Pollard committed an additional crime. The idea that either Manning or Snowden would be likely to not do this again, though, is far less precisely because they were ideological, though. If your argument is to imprison people because they don't feel any remorse, then that will really obviously apply to Snowden and I think to Manning, though I don't know too much about her psyche now.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:11 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Then consider the wall street banks that are the wealthiest among us who completely collapsed the economy. We give them very short sentences or fines even if what they do is often as destructive as any spy. And everyone here would agree with you that this was wrong. But we're not talking about corruption in the Justice system towards the White Collar Elites are we? Obdicut posted:Yes, as i said, that means Pollard committed an additional crime. The idea that either Manning or Snowden would be likely to not do this again, though, is far less precisely because they were ideological, though. If your argument is to imprison people because they don't feel any remorse, then that will really obviously apply to Snowden and I think to Manning, though I don't know too much about her psyche now. That more speaks towards our need for better whistleblower protections, but also towards guidelines for whistleblowers in general.
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:11 |
|
Mandy Thompson posted:Then consider the wall street banks that are the wealthiest among us who completely collapsed the economy. We give them very short sentences or fines even if what they do is often as destructive as any spy. quote:Madoff's projected release date is November 14, 2139.[121][122]
|
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:11 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:08 |
|
What Madoff did wasn't related to the financial meltdown. He ran a Ponzi scheme. CommieGIR posted:
There isn't any whistleblower protection that would ever cover a wide-scale release of documents the way that either Snowden or Manning did. I agree that a stronger whistleblower pipeline might have made Snowden more likely to route his information through them, but I don't know if it would have. He didn't try to, for example, hand the stuff over to the ACLU or a congressperson he thought would be sympathetic, and he didn't really know enough about the information to redact it himself when dealing with the journalists. There's never going to be a point when what Snowden did wouldn't be a crime; there might be a time where Snowden might do something different and get the information out in a more controlled way. But this is going to turn into Snowden if we talk about it much more, and I have no interest in talking about it more. I'm just saying that from an end-results perspective, the difference between selling secrets or giving them away ideologically is moot. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jul 30, 2015 |
# ? Jul 30, 2015 17:12 |