WWIII has begin?

Jiro said:
this happens in any wars. that includes us.

yes. We are no saint either.
Click to expand...
The statement these refer to is that the Japanese leaders would have made the same decision as Truman if they had the chance.

I hope you can see that they would have.
 
Reba said:
The statement these refer to is that the Japanese leaders would have made the same decision as Truman if they had the chance.

I hope you can see that they would have.
Click to expand...
I don't see it.

it's ok for us to nuke them that kills hundreds of thousands civilians but it's not ok for them to attack our country via conventional warfare. but hey... we can agree to disagree on how America should conducted itself during war. The Americans voted Truman to lead us and that's the decision he made for us and we have to live with it.

It's futile to try to rationalize every military decision that the American President makes. Sometimes they made bad mistake. Sometimes their decisions are morally and ethically questionable.

I don't believe in blind patriotism.

rockwell_speech.jpg
 
Reba said:
The statement these refer to is that the Japanese leaders would have made the same decision as Truman if they had the chance.

I hope you can see that they would have.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think it's pointless to debate whether the Japanese would've done the exact same thing.

"If it's strictly tactical decision by the US, would the Japanese not consider a different moral judgment in using the nuclear device?"..

call it a draw and condemn the weapons forever. Extremely powerful and used in a time where the world wasn't as populated or interdepedent on almost every other country.
 
Jiro said:
huh?

we're talking about suspending the Constitution... not execution. btw - no it doesn't fit espionage charge but that's ok. It fits in your head but it doesn't fit for most of us including legal experts.
Click to expand...

I was talking about a current Constitutional Law called the Espionage Act. You were talking about suspending the Constitution.
 
Steinhauer said:
I was talking about a current Constitutional Law called the Espionage Act. You were talking about suspending the Constitution.
Click to expand...

American.
Go to the UN and complain to them about WikiLeaks. They hand-picked who received the files first (not an American paper...and I guess not a Russian paper) and then they themselves host ALL of the files on their own site...who owns that?
 
keep in mind those files would've been released in the future anyways...WikiLeaks just pushed up the release date by receiving those materials that were illegally obtained by an American.
 
Steinhauer said:
I was talking about a current Constitutional Law called the Espionage Act. You were talking about suspending the Constitution.
Click to expand...

look back at post 290 again.

Didn't I tell you to go look into Espionage Act? You should have researched more for a couple hours. I see that you only read the 1917 version. I bet you didn't know it was revised in 1918 and then later repealed in 1920.

Guess what it's called now? hint - not Espionage Act.
 
Jiro said:
I don't see it.

it's ok for us to nuke them that kills hundreds of thousands civilians but it's not ok for them to attack our country via conventional warfare. but hey... we can agree to disagree on how America should conducted itself during war. The Americans voted Truman to lead us and that's the decision he made for us and we have to live with it.

It's futile to try to rationalize every military decision that the American President makes. Sometimes they made bad mistake. Sometimes their decisions are morally and ethically questionable.

I don't believe in blind patriotism.

rockwell_speech.jpg
Click to expand...

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."
— George S. Patton Jr.
 
Jiro said:
look back at post 290 again.

Didn't I tell you to go look into Espionage Act? You should have researched more for a couple hours. I see that you only read the 1917 version. I bet you didn't know it was revised in 1918 and then later repealed in 1920.

Guess what it's called now? hint - not Espionage Act.
Click to expand...

here is a clue for you :

WikiLeaks' Assange May Be 'Talking Himself' Into Espionage Act Charges : The Two-Way : NPR

Don't take this personally, but I will take the word of a 1st Amendment Attorney over yours.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams
 
Reba said:
Yes, a lady close to my age from N. Korea. She's a friend at my church.
Click to expand...
Cool, I appreciate that you took your time to get to know her.

Reba said:
She thanks God still for the American presence that helped make her escape and move to America possible. She married an American serviceman. Now her two adult sons are serving in the American military. She's never said anything hostile about America, nor does she refer to "imperialistic America." ...
Click to expand...
I would recommend to try expanding your horizons, surely there is more out there awaiting discovery.

Jiro said:
and now.... 3. Truman

:cold:
Click to expand...
Hirohito probably ties with Stalin, putting Hitler in bronze and Truman off the medal stand.
 
Steinhauer said:
Don't take this personally, but I will take the word of a 1st Amendment Attorney over yours.

Floyd Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

mine? It wasn't my word. My information's from US Code - Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 37 - Section...... *GASP* where did it go??? oh yea!!!! it was repealed!!!! :cool2:

please feel free to find a legal code within US Code that fits your scenario. US CODE, not some wikipedia or article or whatsoever. US CODE!
 
Jiro said:
mine? It wasn't my word. My information's from US Code - Title 18 - Part I - Chapter 37 - Section...... *GASP* where did it go??? oh yea!!!! it was repealed!!!! :cool2:

please feel free to find a legal code within US Code that fits your scenario. US CODE, not some wikipedia or article or whatsoever. US CODE!
Click to expand...

Your not an attorney, Abrams is.
 
All Attorneys do not know all aspects of law perfectly. Sometimes citizens who don't have a bar credential in a specific state have better knowledge of the subject that's contested.
 
Generally speaking, yes I would rather go an actual lawyer than someone who isn't.

For a specific issue, it depends...
 
Steinhauer said:
Your not an attorney, Abrams is.
Click to expand...

Here's former prosecutors' "opinions"

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act
Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.

But the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is rapidly unfolding, said charges could be filed under the act. The U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria - which in 2005 brought Espionage Act charges, now dropped, against two former pro-Israel lobbyists - is involved in the effort, the sources said.
Click to expand...

Although the Justice Department has taken the position that media organizations could be prosecuted for printing leaked classified information under the legislation, that prospect is unlikely because of official aversion to running afoul of the First Amendment, experts said. Indeed, the Justice Department has never brought such a case, they said.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the most significant issue is the Constitution's protection of people's right to speak freely and to exchange ideas.

"If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information - as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government - mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders," Wainstein said.

Fundamentally, Weiss said, the WikiLeaks case "is not about the disclosure of troop movements to al-Qaeda or giving the recipe for the plutonium bomb to North Korea. This is the widespread publication of information that is important in determining the future policy of the United States, that could be very important for people in assessing how well our government is doing its job. It's a good example of the problems created by the First Amendment clashing with criminal law, the law protecting national defense information."
Click to expand...

Like I said - Julian Assange's action does not fit Espionage charge.
 
Steinhauer said:
You are still wrong and Abrams is still right.
Click to expand...

*pat pat pat* on your head. Just sit and watch more news to unfold before your eyes as it slowly crumbles your fantasy.
 
Back
Top