|
Godholio posted:Edit: Hot drat, Jon Oliver.
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
If people in the military have trouble understanding federal and state jurisdictions, I don't expect anything better out of whomever has release authority on advertisement graphics at a weed store.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 12:33
|
|
|
Crakkerjakk posted:*Thinking real hard* I think life would be miserable if no civilians died. We'd all be hungry, points of view would become crystallized in unending bureaucracy as old ideas remain with the old and undying. Their bodies would bend under millennia of wear. The only relief from an immortal prison would be with a rifle in your hands and nobody could die without violence. Immortality is terrifying to be honest, even when you offer a way out. Enough navel gazing on the horrors of unending life, however. hypnophant posted:Is Morales the only leftist politician in Bolivia? Is there some reason he was unable to find a successor who could carry on his work without violating the constitution he himself established? Admittedly, I know nothing about Bolivia, don't have a dog in a fight, and refuse to support anyone based on their chirality. The last few pages have been very confusing. But I'm feeling philosophical and this is an important point worth emphasizing when viewing Democracy in general. There should be very good reasons an individual, especially one with which half the country agrees with, cannot pass the scepter of responsibility to another. When there isn't, it's generally because of power behind an individual personality--at best an emphasis on celebrity and public agreement with an individual's will, at worst a cult of that personality and antidemocratic aggregation of power that leaves a people vulnerable later. Not knowing the situation, there perhaps is a reason for that. Perhaps Morales is a uniquely powerful leader, holds a rare set of skills for governance not readily available in the populace, or has a grand vision and the drive to lead Bolivia towards it, and needs more time to develop these qualities in others. Instances like this have been of value in the world as often as they have been disastrous. I don't know and I'm not saying he doesn't. But it should be considered dangerous, even by his supporters. piL fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Man, that's crazy. Throw a career away by conducting an assault on public television! Jk, sportsmen are heroes, he'll be suspended for two games at the worst.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2019 06:43
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Is there a reason to pardon someone like this other than to try and win the military vote back for the next election? Like was there any question to his guilt or anything? Or was it pretty open and shut? Or just cuz trump said warcriming was cool during his campaign so hes following through now? Based upon some very weak review of secondary sources and my own potentially failing memory, the following is my understanding of the situation: During Gallagher's court martial, SO1 Corey Scott, who was under an immunity deal, said that Gallagher didn't kill him because he (SO1 Scott) did. SO1 said that Gallagher stabbed but did not kill him, implying (or maybe outright saying, I don't know) that the stabbing was not the fatal action. Rather SO1 claimed to have killed victim as an act of mercy because he expected the Iraqis to torture the victim after they handed him over. Though there were suspicions that SO1 may have perjured himself and gave false testimony, in a court martial, the burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and there was enough doubt that they could not provide guilty charges for most of the counts. The only count then that Gallagher was convicted of was posing with the dead body. Doing stuff to dead bodies as a war crime is (according to a quick Google search) tried as a violation of Article 8(2)(c)(ii)) of the Rome Statute of the ICC which cites "outrages upon personal dignity" as a war crime, the elements of which would need to generally be recognized as an outrage against personal dignity. I have no idea if it is. Also, the US isn't a State Party to the ICC. The jury recommended he be demoted from E-7 to E-6. His appeal went up the chain and the Chief of Naval Operations (then ADM Richardson) who turned over with it on his desk. The new CNO, Admiral Gilday upheld the sentence. There is a concern, then, that the acquitted Gallagher was being held responsible for more than taking a photo with the body. I recall at the time hearing this contention. Given that he held a position of authority, it was probably considered worse that he, vice his subordinates, participated and encouraged the photos. I'm curious (though not enough to do more research) whether the rest of the participants received sentences for participating in the photographs. Given the sentence for the crime was less severe than some DUIs* or brandishing of a weapons cases*, I personally do not find a compelling argument that he was punished for the charges of which he was acquitted, but I'm not really well researched on the subject. Whether the rhetoric surrounding the pardon logically follows the particular nuances of this situation is an exercise left to the reader. Edit: Some edits to try and make this more readable. *in fairness, this is based on rumor; I have no proof to back this up either piL fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Gallagher was acquitted of six of seven charges, the prosecution unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt six of those seven charges involving the wrongful killing of a prisoner. The seventh charge was for posing for a photo with a human casualty, which was pretty easy to prove. BLUF: Gallagher's punishment of losing rank was consistent with the crime he was convicted of (I've seen a person lose rank for disobeying curfew regulations and being out with someone else who got into a fight). If the Navy was going to punish him for the more serious crimes he was charged with and acquitted of, the punishment would have been much more severe. The president's restoral of rank reversed punishment for that charge, which he was convicted of. That conviction was a novel specification of article 134, the General Article. Here, novel means not one of the example specifications described. Partial text of that staute: MCM posted:Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. The article goes on to describe: MCM posted:(1) For clause 1 offenses under Article 134, the following proof is required: Given that a photo is evidence of the crime the first is easy to prove. I think the second is also fairly easy to prove, and was proven to a sufficient degree by a military council. In fact, there's likely sufficient room for a clause 2 offense: MCM posted:(2) For clause 2 offenses under Article 134, the following proof is required: Absent of all the other charges, posing with a human casualty is likely of a sufficient nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. MCM posted:(3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). “Discredit” means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject-matter jurisdiction. Manual for Courts-Martial: https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610 Copy of the charge sheet, Charge III, specification 5 germane: https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-seal-war-crimes-charge-sheet piL fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Nov 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:That's a lot of words that Donny doesn't know or give a poo poo about. Agreed, but I want to inject nuance into the second order conversation. The truth is much more boring than the president approving of murder, but it's also not him restoring justice to a person punished for crimes he was acquitted of. I fear the dishonesty surrounding the conversation will continue to be divisive and fail to illuminate the real issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
 I hope the transaxle can take it. piL fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
Stravag posted:At 100 a pop to reserve theirs. People baffle me. I heard you can get the money back and I think early Teslas sold for much more than they cost, so there's likely a subset of that which is purely financial incentive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
McNally posted:I thought I'd heard somewhere he's already processing his retirement for the end of this month. There seems to be a lot of people in the frag radius fighting for whether or not his shadowbox has a pin in it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1199377982495875072?s=19 Dogs are its, unless you know the dog. People are being overly familiar with that dog. Edit: pretending a dog is a person is an insult to dogs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Lou Takki posted:Wife made me sign a prenup that says if we divorce she keeps my balls. Why not split each one down the middle?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:The real problem is storing the carbon. Even if we reforested the earth to what it was like during the time of Jesus that would do nothing to solve the issue of what to do with the carbon from fossil fuels. a) we bury it until we can use it-- b) when we can produce sufficient clean energy, transition to carbon fibers and polymers, at least until human engineered plastic eating bacteria eat everyone's houses, leaving the only safe storage as: c) manufactured diamonds. 40 billion metric tons of CO2 per year * 12g of carbon / 44g of CO2 = 11 billion metric tons or 5.5x10^16 carats of diamonds. The most bling of all futures. At that point, if we accidentally make the atmosphere flammable, all that will be left of our society will sparkle. Edit: corrected carats math: 1.1x10^1 billion (1x10^9) metric tons * 10^3 kg/metric ton * 10^3g/kg * 5 carats/g piL fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Nov 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Vasudus posted:I would imagine that astrological stuff is similar but easier to prove of course. Based on my careful research of Chinese restaraunt placemats, the Chinese have a thoroughly distinct set of assumptions when it comes to astrology that affects compatibility with the West.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2019 16:51
|
|