But why is it okay to expect someone to be responsible for something that someone else did before they were ever alive?
I'll just quote myself:
Does anyone in Western world want to trial white people for ownership of slaves and put them in jail? Because this is what "holding people responsible for their ancestors' actions" is. The only country I know that does that is North Korea. You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them.
I think that anyone who seriously wants to prosecute someone because ancestors of that person committed a crime is simply a barbarian, who rejects basic rules of Western societies.
Not for murder and taking over the land, but taking benefit from it.
No one is this thread I am aware of demands any kind of culpability for actions of somebody else. That would be (let's use that example) to demand to jail me for bank robbery. There is no argument about no guilt if you are unaware of the source of the money, as obviously it's a job of someone claiming that your wealth comes from robbery to prove it and until that point you are clean.
Your ancestors did something to my ancestors 200 years ago? *shrug* I don't care--at that point the oldest living relative of mine I ever knew (specifically great-grandparents) probably didn't know any old relatives from when they were young who were alive at that time, so worrying about it or being upset about it is a waste of energy.
I can't say I do not share this kind of perspective, but at the same time I am aware that I am priviliged in many ways. I am part of dominant majority that does not suffer any kind of discrimination right now. I *feel like* any crime from distant past that was done to my ancestors does not affect me, but I cannot guarantee that I would feel the same if I was, let's say, Native American, who suffered worse fate than Polish. My point is basically that it's easier to be dismissive about past when you are relatively priviliged (like I am), than if you are underpriviliged.
On a completely unrelated topic, I never got to visit Poland as much as I would have liked.
Poland has it's charm for sure. I hope you'll visit us soon enough.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Pretty radical extremes of punishment there. If your choice was DEATH or 5 yrs in prison which would you choose lol? Tough choice.
Anyway that's too broad, surely there has been some narrowing down throughout the years. Court cases and such. Precedents.
russia is not formally an enemy of the united states so this would not be treason. geopolitical rival =/= enemy in legal terms
also russia is not even a rival of the united states, since it can't measure up economically and militarily. it's just a country the usa has complicated relations with, like many other countries in the world
@Artona "Does anyone in Western world want to trial white people for ownership of slaves and put them in jail? Because this is what "holding people responsible for their ancestors' actions" is. The only country I know that does that is North Korea. You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them. "
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
It's different in a way that nobody wants to put sons of slavers in jail for slave ownership, but there are people who want them to pay reparations for benefitting from slavery. There is different between prison and reparations, isn't there?
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
It's different in a way that nobody wants to put sons of slavers in jail for slave ownership, but there are people who want them to pay reparations for benefitting from slavery. There is different between prison and reparations, isn't there?
If you are only looking at the specifics, yeah. But at the same time, its STILL punishing someone for actions outside their control. Going back to your example about living in a house taken from the murdered previous occupants. How would reparations be made there? Would you be expected to make (or be made to) make yourself homeless to give the descendants the house? What if you are poor or have nowhere else to go, and only have a place to live because the house was willed to you? Would it be right to deny your livelihood because of your ancestor's actions?
Treason is very difficult to prove--there has not been a conviction on the charge of treason in the United States since 1952; the last actual case was from 2006 but in that instance the person in question was charged in absentia since he couldn't be found (he was subsequently killed in a military action in 2015). Usually people are charged with other crimes like conspiracy to commit x, espionage, sabotage, or some other crime because those are easier to prosecute and prove. Technically, many individual States also have laws regarding treason but there haven't been any such cases like that since the Civil War. Again, prosecutors will generally go for some other charge because they are easier to prosecute.
In most cases, the word "treason" is usually shorthand for "I disagree with you politically in the most extreme way possible and I want to try and slap the most negative label on you that I can find". There were people claiming that Obama committed treason when he would act in a deferential manner to other world leaders when, in fact, that was just his "style".
@Artona Privilege has nothing to do with it. Instead, it has everything to do with not letting the past have any power over your or your life now, when possible. Again, as noted this depends upon the time frame in question. On my other board we have a member who is from Ukraine--some of her extended family lived in Crimea so from a historical perspective that still pretty much qualifies as "right now". Since it is possible for many people to know their great-grandparents when they are young children, I generally put the cutoff point at 4 generations/100 years; this is long enough so that people who were alive when x happened are dead by the time you are old enough to know your oldest relatives and listen to their stories of life when they were young children. If it happened longer ago than that it is time to let it go and move on.
@Artona "Does anyone in Western world want to trial white people for ownership of slaves and put them in jail? Because this is what "holding people responsible for their ancestors' actions" is. The only country I know that does that is North Korea. You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them. "
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
Your ancestor beat and tortured slaves. You would not be held accountable for his actions.
His estate is being civilly sued for pain and suffering. You, one of his benefactors, would be responsible for payout if the case is successful in a court of law.
However, it must be shown that you are a benefactor through wills or other documents. You just being related wouldn't be enough.
@smeagolheart: You misread that line: "shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years" does not mean "you can choose between imprisonment for 5 years or execution." It means "if the traitor is not executed, the alternative punishment must include at least 5 years of imprisonment."
The United States doesn't offer convicted criminals the right to choose which punishment they prefer. That decision would be left to the judge in question, who would decide which punishment is most appropriate.
@bob_veng: That law by itself doesn't specify what constitutes an enemy, unless there's more text than @Mathsorcerer posted. There may be another law which defines it, but it's also entirely possible that a treason trial would involve a (potentially subjective, yes) judgment call about the definition of enemy.
We could define enemy as a country with which we are currently engaged in an actual shooting war, but if we use that definition, and expand it no further then America has no enemies at the moment, because currently the only "country" we are (indirectly) fighting is ISIS--which is not recognized as a nation-state. You can say North Korea is an enemy, but we're not actually in a shooting war with them, either. We're just constantly on the brink of war (which ultimately is just a combination of factors--mistrust, military capability, etc.--that apply to many countries).
If you say we have to be literally killing each other to be enemies, then no nation in the world is our enemy. If you say we just have to be hostile to each other... well, then it gets a lot more complicated.
As far as Russia goes, it's no secret that the Russian government itself believes that Russia and the United States are enemies. Their stance is pretty obvious when you listen to their propaganda; they believe our interests are diametrically opposed, and they believe the U.S. is out to get them.
The way I see it, considering we are friends with countries as diverse as France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, Iraq, Vietnam, and South Africa, defining our current friends and our current enemies is pretty simple:
The people who say they're our friends are our friends.
The people who say they're our enemies are our enemies.
I can imagine exceptions to the first one, but not the second.
Privilege has nothing to do with it. Instead, it has everything to do with not letting the past have any power over your or your life now, when possible.
It's easy to "not let past have power over life now" if your past left you with wealthy, loving family and environment that treats you because of how you look like. It's significantly harder if you are raised up in poverty and everybody mistrusts you, because your ancestors were robbed of their land, marginalized and demonized. So privilige has *everything* to do with it.
@Artona "Does anyone in Western world want to trial white people for ownership of slaves and put them in jail? Because this is what "holding people responsible for their ancestors' actions" is. The only country I know that does that is North Korea. You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them. "
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
Your ancestor beat and tortured slaves. You would not be held accountable for his actions.
His estate is being civilly sued for pain and suffering. You, one of his benefactors, would be responsible for payout if the case is successful in a court of law.
However, it must be shown that you are a benefactor through wills or other documents. You just being related wouldn't be enough.
But what if that ruins your livelyhood? Is it justice to ruin your life because of someone else's actions outside your control? I can only see this increasing prejudice and ill-will, rather than fostering it.
i sympathize with your view of usa - russia relations but (despite not being an american lawyer) i'm 99% sure that such arguments would have no bearing in the court. you need objective reality in court, you need a real provable enemy. how would you objectively define the hostility that exists between the two countries so that you could call russia an american enemy?
even during the cold war there were no convictions of treason
@bob_veng: Very true. Personally, I think such "enemies" do exist, but without a clear definition of "enemy," it would be extremely difficult to convict somebody of treason outside of wartime. I don't know how it could be established in court.
The Trump Jr. email thing is curious. Donald Trump Jr. recently posted the full text of the original emails on Twitter, corroborating the story--even the parts that make him look the worst--but he denies that the Russian in question actually gave him any useful information during the meeting (unlike the email chain leading up to it, we unfortunately have no record of the meeting beyond his own account). He speculated that the Russian woman just told him she had dirt on Clinton to catch his interest so she could talk to him about the thing she was really interested in, relating to adoptions.
The curious thing is that the woman actually said the Russian government was trying to support the Trump campaign. Yet Donald Trump Jr. reacted very positively. But if it's true that the Russian woman never gave them any useful information on Clinton, it's quite plausible that this woman was just making it up for her own reasons, utterly disconnected from the whole Russia controversy (though I do find it odd that she would suggest that Russia supported Trump before people were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia).
Which means that the Russian government did not reach out to Donald Trump Jr. via that woman. But according to the emails that he himself posted, Donald Trump Jr. thought they were, and said in a private context that he was willing to work with the Russian government to benefit his father's campaign.
Right now, he said he didn't do it. But before, he said he would have done it, if he could.
I am old enough to remember the 2016 election when the Ukrainians were leaking information to the Clinton campaign about damaging things regarding Trump's team even leading to a resignation.
Yet another example of normal behavior being shoehorned into a dying macro-narrative that can't be sustained by faux guilt by associations no matter how many are concocted. Trump Jr. has been entirely open about the entire thing, releasing the entire communication...and not smashing phones with hammers or deleting evidence. Probably because there isn't anything there but a desire for damaging information on a political opponent, which is perfectly natural as the left should more than understand at this point.
@smeagolheart: You misread that line: "shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years" does not mean "you can choose between imprisonment for 5 years or execution." It means "if the traitor is not executed, the alternative punishment must include at least 5 years of imprisonment."
The United States doesn't offer convicted criminals the right to choose which punishment they prefer. That decision would be left to the judge in question, who would decide which punishment is most appropriate.
I completely realize that you don't pick, I was pointing to the absurdity or the vast difference between possible punishments for treason. It'll either be a relatively small slap on the wrist or up to DEATH, it just depends.
On Tuesday afternoon, President Trump issued a statement supporting his son’s decision to make the email chain public, calling Trump Jr. "a high-quality person" and adding "I applaud his transparency."
Let's take a closer look here.
Trump Jr. shared this information about how gleeful he was to get stolen Russian information that might be damaging to Clinton because he's a high quality person.
It take guts to stand up and admit you did something when there's literally no other option to hide behind. A cynic would say he only did this so he could start lying and spinning it a different way. He couldn't hide behind his previous stories about the noble purpose of the meeting having something to do with Russian adoptions anymore could he?
Only a noble soul would betray his country and admit that he did it after lying it two or three different ways first. Telling the truth at literally the last minute that takes guts. But he's probably not telling the truth he's doing all he can to downplay lol "the meeting was only 20 minutes and while I went there to get stolen information the russian lawyer didn't even have anything juicy!" I wonder if that defense will hold up in court, "your honor I went to go buy drugs but when I got there the federal agent didn't actually have any, so I can go right?"
If that's high quality to Trump, I don't want to see the low quality ones.
And what about Kushner, that dude is still running around in charge of a lot of the government because Trump's delegated everything to him. He's still got a top security clearance.
@Artona "Does anyone in Western world want to trial white people for ownership of slaves and put them in jail? Because this is what "holding people responsible for their ancestors' actions" is. The only country I know that does that is North Korea. You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them. "
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
Your ancestor beat and tortured slaves. You would not be held accountable for his actions.
His estate is being civilly sued for pain and suffering. You, one of his benefactors, would be responsible for payout if the case is successful in a court of law.
However, it must be shown that you are a benefactor through wills or other documents. You just being related wouldn't be enough.
But what if that ruins your livelyhood? Is it justice to ruin your life because of someone else's actions outside your control? I can only see this increasing prejudice and ill-will, rather than fostering it.
Whose livelihood is more important between two people? It is also all hypothetical at the moment, and each case/scenario would play out differently. I was just explaining the difference between the two.
I am old enough to remember the 2016 election when the Ukrainians were leaking information to the Clinton campaign about damaging things regarding Trump's team even leading to a resignation.
Yet another example of normal behavior being shoehorned into a dying macro-narrative that can't be sustained by faux guilt by associations no matter how many are concocted. Trump Jr. has been entirely open about the entire thing, releasing the entire communication...and not smashing phones with hammers or deleting evidence. Probably because there isn't anything there but a desire for damaging information on a political opponent, which is perfectly natural as the left should more than understand at this point.
The article that you posted says that an American Citizen was doing pro bono work on the Ukrainian crisis and came across information that Trump maybe colluding with a foreign power (Russia) and she brought it the attention of the Ukraine's Ambassador, then the DNC communications staff in a very "informal manner" who asked her to continue searching. This information and alleged ties happened before Trump even won the Republican nominee.
Also from the article:
Shulyar (Ukraine Embassy) said her work with Chalupa “didn’t involve the campaign,” and she specifically stressed that “We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort.”
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party’s political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms.
She was/is a potential whistle-blower, and might have been the first one to find ties to Trump and Russia. She was being encouraged and prodded in the right direction to find information, but that information wasn't used by the DNC against Trump.
Vs
Top Aides of a Presidential Candidate meeting with a foreign, non-diplomat operative to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Full stop.
He also wasn't totally open about it. He lied about it until he was caught, and then he was like, "ok, you got me, but she didn't have anything useful soo... you know, don't worry about it."
It is also the "smoking gun" that people said didn't exist and never will exist, stop witch hunting on the fake collusion story.
If Alexandra Chalupa, the person working with the Clinton team, was an American citizen, working mostly with other American citizens to investigate Paul Manafort, who is also an American citizen...
"A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine...
...Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives.
...her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans..."
...then it's hardly interference by the Ukrainian government. If it was, it wouldn't have been Chalupa; it would have been a Ukrainian government official who spearheaded this whole thing.
Americans are allowed to have a role in American elections.
A large majority of Canadians are against the payout and would have rather seen the government fight it in court. It is just another misjudged, stupid step that Trudeau's Liberals have done since obtaining power and should make anyone effected by terrorism cringe with the outcome.
I personally sympathized with Khadr's plight when it first happened. If he was in Canada, he wouldn't have been tried as an adult as he was only 15 at the time and saw both his father and brother killed by the American soldiers whom he engaged with, killing one after the American's put their guard down thinking they killed all the hostiles. I am, at least in my family, in the minority when it comes to this outlook though.
The Liberal government in power at the time should have done more for him instead of leaving him to rot in Guantanamo Bay, but didn't want to upset their southern neighbours by pushing too hard.
His plight though, is not worth 10.5 million dollars, and if it was, the American Government should be dragged into court with Canada to help pay for it as they were the culprits who breached his human rights to begin with.
With his families connection to terrorism, it would not be a stretch to see this money funneled back into people who are looking to do Canadians fighting abroad harm.
If Alexandra Chalupa, the person working with the Clinton team, was an American citizen, working mostly with other American citizens to investigate Paul Manafort, who is also an American citizen...
"A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine...
...Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives.
...her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans..."
...then it's hardly interference by the Ukrainian government. If it was, it wouldn't have been Chalupa; it would have been a Ukrainian government official who spearheaded this whole thing.
Americans are allowed to have a role in American elections.
What difference do the facts make when Sean Hannity repeats them on his radio and TV show and Breitbart and Drudge parrot them?? Most of the people this disinformation is targeting couldn't point out Ukraine on a map if their life depended on it. We've been told for MONTHS on end that there wasn't even a hint of collusion, that for even suggesting it anyone who thought so was akin to someone who believed that the moon-landing was fake. Now the President's son tweets out an email confirming every claim they have made about there being NO Russia connection for the past year has been a complete lie. And what happens?? Turns out the goalposts are no longer in the football stadium. They have been moved across town to a new venue called "Collusion isn't a big deal Field". With a major sponsorship from "But Hillary" brand Cola.
@deltago "Whose livelihood is more important between two people? It is also all hypothetical at the moment, and each case/scenario would play out differently. I was just explaining the difference between the two. "
Neither, both parties are completely innocent. I see no difference here.
Humankind is slowly changing from the 'might makes right' views of the past. This change is largely because of liberal viewpoints, like it or not. However, in my opinion, liberals want change too fast which leads to contlict. Conservatives do change, but not fast enough for some. Call me naive for being kind of stuck in the middle but having some knowledge of history leads me to believe that all of us are living in the best time in the history of humankind to be alive. Yes it might be better for some folks than others but that doesn't change the fact that it is better now for everybody than ever before. The one exception is probably Africa but there's even more hope there than there ever was in the past.
Don't believe the crap from either far point of the spectrum. Those people are not in it for the little guys no matter what they tell you...
There isn't a hint of collusion. Opposition research is not election rigging. I can point to Ukraine just fine and there is no need for that sort of remark.
There isn't a hint of collusion. Opposition research is not election rigging. I can point to Ukraine just fine and there is no need for that sort of remark.
I can find the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Chechnya, the Baltic States and most of the Stans on a map and I agree with you.
I singled no one out in my remark, per usual. And if someone wants to take "most of the people" as a personal affront, I'd have to say that is their problem, not mine.
I singled no one out in my remark, per usual. And if someone wants to take "most of the people" as a personal affront, I'd have to say that is their problem, not mine.
Well, to be honest, most of the people doesn't likely include many folks on this thread. Just sayin'.
Your remarks might describe many on the far right but I doubt many in the far left could find the Ukraine on a map either. They're too busy trying to save animals that live in one pond in rural Idaho somewhere and making people feel guilty about eating meat...
I'd like to point out that this Don Jr. story isn't some leftist concoction. This NY Times story was sourced from INSIDE the White House, and there is a hell of alot of speculation that it came from Kushner, his brother-in-law. There is some Game of Thrones shit going down in this family, and Don Jr., and many have pointed out today, is Fredo Corleone.
"I was your older brother, Ivanka, and I was passed over!! I'm smart, not dumb like everybody says! I'm smart and I want respect!"
There isn't a hint of collusion. Opposition research is not election rigging. I can point to Ukraine just fine and there is no need for that sort of remark.
I don't think "There isn't a hint of collusion" means what you think it does. And nothing wrong with opposition research, getting in contact with a hostile foreign power to influence elections, there's plenty wrong there.
Read DJT jrs email. The promised information“would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” To which DJT jr later replied that "If it’s what you say I love it"
There is no hint of collusion, there is collusion out in the open that's been revealed. Lock him up? He was informed from the beginning that the alleged source of the information was the Russian government. He was told the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” He brought Jared Kushner and then-campaign chair Paul Manafort with him to the meeting.
@Balrog99: To be fair, the idea is not to make people feel guilty about eating meat. The idea is to get more people to switch to a more humane diet, whether that's vegan or simply vegetarian.
I'm semi-vegetarian and not yet quite sure what a humane diet can include, but one of the things I've realized is just how little difference it makes to switch to plants. Even in the United States, most of our calories already come from plants. It's not that big of a change, really, and the nutritional difference is petty thin, too. Protein is easy to come by, and though most vegan diets are low in B12 (only a few plants have much of it), there are supplements for that.
A vegan friend of mine once mentioned that a friend of hers was having trouble adapting to a vegan diet. Her friend had been trying to make all these elaborate dishes out of tofu and was having a hard time. how do you make a simple vegan breakfast?
If there was a video tape of Putin hand-delivering hacked and stolen information to Trump directly and saying "here you go, now this is what I want from you" and proceeding to list off his demands, it still wouldn't be enough to convince segments of the population. Not if it was in 4k and Dolby Surround Sound.
Comments
I'll just quote myself:
You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them.
There is no argument about no guilt if you are unaware of the source of the money, as obviously it's a job of someone claiming that your wealth comes from robbery to prove it and until that point you are clean.
@Mathsorcerer
I can't say I do not share this kind of perspective, but at the same time I am aware that I am priviliged in many ways. I am part of dominant majority that does not suffer any kind of discrimination right now. I *feel like* any crime from distant past that was done to my ancestors does not affect me, but I cannot guarantee that I would feel the same if I was, let's say, Native American, who suffered worse fate than Polish.
My point is basically that it's easier to be dismissive about past when you are relatively priviliged (like I am), than if you are underpriviliged.
Poland has it's charm for sure.
I hope you'll visit us soon enough.
Anyway that's too broad, surely there has been some narrowing down throughout the years. Court cases and such. Precedents.
also russia is not even a rival of the united states, since it can't measure up economically and militarily. it's just a country the usa has complicated relations with, like many other countries in the world
You are not responsible for your ancestors wrongs (obviously), but you are personaly responsible for taking benefit from them. "
I genuinely don't understand how that is different in any way.
It's different in a way that nobody wants to put sons of slavers in jail for slave ownership, but there are people who want them to pay reparations for benefitting from slavery.
There is different between prison and reparations, isn't there?
In most cases, the word "treason" is usually shorthand for "I disagree with you politically in the most extreme way possible and I want to try and slap the most negative label on you that I can find". There were people claiming that Obama committed treason when he would act in a deferential manner to other world leaders when, in fact, that was just his "style".
@Artona Privilege has nothing to do with it. Instead, it has everything to do with not letting the past have any power over your or your life now, when possible. Again, as noted this depends upon the time frame in question. On my other board we have a member who is from Ukraine--some of her extended family lived in Crimea so from a historical perspective that still pretty much qualifies as "right now". Since it is possible for many people to know their great-grandparents when they are young children, I generally put the cutoff point at 4 generations/100 years; this is long enough so that people who were alive when x happened are dead by the time you are old enough to know your oldest relatives and listen to their stories of life when they were young children. If it happened longer ago than that it is time to let it go and move on.
His estate is being civilly sued for pain and suffering. You, one of his benefactors, would be responsible for payout if the case is successful in a court of law.
However, it must be shown that you are a benefactor through wills or other documents. You just being related wouldn't be enough.
The United States doesn't offer convicted criminals the right to choose which punishment they prefer. That decision would be left to the judge in question, who would decide which punishment is most appropriate.
@bob_veng: That law by itself doesn't specify what constitutes an enemy, unless there's more text than @Mathsorcerer posted. There may be another law which defines it, but it's also entirely possible that a treason trial would involve a (potentially subjective, yes) judgment call about the definition of enemy.
We could define enemy as a country with which we are currently engaged in an actual shooting war, but if we use that definition, and expand it no further then America has no enemies at the moment, because currently the only "country" we are (indirectly) fighting is ISIS--which is not recognized as a nation-state. You can say North Korea is an enemy, but we're not actually in a shooting war with them, either. We're just constantly on the brink of war (which ultimately is just a combination of factors--mistrust, military capability, etc.--that apply to many countries).
If you say we have to be literally killing each other to be enemies, then no nation in the world is our enemy. If you say we just have to be hostile to each other... well, then it gets a lot more complicated.
As far as Russia goes, it's no secret that the Russian government itself believes that Russia and the United States are enemies. Their stance is pretty obvious when you listen to their propaganda; they believe our interests are diametrically opposed, and they believe the U.S. is out to get them.
The way I see it, considering we are friends with countries as diverse as France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, Iraq, Vietnam, and South Africa, defining our current friends and our current enemies is pretty simple:
The people who say they're our friends are our friends.
The people who say they're our enemies are our enemies.
I can imagine exceptions to the first one, but not the second.
It's easy to "not let past have power over life now" if your past left you with wealthy, loving family and environment that treats you because of how you look like.
It's significantly harder if you are raised up in poverty and everybody mistrusts you, because your ancestors were robbed of their land, marginalized and demonized.
So privilige has *everything* to do with it.
i sympathize with your view of usa - russia relations but (despite not being an american lawyer) i'm 99% sure that such arguments would have no bearing in the court. you need objective reality in court, you need a real provable enemy. how would you objectively define the hostility that exists between the two countries so that you could call russia an american enemy?
even during the cold war there were no convictions of treason
The Trump Jr. email thing is curious. Donald Trump Jr. recently posted the full text of the original emails on Twitter, corroborating the story--even the parts that make him look the worst--but he denies that the Russian in question actually gave him any useful information during the meeting (unlike the email chain leading up to it, we unfortunately have no record of the meeting beyond his own account). He speculated that the Russian woman just told him she had dirt on Clinton to catch his interest so she could talk to him about the thing she was really interested in, relating to adoptions.
The curious thing is that the woman actually said the Russian government was trying to support the Trump campaign. Yet Donald Trump Jr. reacted very positively. But if it's true that the Russian woman never gave them any useful information on Clinton, it's quite plausible that this woman was just making it up for her own reasons, utterly disconnected from the whole Russia controversy (though I do find it odd that she would suggest that Russia supported Trump before people were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia).
Which means that the Russian government did not reach out to Donald Trump Jr. via that woman. But according to the emails that he himself posted, Donald Trump Jr. thought they were, and said in a private context that he was willing to work with the Russian government to benefit his father's campaign.
Right now, he said he didn't do it. But before, he said he would have done it, if he could.
Yet another example of normal behavior being shoehorned into a dying macro-narrative that can't be sustained by faux guilt by associations no matter how many are concocted. Trump Jr. has been entirely open about the entire thing, releasing the entire communication...and not smashing phones with hammers or deleting evidence. Probably because there isn't anything there but a desire for damaging information on a political opponent, which is perfectly natural as the left should more than understand at this point.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
On Tuesday afternoon, President Trump issued a statement supporting his son’s decision to make the email chain public, calling Trump Jr. "a high-quality person" and adding "I applaud his transparency."
Let's take a closer look here.
Trump Jr. shared this information about how gleeful he was to get stolen Russian information that might be damaging to Clinton because he's a high quality person.
It take guts to stand up and admit you did something when there's literally no other option to hide behind. A cynic would say he only did this so he could start lying and spinning it a different way. He couldn't hide behind his previous stories about the noble purpose of the meeting having something to do with Russian adoptions anymore could he?
Only a noble soul would betray his country and admit that he did it after lying it two or three different ways first. Telling the truth at literally the last minute that takes guts. But he's probably not telling the truth he's doing all he can to downplay lol "the meeting was only 20 minutes and while I went there to get stolen information the russian lawyer didn't even have anything juicy!" I wonder if that defense will hold up in court, "your honor I went to go buy drugs but when I got there the federal agent didn't actually have any, so I can go right?"
If that's high quality to Trump, I don't want to see the low quality ones.
And what about Kushner, that dude is still running around in charge of a lot of the government because Trump's delegated everything to him. He's still got a top security clearance.
It is also all hypothetical at the moment, and each case/scenario would play out differently.
I was just explaining the difference between the two. So there is a difference between the two.
The article that you posted says that an American Citizen was doing pro bono work on the Ukrainian crisis and came across information that Trump maybe colluding with a foreign power (Russia) and she brought it the attention of the Ukraine's Ambassador, then the DNC communications staff in a very "informal manner" who asked her to continue searching. This information and alleged ties happened before Trump even won the Republican nominee.
Also from the article:
She was/is a potential whistle-blower, and might have been the first one to find ties to Trump and Russia. She was being encouraged and prodded in the right direction to find information, but that information wasn't used by the DNC against Trump.
Vs
Top Aides of a Presidential Candidate meeting with a foreign, non-diplomat operative to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Full stop.
He also wasn't totally open about it. He lied about it until he was caught, and then he was like, "ok, you got me, but she didn't have anything useful soo... you know, don't worry about it."
It is also the "smoking gun" that people said didn't exist and never will exist, stop witch hunting on the fake collusion story.
Americans are allowed to have a role in American elections.
A convicted terrorist, Omar Khadr, is receiving $10.5 million from the Canadian government along with an apology because his human rights were violated. (second story link)
A large majority of Canadians are against the payout and would have rather seen the government fight it in court. It is just another misjudged, stupid step that Trudeau's Liberals have done since obtaining power and should make anyone effected by terrorism cringe with the outcome.
I personally sympathized with Khadr's plight when it first happened. If he was in Canada, he wouldn't have been tried as an adult as he was only 15 at the time and saw both his father and brother killed by the American soldiers whom he engaged with, killing one after the American's put their guard down thinking they killed all the hostiles. I am, at least in my family, in the minority when it comes to this outlook though.
The Liberal government in power at the time should have done more for him instead of leaving him to rot in Guantanamo Bay, but didn't want to upset their southern neighbours by pushing too hard.
His plight though, is not worth 10.5 million dollars, and if it was, the American Government should be dragged into court with Canada to help pay for it as they were the culprits who breached his human rights to begin with.
With his families connection to terrorism, it would not be a stretch to see this money funneled back into people who are looking to do Canadians fighting abroad harm.
It is also all hypothetical at the moment, and each case/scenario would play out differently.
I was just explaining the difference between the two. "
Neither, both parties are completely innocent. I see no difference here.
Don't believe the crap from either far point of the spectrum. Those people are not in it for the little guys no matter what they tell you...
Your remarks might describe many on the far right but I doubt many in the far left could find the Ukraine on a map either. They're too busy trying to save animals that live in one pond in rural Idaho somewhere and making people feel guilty about eating meat...
"I was your older brother, Ivanka, and I was passed over!! I'm smart, not dumb like everybody says! I'm smart and I want respect!"
Read DJT jrs email. The promised information“would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” To which DJT jr later replied that "If it’s what you say I love it"
There is no hint of collusion, there is collusion out in the open that's been revealed. Lock him up? He was informed from the beginning that the alleged source of the information was the Russian government. He was told the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” He brought Jared Kushner and then-campaign chair Paul Manafort with him to the meeting.
The best you can do is pick the one that reflects more of your views than the others. I still don't wish I'd voted for Hillary...
I'm semi-vegetarian and not yet quite sure what a humane diet can include, but one of the things I've realized is just how little difference it makes to switch to plants. Even in the United States, most of our calories already come from plants. It's not that big of a change, really, and the nutritional difference is petty thin, too. Protein is easy to come by, and though most vegan diets are low in B12 (only a few plants have much of it), there are supplements for that.
A vegan friend of mine once mentioned that a friend of hers was having trouble adapting to a vegan diet. Her friend had been trying to make all these elaborate dishes out of tofu and was having a hard time. how do you make a simple vegan breakfast?
Easy. You put a potato in the microwave.