Editorials & Other Articles

a geek named Bob

(2,715 posts)

34. limphobbler...

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:38 PM

Nov 2012

HOW is the "security breaching trio" any different any other "the ends justify the means" claim?

1.) By legal definition, nuclear facilities are national security sites. That means they don't have to arrest you. The security forces can just shoot you on sight. How do the local security forces and the LEOs know these guys aren't there to steal bomb parts?

2.) A defense is "why I am not guilty" or "I did it for a reason that makes my conduct not a crime, or a lesser crime." They trespassed and vandalized a secure government facility. It's kind of hard to picture a legal reason for such conduct.

It's a short set of jumps from violating national security, to "so-and-so has more money than we do! Let's break in and take half!"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Kangaroo Court Looming for Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Critics [View all] limpyhobbler Nov 2012 OP

It's called "the rule of law" . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #1

Should their motives be allowed in the defense? The fact that they did it as limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #2

They breached a national security area... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #3

So you support a gag order that forbids them from stating their motives in the crime. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #4

and thank YOU for putting words in my mouth... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #5

So you support gagging these protesters from raising their MOTIVES as part of their defense. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #6

What point would voicing their motives serve? a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #7

The motives are part of their defense. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #8

okay then... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #9

I didn't say any of those things. Only that they should be able to speak in their own defense. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #10

I understand you have difficulty understanding the law. a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #12

The lawyer sitting next to me PETRUS Nov 2012 #14

Fair point. a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #16

You've made an incorrect assumption. PETRUS Nov 2012 #39

The difference in our worldviews seems to be that I play by the rules... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #41

In what sense am I not playing by the rules? PETRUS Nov 2012 #42

You seem to be willing to allow "noble reasons" to mitigate/abrogate the law. a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #45

You misunderstand me. PETRUS Nov 2012 #46

They broke the law without extenuating circumstances. a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author PETRUS Nov 2012 #50

If affirmative defense is typically limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #17

maybe the judge doesn't want to say "national security," to avoid a media spectacle... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #23

If the prosecution tried to stop the affirmative defense based on a national security claim, limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #31

limphobbler... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #34

The only thing I'm talking about is whether they should be able to present an affirmative defense. limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #37

kind of figured that one... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #38

You misunderstand the point of civil disobedience. Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #18

and national security can override that "on the record" a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #22

"National Security" has been used as an excuse for all sorts of Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #24

Go look up Protect - Vachss, and - separately - the NRA a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #25

You're not even trying Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #26

right... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #27

Nukes have fallen under "national security" Confusious Nov 2012 #28

I was throwing his question back at him Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #30

Cal... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #33

Wow, who needs courts at all then? Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #35

okay...here we go... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #36

Well, you got a little off topic Confusious Nov 2012 #52

Their motives warrant consideration by society as a whole . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #11

but the article wouldn't rouse the populace (as much) without the "kangaroo" phrase... n/t a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #13

Good point. And civil disobedience doesn't work as well without . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #19

Tools are most effective, when correctly used... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #21

Or when the social contract is so frayed by official abuse . . . MrModerate Nov 2012 #29

then we get into the issue of just WHAT is in the social contract... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #32

What do you do when society's ostensible leaders are willing to ignore the laws of the land? PETRUS Nov 2012 #40

Nice framing question... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #43

I didn't say they did. PETRUS Nov 2012 #44

Personally, I want to see Elizabeth Warren lead an Untouchables style raid on Wall street... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #47

Tempting idea. PETRUS Nov 2012 #49

mind you... if we really wanted to be mean... a geek named Bob Nov 2012 #51

I'm not a lawyer either. PETRUS Nov 2012 #15

Okey-doke. And what does he say? MrModerate Nov 2012 #20

Their website is transformnowplowshares.wordpress.com bananas Nov 2012 #53