That’s fine, I’m not going to accept the authority of a stranger in Lemmy to define what is and what isn’t journalism. It really just comes down to a disagreement whether we should strive for rule of law, or accept the law of the jungle, where might makes right.
They can’t take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.
Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?
No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.
That’s an expansive definition that also describes what a journalist does, which is what upset defenders of civil liberties about the prosecution of Assange. The usual connotation of the word espionage, however, is that it is done by an organization, against adversaries, for its own benefit. Assange was explicitly seeking information from whistleblowers to release to the world. Like a journalist.
But to my point, the CIA explicitly engages in espionage as its mission. So would President Xi be justified in sending his police to the environs of Langley to drag CIA employees out of their beds and before a court to stand trial in Beijing? I say no, because they’re American citizens in the United States. Chinese law should not apply here in America.
Traditionally, courts need to have jurisdiction to hear a dispute, and it comes in multiple types: There’s subject-matter jurisdiction; a municipal traffic court has subject matter jurisdiction over traffic infractions. It can’t hear a murder case. Then, there’s personal jurisdiction, meaning it has power to compel an appearance by a defendant, and impose penalties or assess damages. Personal jurisdiction usually comes from citizenship, or physical presence. State and federal courts have wide-ranging personal jurisdiction, but even then they have to “reach out and touch someone” with service of a summons to effect it. (Trial in-absentia is not allowed in the U.S. unless the defendant waives the right to appear.) Tangentially, the admiralty law system developed because of a lack of a country’s courts’ personal jurisdiction over foreign nationals, and suing property (the basis of civil forfeiture) came about due to sailors simply returning to their home countries, out of legal reach.
Thus, the idea of prosecuting a foreign national outside of the U.S., for actions undertaken outside of the U.S., in places where U.S. law shouldn’t apply—essentially extending a U.S. court’s personal jurisdiction to the whole planet—is deeply troubling. Even if it’s just one category of crime, like espionage. If there’s one exception, then there’s no practical protection, since a country can define espionage in any way it wants to trigger the exception. Or not. It could just accuse somebody of espionage, evidence be damned. After all, that person would be hauled off to a foreign land before being able to mount a defense in court.
That is a tool of tyrants.
And you keep saying espionage, invoking a word as if it’s some special kind of crime exempt from the rule of law, and also immutable. China gets to define what espionage is under their laws. The U.S. did mangle it far beyond the common definition to pursue Assange.
Travel to those countries? The precedent here is that China has the right to extradite me for supporting democracy in Hong Kong from here in the U.S., never once even leaving my house. Assange was not a U.S. citizen, and located outside of U.S. territory.
Of course, the U.S. won’t cooperate with the extradition request, but that’s just a matter of power relationships, not principles. The principle is that everybody in the world is subject to every country’s laws. Or, every person in the world is subject to the laws of the U.S., which fundamentally breaks the rule of law.
It’s scary how many people out there are okay with that.
Yikes! This reply validates my concern 100%.
Other sovereign nations get to make their own laws and legal systems without our control. They can make bullshit laws if they want to, like conflating journalism with spying. Then they can charge journalists in another country with a crime and extradite them to face charges. But, spying or journalism or criticizing their king, the details didn’t really matter, they could charge anybody anybody, anywhere in the world with any crime they want. And since it’s another country, we have no assurances of due process there.
That’s scary shit.
Wat? Are you thinking of Snowden?
Worse, it validates the precedent that non-U.S.-citizens can be prosecuted for breaking U.S. law over things they did outside of the U.S.
Really happy that Assange gets to go home, since he’s suffered enough personally, but I really don’t like the precedent that I can be prosecuted in, say, Israel under Israeli law for things that I did in Wisconsin (e.g. boycotting).
This is madness, but since this is a hobby project and not a production server, there is a way:
This could take several days to accomplish, because of the RAID5 rebuild times. The less free space, the more iterations and the longer it will take.
We were jazzed about the local-boy-made-good story, since Tom Wopat was born in the little town of Lodi, Wisconsin (“Home of Susie the Duck”), and went to school at UW-Madison. The car could’ve been named anything, as long as it did those awesome jumps.
He wasn’t a big name here in the Midwest, at least, until he gained national prominence by winning a seat in the Louisiana legislature in '89, thus becoming the face of the pit of foul putrescence at the heart of the GOP. (Anybody who thinks that Republicans turned batshit-evil in 2016 was at least 27 years late.)
I’ll note here that we Americans have no influence whatsoever on what Hamas does, but allegedly, the President represents us. It makes sense to criticize Biden, whereas criticism of Hamas is just farting into the wind.
I do tend to think of choices that way. The way I understand the human mind is as a rational optimizer of utility. The brain has to balance all manner of competing sensory and cognitive input, and the mind constantly seeks to maximize pleasure and/or relief from distress. (That’s what I mean by utility.) They say that all models are wrong, but some are useful, and this one proves very useful. Instead of dismissing people as disturbed or crazy, look for the pleasure or relief that their mind is optimizing for. Drug users destroying their lives by seeking the next fix do so because the pleasure and relief of the drug is greater than distress from alienating family and friends. This is why people have to hit rock bottom before they’ll kick the addition; it’s when the distress of ruining their lives overwhelms the lure of the drug. This model even helped me understand a friend with schizophrenia. Her decisions were quite rational, actually, but were based on distorted and false perceptions.
Now this is funny, writing it out like this brought a mini-epiphany to me, a different model of what “free will” might mean. Our minds do have the freedom to change and react differently to different sensory and cognitive inputs. We’re not automatons fixed to a preset course of action. And it makes sense that way that even protozoans have some degree of free will. Intriguing!
I think about this a lot, about free will to make a choice in an otherwise-deterministic universe, and the thing that gets me is… yeah, it sort of makes sense if you consider the person making the decision like a black box. A decision comes out, and it seems free.
But what goes on in the box? How can it possibly be free will? If I were making a choice to benefit myself, and I had perfect information about the options and the consequences, then wouldn’t everybody in my position make the same (objectively best) choice? If I make a non-optimal decision because I lack some information, then that’s not free will, that’s due to an external circumstance. If I make a non-optimal decision because I’m not of rational mind, then that’s not free will, that’s either an intrinsic quality of my mind, or due to external influences. If I chose to be intentionally non-rational to prove that I have free will, the idea of free will itself and the need to prove it would be the external influence driving me.
If the choice was just one of just one of preference, then the preference is either one I was born with, or the product of outside influences. Maybe there’s somebody who can logic themselves into liking cauliflower au gratin without reference to subjective sensory experience, or cultural significance, and I just can’t imagine how?
I have no direct evidence, but it’s not at all far-fetched. The Obama administration set up a coordinated effort to share intelligence and plan tactics for the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street across the FBI, state and local police forces, and the banks themselves. The uniformity and brutality of the response to the university anti-genocide protests is… curious, at least.
If you can assign a second IP address to the network interface, then just do so, and bind the docker container to one, and Adguard Home to the other. Otherwise, the reverse proxy based on the server name is the way.
I do not, so I’ll take that back. It was widely discussed at the time, so I remembered it as Bush being there when the attack occurred, not that he left shortly before. I will say that I think it’s close enough for the point to stand that the Bush and bin Laden families had business interests in common, and had had personal dealings prior.
Thanks for the correction.
I read it. It was not garbage, it contains useful insights. I recommend that people read it to understand politics. BUT, NOTE, CAVEAT: Approach it with your critical thinking cap on. The author is an unreliable narrator, which is unorthodox in a work of non-fiction.