Not only is the collateral damage a feature rather than a bug, but the American movie industry is absolutely drooling for the same "bug" to be implemented here in the United States.
I think it's really too bad that the judge didn't just laugh loud and long when they brought the case in. It would have made everyone feel better. Except for the officer and the prosecutor, they might have been embarrassed, but then they should have been.
So, you're saying that it's better for countries with no industry and a massive poverty rate to not be paid for the resources they have or the work needed to extract them...
Just for laughs, name two countries where the foreign investors changed that. I don't think you can: mostly what foreign investors bring third world countries is crushing debt, deeper poverty, public health problems, dictatorship and a government coup. And, of course, a lack of resources due to their having been extracted.
See that's what this ISDS nonsense is really about, aversion to risk. But only risk to the company; the company still wants to sell lots of risk to everyone else. It just doesn't want any risk for itself.
Take Enron as a poster child. What it did for third world countries was sell them an enormous debt they risked not being able to pay, an industrial infrastructure that they risked not being able to maintain, huge health risks for their people, a risk of government collapse, and the risk of the resources Enron took not being compensated.
That should not be surprising because the company was also selling risk to its investors, risk to the banks that lent it money, and risk to other companies. Basically, Enron was in the business of selling a flood of risk and taking none itself. Not just small, managed risks either: extinction-event level risks. And it would still be in business if the blinkety-blank banks hadn't stopped buying risk.
If Enron were still around, it would be a prime lobbyist in favor of ISDS. And then it would sue the banks for not buying more risk.
So long as the government can write contracts, or withhold same, tech companies will do what the government wants. The government wants to snoop on the customers? "Sir, yes, sir!"
Think about AT&T and Verizon, and their special rooms for the government snooping.
This is just more of the divisiveness in the current political environment. Advocates for my side are perfectly reasonable, peaceful, intelligent and well-informed demonstrators. Advocates for your side are completely irrational, terroristic, fake news spouting morons.
The interesting thing is that so many people believe we can still hold meaningful political discourse under these conditions.
You better believe it. Because the regime knows full well that its greatest enemies are not terrorists from overseas, but disaffected citizens at home.
After all these years, this should not be a surprise to anyone. All the controversy, all the breaches of Constitution and law, stem from the government's desperate preoccupation with spying on its citizens. None of that is needed for surveilling enemies overseas: they have no rights.
Why complicate everything so much? Just give it all to the public defender's office. Since the point of forfeiture is to punish crime, everyone should be good with that: the cops get to punish evildoers and the truly innocent are defended.
You're trying to hide the forest behind the trees. From the transcript, "He went head-on with a semi." Gary's semi.
Explain: What part of that event required a blood sample from Gray? With such urgency that a nurse who won't produce it must be arrested? Can you think of any reason other than an urgent desire to arrest Gray for DUI?
Remember, Gray was hit by a fleeing suspect, who died and would unquestionably be legally responsible...unless there was some other "party" who might be responsible if Gray was not...and who might that be?
It is redundant. After all, my party/club/group is demonstrating peacefully, but your party/club/group is violently rioting like the terrorists they are.
Really? Here in Orlando, the police pursued a suspect at speeds up to 100 miles per hour, for two and a half hours. In blatant violation of policy. Lied to their police Commander by radio that they were doing no such thing, even as.you could hear over the radio the racing engines and squealing tires.
And that's where it would have ended, back slaps all around, if it hadn't been for the fact the chase ended in an accident that killed someone. We heard the radio calls only because the ensuing lawsuit forced them to be revealed.
Well, based on my speculations above, it probably would have proceeded with Gray being charged with DUI. Because I suspect there was a 100% chance that the blood would have tested DUI.
It stinks to me like the police were insistent because they were hoping to get evidence that Gray was in fault in the collision.
The suspect was fleeing from the police when he collided with Gray. My guess is that the pursuit was against policy, so Gray's death would have been the fault of the police...unless of course he was drunk...
I wonder if they would have resorted to a little evidence tampering, if the blood test didn't turn out "right"...
("...but first we've got to get that %$@*%$!!! nurse to draw the blood.")
On the post: Rozcomnadzor's Corruption Scandal Doesn't Prevent The Russian Government From Empowering It To Ignore Due Process
Re:
On the post: Dear Al Franken: Net Neutrality Is Not A Magic Wand You Can Wave At Any Company
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Does SESTA Allow State Attorneys General To File Civil Claims?
Money
Because states are looking for a new source of forfeiture money.
On the post: Why Does SESTA Allow State Attorneys General To File Civil Claims?
Well,
On the post: DOJ Finally Drops Case Against Protester Who Laughed During Jeff Sessions' Confirmation Hearing
You're joking right?
On the post: Disney Bans LA Times Writers From Advance Screenings In Response To Negative Articles
Re: Re: Re:
That is a bit one-sided. Disney started the row by trying to force LA Times to submit to their demands.
On the post: Time To Get Rid Of Corporate Sovereignty? USTR Robert Lighthizer Seems To Think So
Re: Re:
Just for laughs, name two countries where the foreign investors changed that. I don't think you can: mostly what foreign investors bring third world countries is crushing debt, deeper poverty, public health problems, dictatorship and a government coup. And, of course, a lack of resources due to their having been extracted.
See that's what this ISDS nonsense is really about, aversion to risk. But only risk to the company; the company still wants to sell lots of risk to everyone else. It just doesn't want any risk for itself.
Take Enron as a poster child. What it did for third world countries was sell them an enormous debt they risked not being able to pay, an industrial infrastructure that they risked not being able to maintain, huge health risks for their people, a risk of government collapse, and the risk of the resources Enron took not being compensated.
That should not be surprising because the company was also selling risk to its investors, risk to the banks that lent it money, and risk to other companies. Basically, Enron was in the business of selling a flood of risk and taking none itself. Not just small, managed risks either: extinction-event level risks. And it would still be in business if the blinkety-blank banks hadn't stopped buying risk.
If Enron were still around, it would be a prime lobbyist in favor of ISDS. And then it would sue the banks for not buying more risk.
On the post: Wyden's Reform Bill Would Also Deter Misuse Of NSA Powers To Compel Tech Company Assistance
Waste of time
Think about AT&T and Verizon, and their special rooms for the government snooping.
On the post: Energy Group Labels Creators Of Video Game As 'Eco-Terrorists'
Labeling advocacy
The interesting thing is that so many people believe we can still hold meaningful political discourse under these conditions.
On the post: New Evidence Shows Defense Dep't Abusing Surveillance Procedures To Spy On Americans
Re,
After all these years, this should not be a surprise to anyone. All the controversy, all the breaches of Constitution and law, stem from the government's desperate preoccupation with spying on its citizens. None of that is needed for surveilling enemies overseas: they have no rights.
On the post: Law Prof Argues Cell Location Records Shouldn't Need Warrants Because Cell Phones Have Encryption
Non-sequitirs - race to the bottom
But, but, location tracking should require a warrant because...because cell phones have batteries!
On the post: NYPD Tells Judge Its $25 Million Forfeiture Database Has No Backup
Re: How to fix the problem in five minutes:
On the post: NYPD Tells Judge Its $25 Million Forfeiture Database Has No Backup
NYPD Castle Construction
On the post: Seeking To Root Out Leakers, The Intelligence Community Is Destroying Official Routes For Whistleblowers
Re: Re:
If you blow the whistle and an anvil lands on your head, is there a sound?
On the post: Fired Cop's Attorney Argues His Client Is Being Punished Unfairly Because The Public Got To See His Misconduct
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two for the price of one
Explain: What part of that event required a blood sample from Gray? With such urgency that a nurse who won't produce it must be arrested? Can you think of any reason other than an urgent desire to arrest Gray for DUI?
Remember, Gray was hit by a fleeing suspect, who died and would unquestionably be legally responsible...unless there was some other "party" who might be responsible if Gray was not...and who might that be?
I tell you, it reeks of cover-up.
On the post: Use A Landline To Talk About Criminal Activity? The Government Can Seize The House Around It
Re: Re: I am shocked...
And the 26 years of republican presidents...what were they accomplishing? Besides forfeiture?
On the post: Use A Landline To Talk About Criminal Activity? The Government Can Seize The House Around It
Re: Re: Re: I am shocked...
On the post: Fired Cop's Attorney Argues His Client Is Being Punished Unfairly Because The Public Got To See His Misconduct
Re: Re: Two for the price of one
And that's where it would have ended, back slaps all around, if it hadn't been for the fact the chase ended in an accident that killed someone. We heard the radio calls only because the ensuing lawsuit forced them to be revealed.
On the post: Fired Cop's Attorney Argues His Client Is Being Punished Unfairly Because The Public Got To See His Misconduct
Re: Re: Two for the price of one
On the post: Fired Cop's Attorney Argues His Client Is Being Punished Unfairly Because The Public Got To See His Misconduct
Two for the price of one
It stinks to me like the police were insistent because they were hoping to get evidence that Gray was in fault in the collision.
The suspect was fleeing from the police when he collided with Gray. My guess is that the pursuit was against policy, so Gray's death would have been the fault of the police...unless of course he was drunk...
I wonder if they would have resorted to a little evidence tampering, if the blood test didn't turn out "right"... ("...but first we've got to get that %$@*%$!!! nurse to draw the blood.")
Misconduct piled on misconduct...
Next >>