Zingari Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 Ironically yes. So Manning ( and everyone else who knows about the leaked video) was breaking the law by remaining silent ? I think we can expect the full weight of the law to fall on the rest of them now . hmm what do you reckon ?
ADK Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 I am not trying to defend whether the law is a good one or that the punishment fits the crime. My comment isn't a personal one at all. It is a matter of fact statement that you can't change the law to fit the crime after the event. I'm not sure about this, there have been several instances where countries have changed the law retrospectively after high profile cases. I'm sure if the US government wanted to reduce Manning's sentence they could.
Rincewind Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 You make it sound like they are doing us a favour by not committing crime. would you rather they commit a crime or go straight?
Smudge Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 So Manning ( and everyone else who knows about the leaked video) was breaking the law by remaining silent ? I think we can expect the full weight of the law to fall on the rest of them now . hmm what do you reckon ? He was neither an accomplice or a witness, he watched it on video didn't he?
Webbo Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 would you rather they commit a crime or go straight? Obviously I'd prefer them to go straight but I'm not going to ask them nicely. They shouldn't commit crime because it's unfair on the victim. The fact that some unnamed minister supposedly said something nasty about them isn't a legitimate excuse.
Zingari Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 He was neither an accomplice or a witness, he watched it on video didn't he? But he had "evidence" of crimes being committed , i'm pretty sure you can't withhold evidence of a crime .
Smudge Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 I'm not sure about this, there have been several instances where countries have changed the law retrospectively after high profile cases. I'm sure if the US government wanted to reduce Manning's sentence they could. I'm sure many countries do suit the law to their own needs but in the end in "our world" there is an open process of appeal which in the US, ends up in the Supreme Court and in the UK, the House of Lords. They will decide the if the law and it's administartion is as the legislature intended. It's the best we've got and based on the fact that it's been adopted by hundreds of countries throughout time seems like it kinda works.
ADK Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 I would say when it sentences someone to 35 years while people guilty of multiple murders receive less it is definitely not working.
leicsmac Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 I'm sure many countries do suit the law to their own needs but in the end in "our world" there is an open process of appeal which in the US, ends up in the Supreme Court and in the UK, the House of Lords. They will decide the if the law and it's administartion is as the legislature intended. It's the best we've got and based on the fact that it's been adopted by hundreds of countries throughout time seems like it kinda works. You're basing this on the way our system should work, not the way it actually does.
Zingari Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 “To sin by silence, when they should protest, makes cowards of men.†― Ella Wheeler “If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.†― Albert Einstein. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing just a few quotes to consider .
Webbo Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 I would say when it sentences someone to 35 years while people guilty of multiple murders receive less it is definitely not working. You're comparing sentencing in America with sentencing here. I'm not sure there are many multiple murderers in america who get less than 35 years. (unless they execute them first).
Zingari Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 You're comparing sentencing in America with sentencing here. I'm not sure there are many multiple murderers in america who get less than 35 years. (unless they execute them first). i'm sure i read somewhere his sentence was 10 times more than any previous similar offence . it may have been more , i can't find the link
Smudge Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 But he had "evidence" of crimes being committed , i'm pretty sure you can't withhold evidence of a crime . If your witness defence held any kind of water I'm sure his attorney's would have offered that up. Ergo it probably aint a defence.
ADK Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 You're comparing sentencing in America with sentencing here. I'm not sure there are many multiple murderers in america who get less than 35 years. (unless they execute them first). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders Many of those soldiers pled guilty to 3 counts of murder and got sentences less than Manning did.
Webbo Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_murders Many of those soldiers pled guilty to 3 counts of murder and got sentences less than Manning did. Fair enough, can't argue with that.
foz.foz Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 i've only just seen it courtesy of the link posted by foz foz. how the fook suppression of that is supposed to be in the national security interest heaven knows! link is in post number 260 if you're interested in watching it Guys. Ive Just read the thread from start to finish and have realised OzFox has already linked the documentry.( post 108)... sorry OzFox
Smudge Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 You're basing this on the way our system should work, not the way it actually does. What do you mean? How does it work differently.
leicsmac Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 What do you mean? How does it work differently. It works that way for most people, but (and this is a problem in the US more than here) the justice system at the higher levels can be (and is) corrupted. For example many of the documents released thus far have given details of incidents that could easily constitute criminal activity (such as the killing of civilians) yet they would not have even seen the light of day had it not been for whistle-blowing. There are too many utilising the idea of 'national security' for their own personal use. As something related...isn't it a generally held rule of thumb (more in civil court than criminal) that the more money you can afford to spend on a legal team, the more chance a verdict will find in your favour, due to that extra money buying more man-hours/better litigation etc? Something about that doesn't sit right.
Rincewind Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 That's why Legal Aid came into being to give a fair representation for all. I believe that is changing. I don't think you can use it for work tribunals now,
Smudge Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 It works that way for most people, but (and this is a problem in the US more than here) the justice system at the higher levels can be (and is) corrupted. For example many of the documents released thus far have given details of incidents that could easily constitute criminal activity (such as the killing of civilians) yet they would not have even seen the light of day had it not been for whistle-blowing. There are too many utilising the idea of 'national security' for their own personal use. As something related...isn't it a generally held rule of thumb (more in civil court than criminal) that the more money you can afford to spend on a legal team, the more chance a verdict will find in your favour, due to that extra money buying more man-hours/better litigation etc? Something about that doesn't sit right. Ok I understand but isn't that true of most if not all nations? I mean if there was a scale of countries where freedoms were listed from best to the worst, where do you think we'd be? Which nations have more freedom?
leicsmac Posted 23 August 2013 Posted 23 August 2013 Ok I understand but isn't that true of most if not all nations? I mean if there was a scale of countries where freedoms were listed from best to the worst, where do you think we'd be? Which nations have more freedom? Oh yeah, it's true of the vast majority of nations (if not all) and I think we do better than most. The UK, all things considered, is a damn good place to live by comparison to many placed around the world. But just because of that - in fact exactly because of that - people should keep pushing for greater accountability and less corruption. We can't make the system totally perfect, but we can at least try to make it less imperfect, and keep trying.
sphericalfox Posted 25 August 2013 Posted 25 August 2013 Interesting article from a different angle http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10263356/Its-Left-wing-prats-who-are-defending-our-freedoms.html?fb
Zingari Posted 6 September 2013 Posted 6 September 2013 US and UK intelligence have reportedly cracked technology used to encrypt internet services such as online banking, medical records and email. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23981291 Not my quote but I think it's meaningful "The significance of using battles from the Civil Wars as codewords, is that our Government is now engaged in a war against it's own people.We are the enemy."
Finnegan Posted 6 September 2013 Posted 6 September 2013 I'm probably a bit slow on the uptake but as if they've gone and made a Wikileaks movie already.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.