The Economist is about good writing first and foremost.
BS. They're selling a point of view, and hoping to make money doing it, just like everybody else who tries to do the same thing.
The "Gawkerization" of the Internet needs to be pulled back a bit, and not like a foreskin.
WTF was that about?!? Are you trying to sell an agenda, just like Economist et al are doing? I'm not getting it, whatever it is. Think more with your big head. The little one isn't equipped with a brain, ya know.
Yes, well remember this is an evolving situation. When I was a kid, it was only slightly controversial that my dad had a choice between the belt end and the buckle end. Nowadays, belts aren't even an option, and I'm not that old. Today, my dad would be in jail for "edumacating" me. Consider the result. Woohoo, I'm not Jeffrey Dauhmer, Ted Bundy ...
This pushes back against Texas Congressman Jason Villalba's recently-introduced bill, which hopes to add a 25-foot no-recording "halo" around police officers at all times -- stretching to 100 feet if the camera operator happens to be armed.
"I'm not leaving the scene officer, just going to the distance legally required to record it."
When I was growing up, we used to play in the streets, the parks, and other public areas like the hundred-yard-wide swarth under those high-power electric lines.
Well, notice people need to be warned, and fined the moon, to not speed through playground zones, yet they still do it? There really is a lot of stupid roaming around out there, and a car bumper in the face is arguably worse than shady pedos hanging about snapping pics. I'd be overly protective of my kids too (if I had any) these days.
Re: Do we have enough public incidents to raise concerns about confidence in the DoJ?
... nullifying juries.
People have gone to jail for telling potential jury members about nullification. You won't end up on a jury these days if either side hears you advocate for it. $deity forbid we have any say in the matter of what are good or bad laws. Thank your lucky stars they let you vote every two years or so.
If it was my country, Congress would have congressional committees all over their ass, but that's just my pipe dream.
"Why is there no outrage?"
Why's this considered legal? It looks like stuff I read about in Rise And Fall of The Third Reich.
And I thought they (CPAs) had ethics boards and committees to worry about.
They're one of the evil (and stupid) triplets: lawyers, doctors, and accountants. Borne of ancient guilds (professional associations), speaking in long dead languages (Latin, Greek, and double-entry bookkeeping), they're all destroyers. With one of each on the payroll, you can be hit from any side, each justified in the establishment's eyes by historical fact.
But it seems an absolute travesty of concepts like due process for the government to be able to take all of his money and stuff based on purely procedural reasons having to do with a separate criminal case that hasn't even been tried yet.
... Leaving him begging a judge for a few million just to assemble the requisite legal team to attempt to defend himself.
Anytime you want out of that crazy country Mike, I'll swear to and sign anything on your behalf. Just say the word.
Re: Re: Re: Treaty obligations vs Constitutional Obligations
So, you are counting on a reasonable tribunal system.
Didn't that work well with the FISA courts. I think what they get out of it is privacy, (eg.) from millions of Canadian taxpayers who don't even know they're on the hook for billions (trillions?) because Canada thinks Eli Lilly's attempting to manipulate the patent system. We the public can be so bloody noisy and distracting with all our calls for transparency and oversight! Sigh.