Would any sane person choose this willingly? And is it really an easy option when there is a fair certainty that he is going to be "flown home a prisoner, and tossed in solitary for a few years while his case worked it's way through the court"? No, really. The US chose to block any possibility of him going home the normal route and going to an embassy will result in the mentioned scenario. So why are we blaming the guy if he is not having a fair trial while having his freedom assured by even an optimistic prediction?
not hide behind the cover of an authoritarian regime. Right now, he's running away from the consequences of his actions
You grounded a goddamn presidential airplane completely stepping on the sovereignty of another nation because you thought you could catch him. Consider this overreach and overreaction for a moment. If the USG really considered this an act of civil disobedience why revoke his passport and deploy such power? Why not let the channels open and treat him as not guilty until a proper trial is conducted? Because the USG has already delivered the verdict on day one and stuck to it till now.
You know who else loves this kind of power abuse and curtail of freedoms and rights of the people? ISIS.
Re: Let's see what happens if we use this defense when caught speeding
Exactly. It does not work that way. You cannot accuse someone of something done in the past if the law that made it illegal was not valid at that time. They should and hopefully will be judged under the set of laws that were valid at that specific point and under the Constitution itself. The fact that said laws were replaced by another one is irrelevant.
Right, right? It's sad when such a petty fight is at the same time so important as a precedent and to 'vindicate' the public for what Warner stole. Sadly they will get at most a slap on the wrists considering how much they already made off the public domain.
I'd say it is still a waste because we shouldn't even have to discuss it (and that's my line of thought initially but it seems people misunderstood it). It is a good fight absolutely given the current scenario but ultimately a waste because copyrights could have been fixed before we started seeing such petty disputes (and don't misunderstand me, the petty part is Warner here).
I fully agree with you and even though you misunderstood me the reply was awesome. (Obviously you lack mind reading powers to understand what I intended to transmit with my comments. Hah.)
So, when these dildos are hacked and provide too much stimulation will people throw the CFAA at the hackers or something? (In terms of legitimacy I think that concern is a few steps above the patent mentioned).
Part of me is banging my head vigorously on the table right now but the other part seems to think he has seen this in the past: once out of the power chain and with their retirements guaranteed there's no need to maintain the dissonance any further. Would that apply to Hayden and Chertoff?
Umm, it still needs to be opt-in, no? Unless they can make both networks physically separated. I'd let them add a second box to act as a public wi-fi spot but I'd be wary of letting the same box do both jobs. But I may just be paranoid or something.