Saudi Arabia Sentences Woman To 34 Years In Prison For Tweeting (theverge.com) 258
A Saudi woman has been sentenced to 34 years in prison for retweeting activists through her Twitter account and sharing posts that spoke in favor of the right of women to drive. The Verge reports: Salma al-Shehab was a PhD candidate at the University of Leeds in the UK and was detained in January 2021 after returning to Saudi Arabia for a vacation. Shehab was initially sentenced to six years for using social media to "disturb public order and destabilize the security and stability of the state," based on having reshared tweets from Saudi activists living in exile who called for the release of political prisoners in the kingdom. The incident was reported in an editorial board piece from The Washington Post, which called it "yet another glimpse at the brutal underside of the Saudi dictatorship under its crown prince and de facto head of state, Mohammed bin Salman."
The Post reports that prosecutors in the appeal to Shehab's case argued for a more severe punishment under Saudi cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws, leading to a drastically increased sentence of 34 years, handed down on August 8th. The Freedom Initiative nonprofit, which advocates for the rights of prisoners detained in the Middle East, states that this is the longest known sentence for a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia.
The Post reports that prosecutors in the appeal to Shehab's case argued for a more severe punishment under Saudi cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws, leading to a drastically increased sentence of 34 years, handed down on August 8th. The Freedom Initiative nonprofit, which advocates for the rights of prisoners detained in the Middle East, states that this is the longest known sentence for a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia.
What was she thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What was she thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, dictatorships are notoriously inconsistent about cracking down on things -- like the senior Taliban leaders who send their daughters to elite overseas schools for education. Shooting your mouth off may be perfectly safe for you until somebody you're associated with falls out of favor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, dictatorships are notoriously inconsistent about cracking down on things
eg. Abortion.
Abortion was illegal, then it was legal, now it's illegal again. Women are being persecuted just because they traveled while pregnant. Women scared to tell their doctors when they last had their period or if there's a possibility they might be pregnant.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't seem like abortion was de-facto illegal before Roe in any particular place. Think along the lines of cannabis being illegal across the entire US, but de-facto legal in certain states, which comes in the form of the federal government having no means of enforcing it in those states. Abortion bans don't seem to have been consistently enforced even where they were in effect prior to Roe.
Anyways I don't think Roe being overturned will last. While I don't think it will return in the form of another SC
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways I don't think Roe being overturned will last. While I don't think it will return in the form of another SCOTUS ruling (who knows)
Most people tend to be in favor of allowing abortions towards the beginning of the pregnancy, and oppose them towards the end of the pregnancy (with exceptions). There are extremists on both ends, but the only really tough question is where to draw the line.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Over the next 20 years or so we're likely to see referendums (referenda?) reinstating it
That won't help the people being persecuted today.
Re: (Score:2)
Over the next 20 years or so we're likely to see referendums (referenda?) reinstating it
That won't help the people being persecuted today.
I think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason, like if it's Tuesday, or raining. Or is you wanted a girl, and the fetus is a male. Don't care philosophically.
That being said, we aren't living in the 1920's any more. There are many safe and legal forms of birth control. If your fear of becoming pregnant is high, you can engage in sex with a high likelihood of not getting pregnant, from birth control pills, to condoms, to condoms with spermicide to non-penetrative sex to no sex at all
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem like abortion was de-facto illegal before Roe in any particular place.
I remember back in the day, a lot of women had "feminine problems" that required a trip to the hospital to get a "dilation and curettage".
Darned if the D and C's didn't just about disappear after abortion was legalized.
I was just a kid at the time, but I looked up what a D and C was, and darned if it didn't function exactly as an abortion.
As for the Supreme's decision on Rode v. Wade I hope that they understand that they gave the Democrats an impetus to vote, and took away a tool the Republicans have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion is not illegal (at the federal level, at least). SCOTUS just said that it's not a constitutional matter and that it should be decided at a state level.
Which is dumb. If that's the logic, why have any federal laws at all? Murder isn't mentioned in the constitution, but murder is still a federal crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would women be afraid to tell their physician that they may be pregnant?
A doctor can turn them in to the authorities if they're pregnant one month and mysteriously non-pregnant the next.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would women be afraid to tell their physician that they may be pregnant?
A doctor can turn them in to the authorities if they're pregnant one month and mysteriously non-pregnant the next.
Here's an interesting thing. Right after the repeal, I've seen a smartphone "app" to interpret the meaning of a pregnancy test. As if seeing two bars instead of one was something to require an app.
I cannot be convinced that fascist states like Texas are not using that data in some manner, and some of our more smartphone addicted ladies are falling into a trap.
Re:What was she thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is plenty of evidence in other countries where women are prosecuted for having miscarriages. So to suggest it is not a very real risk in the USA is wishful thinking.
In the absence of free healthcare (there is an interesting one, perhaps states that outlaw abortion should be forced to provide free healthcare to pregnant women) unless there is a pressing medical need, there is no point in going to a doctor because you had a miscarriage. It would be largely a waste of money and the doctors time.
There was a law maker in one state (I forget which) that was musing that why did there need to be any exceptions including for ectopic pregnancies. I take that to be a clear demonstration of the shear ignorance of many anti abortionists. You get crazy shit where you have to wait for the fallopian tube to burst, and emergency surgery to be needed rather than give a dose of methotrexate when the ultrasound highlighted the issue weeks previously.
Read this article and tell me you think it was humane to force that lady in Texas to go to full term with her pregnancy?
https://www.statnews.com/2022/... [statnews.com]
Re:What was she thinking? (Score:5, Informative)
It's only going to get worse from here. If you care about the women in your life, please practice safe sex, educate your children and make sure they have access to birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if the odds of getting bit by the snake are under 30% - I'm still not putting my hand in the cage.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, dictatorships are notoriously inconsistent about cracking down on things -- like the senior Taliban leaders who send their daughters to elite overseas schools for education. Shooting your mouth off may be perfectly safe for you until somebody you're associated with falls out of favor.
Beyond this, we tend to forget just how safe and how many freedoms we enjoy in modern western countries... Especially those who call them "nanny states" or the like.
This tends to make people complacent about places they might go to where they can be arrested for things they did in other countries (erm... lets face it, a dictator doesn't really need a reason to arrest you, accountability is a function of a liberal society).
Re: (Score:3)
> Going back to SA after shooting her mouth off like that on the internet?
Not very intelligent, is she.
Re:What was she thinking? (Score:4, Insightful)
Going back to SA after shooting her mouth off like that on the internet? Did she forget the nature of her home country while living in the UK? The last guy who did that wound up in pieces, and he didnt even try to go back home - they actively hunted him down. If you leave a place like that and start speaking your mind, you make the new country your home and NEVER set foot in your birth country again. Ever.
He was a well-known reporter who was a public opponent of the regime, she was a student with a Twitter account.
I didn't see any examples of the tweets, but having known students from middle eastern countries I suspect she was far from unusual. While in a western country they feel more free to raise their voice about politics like westerners, and with very rare exceptions they're right.
I suspect it was perfectly reasonable for her to think she could retweet a few activists while in the west and then stay offline while visiting back home. That's probably what students like her have been doing for years without incident.
Unfortunately, MBS decided the expats were getting too loud in criticizing the regime from afar. So he told the prosecutors to draw a name out of the hat and hers was the unlucky name.
I suspect her "activism" was probably pretty tame, and that's the point. If you target the loudest activists then everybody knows they just need to be quieter than that. If you target someone perfectly average then everybody knows they could be next.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it was perfectly reasonable for her to think she could retweet a few activists while in the west and then stay offline while visiting back home.
Your "suspicion" (that's not how that word works, period) is unwarranted. That was not at all reasonable. It is the same stupid error as when people think that the government isn't recording their conversations because who would care about them? It's cheap, of course they are being recorded. Of course it's being scanned for keywords. Even if they "can't" do this to every call (they can) they could simply assign every call a score, and not only scan from the highest-scored calls on down, but also take a rand
Re: (Score:3)
The last guy who did that wound up in pieces, ...
The last guy you heard about. They do this kind of crap all the time so lots of cases don't get press.
Re: (Score:3)
Going back to SA after shooting her mouth off like that on the internet? Did she forget the nature of her home country while living in the UK? The last guy who did that wound up in pieces, and he didnt even try to go back home - they actively hunted him down. If you leave a place like that and start speaking your mind, you make the new country your home and NEVER set foot in your birth country again. Ever.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I've ran my mouth on FB and in my novel about the Iranian government and have admitted to being an atheist a couple of times on FB. Chances are the Iranian government has no idea about either, but I won't step foot in Iran for fear of being asked to unlock my phone and them seeing everything I've posted on FB, and to end up with a trumped up charge and becoming a prisoner swap target. Unless she was trying to make a point and actually get arrested, she was pretty
Re: (Score:2)
I guess politics trumps standing up for your citizens.
Welcome to the United States. I'm sorry that you had to find this fact out the hard way.
Re: What was she thinking? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even moving to another country wouldn't save her from SA's agents. They whacked the Khashoggi in Turkey. They've sent their agents to Canada on an aborted mission. SA and their tin pot defacto ruler don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, she wasn't immediately killed, so that's some improvement.
Jeezus K Ryste. you actually make a very valid point!
Re: (Score:2)
Even the embassies aren't really safe.
Jared kushner just took 2 billion from these guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jared kushner just took 2 billion from these gu (Score:5, Informative)
15 out of the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jared kushner just took 2 billion from these gu (Score:5, Informative)
How much did Biden's crackhead kid get from Russia and China?
Oh wait, the answer of course is "shut up that doesn't count look over there a squirrel / whataboutism!"
The difference is that Biden's kid is kept as far away from the White House as possible while Trump's son in law was brought into the White House and given a ridiculously broad portfolio that included the Middle East while he had business dealings with multiple countries in the Middle East.
Hell, the Qataris thought the blockade of Qatar, a major diplomatic crisis in the Middle East, might have been retaliation for turning Jared Kushner down for a loan [justsecurity.org].
mixed feelings (Score:3)
On one hand I feel sorry for someone being handed what I consider to be a much harsher punishment than fits the crime, but on the other hand, what was she expecting would happen?
You just don't go running your mouth off in a theocracy or autocracy. Every one of them is brutal on political dissidence, it's what keeps them in power and they've gotten good at it over the years. This should surprise NO ONE. Practically speaking she's lucky they didn't brutally execute her.
You don't jump into the gorilla cage and punch the gorilla, you don't take a selfie from inside a tornado, and you don't run your mouth in Saudi Arabia.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Old Soviet joke:
Don't think.
If you think, don't talk.
If you think and talk, don't write.
If you think, talk and write, don't sign.
If you think, talk, write and sign, don't be surprised.
It works in pretty much any repressive dictatorship.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:4, Informative)
I saw a video with Jordan Peterson where he explained compelled speech is the first step to totalitarian government. First is the little lies. Then a slightly bigger lie. They compel people to say what is not true in order to train the mind into eventually agreeing with the absurd. A simple lie might be, a man is a woman, and a woman is a man.
I saw people screaming, "Trans-women are women!" But you see, they are telling you this is a lie from the start. If a trans-woman was a woman then the shouting should be, "Women are women!" For any of this to make sense we'd have to agree on how to define a woman. What is a woman? Is a trans-woman a woman? If so then why the "trans-" modifier?
Lets go with a bad car analogy. If I say I have a red car then I'm still describing a car but narrowing this to a color. I could similarly narrow the definition or description of a woman by age, height, color of their skin or eyes, her occupation, her personality, her location or position. None of those modifiers make her anything other than a woman. If I have a model car then I know it's not an actual car but a simulation that approximates a car in some way. A kiddy car will get a small person somewhere, but no faster than an adult could run after it, and only as far as the batter charge will take it. A model woman is an inanimate object that is the size and shape of a woman. This is opposed to a woman model, a woman that is hired to show of clothing much like a model woman might.
Totalitarian governments live on the requirement of people lying to each other and to themselves. Bring truth to such a government and it will unravel. Don't let the government compel you to say what is not true. Do that and it could lead to far worse you'd be compelled to agree to. This isn't a slippery slope argument since we use euphemisms all the time. Being polite is not necessarily a lie. Choosing to lie, especially if the intent is to merely be polite, might not do any real harm. It is when the government compels a lie that we are taking steps down a dark path. The sooner we reject the lie the easier it will be to reject the lie. Wait too long and the truth will bring punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
J. Edgar Hoover was closet trans.
Re:mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
"And you know, in this country, now there are a lot of people who want to expand the death penalty to include drug dealers. This is really stupid. Drug dealers aren’t afraid to die. They’re already killing each other every day on the streets by the hundreds. Drive-bys, gang shootings, they’re not afraid to die. Death penalty doesn’t mean anything unless you use it on people who are afraid to die. Like the bankers who launder the drug money!! The bankers. Who launder. The drug money! Forget the dealers, you want to slow down that drug traffic, you got to start executing a few of these fucking bankers. White, middle class Republican bankers"
--George Carlin
Re: (Score:3)
Death penalty doesn’t mean anything unless you use it on people who are afraid to die. Like the bankers who launder the drug money!! The bankers. Who launder. The drug money!
We'd be lucky if we could even get the bankers a reasonably large fine.
Re: (Score:2)
"Death penalty doesn’t mean anything unless you use it on people who are afraid to die. "
It's not about them, it's about setting examples for others to not get into that. You only need to take a look at high profile sentencing where judges frequently make examples out of those people.
Re: (Score:2)
You think they ponder the implications of getting caught? We're not talking about people who have much to lose like aforementioned bankers. We're talking about people who have nothing, know they'll never get to have anything and see a way out. You think getting caught enters that equation?
Dream on.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there are two kinds of people who go into Drug dealing. One, knows how dangerious it is and knows he can get shot in a drive by or lose his life to prison. Second, has no clue, and gets in too deep without knowing it and can't get out.
This wouldn't set any kind of "example" to either of them.
Re: (Score:2)
There is the third that knows that their head of state is basically in their pocket so there's no need to pretend they have anything to worry about.
Until the US feel like butting in, that is.
The two USAs (Score:5, Interesting)
The other America cares nothing about all these things and coddles dictatorships and autocracies to make money and stay in power
There was a groundswell of opinion against Saudi Arabia after 9/11. If America was serious about kicking its oil addiction that was a ripe time. People would put up with lots of pain to get rid of oil dependency. But, Dick Cheney and George W Bush were both oil men, and they protected Oil over America.
The democracy talking America, wrings its hands and is dismayed India is degenerating into violent nationalism. But all those years it was not led by violent nationalist party, was there any praise for it? We never heard anything good about India back then, did nothing to help the non violent party of Gandhi.
While we bemoan the unfair jailing of this woman, we will continue to buy gas guzzlers and demand the politicians to keep gasoline prices low.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you living in the past, Saudi Arabia was a measly five percent of oil imports last year to USA, they're optional and and tiny slice of the pie. Yeah half a century ago when I was a kid they were 30 percent. Those days are long gone, Elmer.
We are in no way shape or form dependent on Saudi Arabia.
Re:The two USAs (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you living in the past, Saudi Arabia was a measly five percent of oil imports last year to USA, they're optional and and tiny slice of the pie... We are in no way shape or form dependent on Saudi Arabia.
All the more reason the US should be ashamed of not denouncing the Saudis for their behaviour and not severing ties with them. But we know the States will not do either of these things. So America either has some strong economic reason for maintaining a cozy relationship with the Saudis, or simply doesn't give a shit about human rights in other countries. Maybe both.
Re: (Score:2)
the US should be ashamed of not denouncing the Saudis for their behaviour and not severing ties with them.
We started to do that when Biden took office. Then Europe got desperate for oil and we changed course.
Re:The two USAs (Score:4, Interesting)
So America either has some strong economic reason for maintaining a cozy relationship with the Saudis, or simply doesn't give a shit about human rights in other countries. Maybe both.
Bottom line is: US stops supporting SA, then Russia will step in and expand its toe-hold in the area to a substantial base. Because the Saudis won't find Putin repulsive, will they?
Realpolitik is a bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahahah it is indeed. Saudi Arabia is more useful as an ally. The alternative is the expansion of Iranian power. The Russians are a bit busy right now, but China wouldn't mind seeing Iran expand its foothold in the Middle East, at least to keep its enemies busy.
Honestly, the idea that we're supposed to be upset with the Saudis now when they've been abusing their own citizens for ages is comical. Especially when the regional alternative is Iran (basically).
Re: (Score:2)
Ahahah it is indeed. Saudi Arabia is more useful as an ally. The alternative is the expansion of Iranian power. The Russians are a bit busy right now, but China wouldn't mind seeing Iran expand its foothold in the Middle East, at least to keep its enemies busy.
Honestly, the idea that we're supposed to be upset with the Saudis now when they've been abusing their own citizens for ages is comical. Especially when the regional alternative is Iran (basically).
Don't forget the Russian involvement in Syria, and if SA switched allegiance it's not like the Russians would need much by way of boots on the ground, unlike in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
So America either has some strong economic reason for maintaining a cozy relationship with the Saudis, or simply doesn't give a shit about human rights in other countries. Maybe both.
Bottom line is: US stops supporting SA, then Russia will step in and expand its toe-hold in the area to a substantial base. Because the Saudis won't find Putin repulsive, will they?
Realpolitik is a bitch.
You're saying they have to be someone's bitch so it's better that they're our bitch...
The problem with that is that the bitch in question needs to know they're the bitch and dependent on our good graces (like North Korea is to China). The Saudis know that the Russians won't be half as nice to them as the west.
The problem is mainly that certain "politicians" are pretty much openly accepting bribes from the Saudis (Politicians is in sarcastic quotes because they are as much politicians as they are busin
Re: (Score:3)
The USA needs petroleum. Even if the plan is to be rid of petroleum long term then there still is the immediate need for petroleum. By all appearance the Biden administration has been hobbling the American petroleum industry while going to foreign nations to ask them to produce more petroleum. There's something of an open secret that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil. This is part of the reason they are building nuclear power plants, to reduce domestic consumption so those products can be sold.
The USA
Re: (Score:2)
Just for clarity, the U.S. does import oil, but that is because not all oil is created equal. Some kinds of refining require certain grade that the U.S. does not produce. So even though the U.S. is a net exporter, it must still import, though those imports are not a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
To be even more clear for certain grades of crude oil it would be madness to refine into fuel for ICE's to burn. They are too high a quality to be wasted in such a manner and are used as feedstock to make things. Basically a barrel of oil is *NOT* fungible.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that we were heavily reliant on SA for not only oil, but military needs in the Middle East. You can claim it's all about profits if you like (you're wrong, but whatever). You can't just kick our "oil addiction" either. It's not a switch to be flipped, it taking years, just to get people out of their gas guzzlers, even paying triple at the fuel pumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Realpolitik is a bitch.
When did human civilization peak? (Score:3)
Still progressing (Score:5, Informative)
People forget that during the Enlightenment, the majority of people were not enlightened. It was like, 200 guys.
Over the centuries, liberal values have been adopted by far more people. Just not by everyone. But it never was adopted by everyone. We're still progressing, even with headlines like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close to everyone (Score:2)
Liberal values (beyond basic freedoms) are mostly a media and lefty fantasy. Poll most adults even in the west whether they support the death penalty, whether they think a guy in a dress is a woman or whether LGBT should be promoted in schools and see what answer you get.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Who cares. Yes.
These are the answers a majority of people would give in my country, which is in the West.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean thats the answer you and your friends would give.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Let's go with that. Because nothing like that ever gets researched, or put into politics, or into law, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when were the Saudis enlightened?
Re: (Score:2)
Everyday now when I read the news, I'm convinced that we're devolving into a less enlightened society where ignorance, intolerance, and brutality are becoming the new norms.
If you didn't feel that way the press wouldn't be doing its job. If you are not continuously frightened and or outraged (preferably both) money is being left on the table.
Another example of SA authoritarian (Score:2)
Biden visited to secure energy resources? (Score:2)
In the fine article they pointed out that President Biden visited Saudi Arabia to secure access to energy resources and trade routes. Tell me something, what kind of energy resources? What would be traded on these trade routes? Something tells me that this wasn't to keep imports of windmills and solar panels from being interrupted. Even if this trip were to keep windmills and solar panels flowing in then perhaps the USA should be working on being able to produce enough windmills and solar panels domesti
Re: (Score:2)
For you this might be 4D chess.
Oil is globally traded and USA oil prices reflect the global market even if most the oil is local. Why should your free-market oilman sell you cheap oil when he can ship it to the highest paying customer? patriotism? lol!
Pelosi's rule back from the Obama days basically banned exporting and combined with Obama setting expiration dates on unused drill permits the prices inside the USA tanked. Somehow we can't restore Pelosi's law today (Trump had it repealed.) Biden forcing m
Re: (Score:2)
I read the words in your post but could not follow. Maybe I'm tired, maybe you are drunk, maybe both, maybe vice versa. Maybe your typing isn't keeping up with your thoughts and you left out important details.
I can pick out one part that kind of makes sense and answer that, why sell oil cheap when it could be shipped elsewhere for a higher price? Because it costs money to ship oil and the higher price would not make up the difference. Canada wants the pipeline to Texas because it means lower costs and a
Re: (Score:2)
In the fine article they pointed out that President Biden visited Saudi Arabia to secure access to energy resources and trade routes. Tell me something, what kind of energy resources? What would be traded on these trade routes?
Oil to Europe, and Patriot missiles to Saudi Arabia.
This is why we need to push fusion research... (Score:2)
Only Stupid Government Should Be Using Twitter (Score:2)
disgrace (Score:2)
Moral relativism (Score:2)
I used to be a pretty staunch supporter of moral relativism. As I get older, my enthusiasm is decreasingly pretty quickly. ...as is my tolerance for... everything? I'm going for "crotchety" in retirement, but I might arrive early.
Re: (Score:2)
Conventional morality is not better. For instance, "Do not kill: The political right inserts exceptions for the death penalty and invading other countries. Saying someone does not have a right, means it is not absolute. "Do not kill" can still be limited by other rights such as self-defense of person or country (which is how governments justify assassinations/drone-strikes).
That title... (Score:2)
I guess the poster tried hard to write something that's least informative, most misleading and most attention grabbing.
Bojo could inteverne (Score:2)
If the USA became a big oil exporter (Score:2)
We could send a gay Jewish woman to shake hands with the Saudi Prince if he wanted weapons.
Huh, now that I think about it, a Hindi woman like Tulsi Gabbard as President would be enough to create an awkward meet and greet for a misogynist who had contempt for non-Abrahamic religions.
The USA and its... (Score:2)
That was stupid of her (Score:2)
The model for our christofascist republicans (Score:2)
SA is the model for what the repubs want.
Re: Hey Europe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as we're off their oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's see, you're already experiencing extreme energy issues thanks to stupid moves like buying Russian oil, and now having to pay those consequences. Let's shoot the other foot, and piss off the Saudis too. Yeah, SA sucks at human rights, are we going to do more than say we don't like that, fuck no.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing they've been doing for decades, Europe and the United States will both likely turn a blind eye. Perhaps for good reason. If the Saudis can be convinced to formally sign on to the Abraham Accord, they could form a powerful bulwark against the expansion of Iranian power, and effectively end most conflict with Israel in the Middle East as well (outside of Iranian aggression through puppets).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: REPEAL THE 19TH (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Fascist Antifa, right. And the communist anti-communists too?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Found the Pentecostal mommy's boy
Re: Donnie (Score:2)
Re: Donnie (Score:5, Informative)
There are regular procedures to declassify documents and those procedures leave a paper trail. There are no records of him declassifying those docs, he lied. And it doesn't matter to the laws he broke which do not mention classified docs.
Re: Donnie (Score:5, Interesting)
There are regular procedures to declassify documents and those procedures leave a paper trail. There are no records of him declassifying those docs, he lied. And it doesn't matter to the laws he broke which do not mention classified docs.
This is 100 percent correct. In there is a need to declassify some information, a sponsor of the involved project or the president can declassify them.
But there is a process that must be followed.
There must be a need to declassify the material.
There must be a review to look at the potential impact on other material.
And the paper trail you note must be created and followed.
And no one is exempt from that process. 45 fails on step 1, his only "need" is to try to make it look like he didn't smuggle classified documents. It doesn't work like that. If the FBI found classified documents in his possession, he's got some 'splaining to do.
Why did he take them, and what was he planning on doing with them? What may he already have done with them?
If his minions who demand Mrs Clinton be put in jail for an accidental security violation, I'm sure they want 45 punished for what might be espionage.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, the primary investigation doesn't involve any secrecies act, but the Presidential Records Act of 1978. That act applies to all documents, classified or not. And it's clear he did not turn them all over when asked. A Trump lawyer signed an affadavit that all were turned over, when apparently they weren't. It seems he or his lawyers may have ignored a subpoena about this as well. There's a whole lot of legal troubles right there even if everything is declassified.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
POTUS has wide authority to declassify documents, perhaps absolute authority.
Shut the fuck up with your lies. No president has the authority to unilaterally declassify documents without going thourgh the well-defined process [justice.gov].
It would be near impossible to prove mishandling of classified documents when the person accused of doing so could have declassified those same documents at any time.
The criminal took some of the most highly classified documents to his personal residence without telling anyone and had
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was not cooperating. His lawyer signed an affadivit that he had turned over all presidential documents (classified or not). And yet the FBI found more documents. Trump might say that he was cooperating, but anyone in 2022 that still thinks Trump never lies is a fool.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The papers were not his to keep as his lawyers told him. The National Archives and the Justice Dept. asked for them, he refused. Then the Nat. Archives and the Justice Dept. asked for them again, they turned over a set but it wasn't complete and one of his lawyers signed an affidavit that they were complete. Once the Feds understood the security implications of that dolt running off with classified docs, they demanded them back. He refused. So they took them.
The dolt never did anything but for himself, eith
Re: (Score:2)
Given today's technology, we have lots of geologically stable formations where Donald Trump can be buried, never to be a threat to the biosphere again. It's time we stopped using Trump as an excuse to keep hating Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Given today's technology, we have lots of geologically stable formations where Donald Trump can be buried, never to be a threat to the biosphere again. It's time we stopped using Trump as an excuse to keep hating Republicans.
One problem there. Republicans still either support Trump or they are too big of pussies to do anything but obey him and the people who support him.
I'm independent, and used to vote about 75 percent Republican. For the past 20 years, after Gingrich succeeded in booting moderate republicans and the process that led to a Trump or a person sharing his outlook elected - What we see is exactly what they are. Trump is the 2022 Republican party. And I can't vote for that.
I have a dream that the Ghost of Barry
Re: (Score:2)
Not wanting Trump elected is "going full Trumper"?
That's some serious TDS right there.
Stick to shilling for global warming.