None, because first he would have to commit perjury in order to be jailed for it.
What is the appropriate action when, as has happened through the majority of American and world history, the state is a perpetrator and accessory to crimes like rape, murder, kidnapping, slavery, and the like?
For those who disagree with the government’s policies to work within the law to change them.
Or to declare war against the state and hope that they win, because winners don’t get hanged for treason.
And if the state uses its authority to round up all the jews and put them in gas chambers, that’s not a problem because “social contract”? I wouldn’t make such obvious allusions to Hitler, but you went there first.
[QUOTE=You]
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
If you’re a German being told to do something by the SS, probably not a good idea. Is that your ideal for the US, to be a place where police authority is never to be questioned?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[/QUOTE]
That’s twisted, man. That’s fundamentally sick in a way I can’t even begin to wrap my head around. You don’t seem to get that sometimes, the state is wrong. Sometimes, the reins of power end up in the hands of people who would abuse it. Sometimes, the result is a human catastrophe. In fact, you’ll find that throughout history, the result of unmitigated power is almost always catastrophe. Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao. Franco. The list goes on. And when you give people power via the social contract, and they abuse it, how do you claim it back? By following the laws that give them even more power? No! Indeed, rebellion is a necessary component of that contract.
What about civil disobedience, which was widely used in the Civil Rights movement, and not “within the law”? Was MLK Jr. wrong to utilize tools like this?
When authority is never questioned, it makes it much, much easier for the authorities to abuse their power. Do you disagree with this statement, Smapti? What should a young woman, for example, do, if a policeman instructs her to do something obscene?
IIRC, mass execution of the Jews wasn’t even legal under the Reich’s law in the first place, which is why it was done on the QT.
Maybe. Which rebellions against the US do you consider to have been legitimate? The one to keep slavery legal? The one to avoid paying taxes? The one to avoid having to educate black children? The one to allow a self-proclaimed messiah to continue raping prepubescent girls? The one to replace FDR with a fascist dictator?
We’re talking about events in the real reality (the one where Clapper’s sworn testimony was revealed to be false by Snowden’s whistle-blowing), not whatever phantasm is currently swirling through your reality. PTtKUWtC.
Another question for Smapti: do you believe “I was only following orders” is a valid defense, from a moral standpoint, against an accusation of being party to an atrocity?
I agree, which is why I believe in capital punishment for acts of corruption or malfeasance by public officials.
Submit, make a mental note of his name and badge number, memorize as many details as possible, activate some sort of recording device if she has one, and sue the police department for everything it’s worth the very next day.
How about Nat Turner’s rebellion?
Yes and no. MLK and his followers broke the law, but they were willing to be arrested and imprisoned for what they believed.
You don’t think she should fight back? What if she can grab his gun and shoot him? If she does fight back successfully, and injures or kills him, should she be prosecuted because she injured/killed a cop?
-
Clapper’s obligation not to divulge classified information to the public trumped his obligation to answer a question which constituted entrapment.
-
Snowden has never exposed any evidence that would testify as to Clapper’s state of mind when he was testifying.
So you were wrong in your statement in post #423?
A religious lunatic who took a hallucination as a sign that God wanted him to kill all the white people he could find?
Yeah, I’m lumping that in with “unjustified”.
But do you have sufficient courage of your convictions to personally pull the switch (or pull the trigger, or press the syringe, or whatever) on James Clapper?
Nonsense. “I cannot answer that question in open session” was the proper response; he chose to perjure himself instead.
No.
MLK and his followers were wrong to break the law. They were right to accept the consequences of their lawbreaking.
Yes.
If I were a state-appointed executioner, and Clapper had committed an act of malfeasance and been convicted, and I were ordered to execute him… then I’d be a completely different person with a different upbringing, set of life experiences, and moral code than I actually am, and I’m in no position to say what that person would have the courage of their convictions to do.