Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]
On 1/24/20 1:37 PM, John Young wrote: > US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its > territories. Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified > by treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite > a few. Most of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider > demands and quite a few do so. > > Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and > have the military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for > this, a few angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine > sniper take a shot. Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and > get offcially murdered for it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones > option to mass suicide yourselves. > > Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to > whack or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work. > > At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote: >> "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's >> first amendment, anywhere in the world. > > Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially > trained to do. > > [Clip balance.] > Judge Dundy's decision in Standing Bear v (General) Crook which was never overturned or even appealed. Judge Dundy stated, paraphrased, anywhere the US flag flies constitutional rights apply... for instance Gitmo. Ask the Dod and State department if they give one flying fuck what any court decision that opposes their requirements is worth to them. https://casetext.com/case/us-ex-rel-standing-bear-v-crook https://www.americanheritage.com/standing-bear-goes-court Rr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 04:37:28PM -0500, John Young wrote: > US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its > territories. That's true from a specific perspective - the courts of the USA - although when jurisprudence is understood, the common law (not "common law as judicial precedent", a destitute construction if ever there were one) is valid in all legal/court jurisdictions. - when that common law (e.g. right to freedom of speech) is claimed by a defendant in that court, - and that court fails to uphold the common law (variant/ natural law etc), such a court gives up: - it's moral authority to execute judgment over the defendant - it's jurisprudential authority pursuant to the common law (being "those laws of the tribe/community to settle wrongs, since time immemorial") - it's standing in the eyes of the people - it's righteous authority purusant to right and wrong, good and evil, $DEITY, etc. So the "validity" argument (of a constitution, amendment, law, etc) is always confined to circumstances, an empire wielding impressive military force for example - where such force, absent moral authority, can never morally justify its evil actions, and in the execution of such evil, immediately and inherently manifests its illegitimacy. Whereas, the fundamental human right remains, regardless of whether or not it is written in a law, a constitution, an amendment or a treaty etc. Each of us is always with the right and capacity (at least, if you have functional vocal chords) to claim, in words, any and all of our fundamental human rights - those natural rights which are inherent to our very existence. No -legitimate- court can deny such fundamental natural rights. Every court which fails to uphold any such fundamental natural human right, gives up its legitimacy and gives up any "righteous authority" it holds over the defendant. You may not win your case, but you must claim your right to establish your moral victory over the bully, the coward, the empire. In that moment that an authority demanding you defend yourself from an evil accusation against you, fails to uphold a fundamental right, that authority has in that moment, demonstrated its own invalidity. There can be no valid law, no valid court, no valid authority, which fails to uphold a basic human right. You see we speak of "validity" - and I've done so myself in the past - in the context in which the empire has foisted this construct upon us, namely, upholding the deception of the purported primacy of statute law, and the purported primacy of the empire/court's' interpretation of the words in the constitution/ amendments etc. --- --- --- --- The obnoxious construct of the "validity" of a law is this: - a law (/amendment /constitutional clause etc) is "valid" if it has been validly passed by parliament according to the parliament's self decided rules - "validity" is confined to strict and limited definitions as decided upon by the empire - a court must uphold "valid" laws - "valid" laws are supreme, above all human rights, above all questions of good and of evil - the only relevant question for a court to decide, is the "validity" of the "law" at issue We accept this obnoxious jurisprudence to our detriment. --- --- --- --- Notwithstanding possible negative outcomes, we MUST claim our basic natural human rights, we must claim righteousness, that which is good and true, and we must decry that which is unrighteous, bad and evil. If not I, then who? (By the way, I am very grateful to you and various others on this list who have named various authors of great utility for the reading, which of course help to educate myself and others, and have helped to form and distil certain of these basic concepts of right and wrong, good and evil.) > Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified by > treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite a few. Most > of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider demands and quite a > few do so. > > Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and have the > military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for this, a few > angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine sniper take a shot. > Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and get offcially murdered for > it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones option to mass suicide yourselves. > > Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to whack > or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work. > > At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote: > > "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's > > first amendment, anywhere in the world. > > Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially trained > to do. > > [Clip balance.] > >
Re: USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]
US Constitution and Amendments are valid only within the US and its territories. Same for other countries' laws in the US. Can be modified by treaty or other mutually agreeable means, of which there are quite a few. Most of those agreements reserve the right to ignore outsider demands and quite a few do so. Of course Americans believe they can do what they want anywhere, and have the military power to do so. Low-ranking military members die for this, a few angries frag their officers, or like JFK's veteran Marine sniper take a shot. Or like the OKC ex-Army bomber, waste citizens and get offcially murdered for it. Then, there are the Waco and Jim Jones option to mass suicide yourselves. Assange's supporters (aka shark and journo leeches) seem determined to whack or suicide him if legal and promotional shenanigans don't work. At 03:53 PM 1/24/2020, you wrote: "Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's first amendment, anywhere in the world. Greenwald as lawyer and journo is hardly objective, as adversarially trained to do. [Clip balance.]
USA re Assange: "First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners" - [MINISTRY]
"Not even" Australians have legal free speech protection of America's first amendment, anywhere in the world. “We have now learned from submissions and affidavits presented by the United States to this court that they do not consider foreign nationals to have a First Amendment protection,” Hrafnsson said. “Now let that sink in for a second,” Hrafnsson continued. “At the same time that the US government is chasing journalists all over the world, they claim they have extra-territorial reach, they have decided that all foreign journalists which include many of you here, have no protection under the First Amendment of the United States. So that goes to show the gravity of this case. This is not about Julian Assange, it’s about press freedom.” "It's about press freedom" Wikileaks editor explains foreign journalists have no 1st amd protections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwK1tPdaHkY WikiLeaks Editor: US Is Saying First Amendment Doesn't Apply To Foreigners In Assange Case https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikileaks-editor-us-saying-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-foreigners-assange-case https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/01/23/wikileaks-editor-us-is-saying-first-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-foreigners-in-assange-case/ ... Hrafnsson’s very newsworthy claim has as of this writing received no mainstream news media coverage at all. The video above is from independent reporter Gordon Dimmack. https://gordondimmack.com/ This prosecutorial strategy would be very much in alignment with remarks made in 2017 by then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo. “Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He’s sitting in an embassy in London. He’s not a U.S. citizen,” Pompeo told the Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/discussion-national-security-cia-director-mike-pompeo That, like nearly every sound which emits from Pompeo’s amorphous face, was a lie. The First Amendment is not a set of special free speech privileges that the US government magnanimously bestows upon a few select individuals, it’s a limitation placed upon the US government’s ability to restrict rights that all persons everywhere are assumed to have. This is like a sex offender who’s barred from living within 500 yards of a school claiming that the school he moved in next to is exempt because it’s full of immigrants who therefore aren’t protected by his restriction. It’s a restriction placed on the government, not a right that is given to certain people. Attorney and Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger explained after Pompeo’s remarks, “As Jefferson points out, everyone, not just American citizens, is endowed with these natural, God-given rights, including life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes people who are citizens of other countries. Citizenship has nothing to do rights that are vested in everyone by nature and God. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, that includes Julian Assange.” https://www.fff.org/2017/04/27/cia-director-pompeo-doesnt-understand-first-amendment/ ... Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who is himself now being legally persecuted by the same empire as Assange under an indictment which Hrafnsson in the aforementioned statement called “almost a carbon copy of the indictment against Julian Assange”, also denounced Pompeo’s 2017 remarks. https://youtu.be/YwK1tPdaHkY?t=60 https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-empires-war-on-oppositional-journalism-continues-to-escalate-5dc6bf3b1331 “The notion that WikiLeaks has no free press rights because Assange is a foreigner is both wrong and dangerous,” Greenwald wrote at the time. “When I worked at the Guardian, my editors were all non-Americans. Would it therefore have been constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Government to shut down that paper and imprison its editors on the ground that they enjoy no constitutional protections? Obviously not.” Greenwald, who is a former litigation attorney, referenced a Salon article he’d written in 2010 skillfully outlining why Senator Susan Collins’ attempts to spin constitutional rights as inapplicable to foreigners would be outlandish, insane, illegal and unconstitutional to put into practice. https://www.salon.com/control/2010/02/01/collins_5/ “To see how false this notion is that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, one need do nothing more than read the Bill of Rights,” Greenwald argued in 2010. “It says nothing about ‘citizens.’ To the contrary, many of the provisions are simply restrictions on what the Government is permitted to do (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an
Re: some info on purism
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 03:47:37AM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 17:14:50 +1100 > Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 06:37:34PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > > > > > > An Interview With Zlatan Todoric, Open-Source Developer & Former Purism > > > CTO > > > > > > https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=Zlatan-Todoric-Interview > > > > > > Thanks for the link. > > > > Hardware seems tough in comparison to software. > > > yeah... > > so has purism shipped any phones? I admit I didn't bother to further > investigate Yeah, first and second series - but, for good reasons, they're a relative trickle - i.e. just like PinePhone, for developers. > > Greenfield is tough - so many hours by those involved, no certainty > > of outcome (similar personal experience on this one). > > > > Libre greenfield hardware on a very tight budget? That's almost > > miraculous if you can pull it off... > > > > Looks like PinePhone is definitely worth looking at: > > https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ > > > > > > Good luck all, >
