I didn’t hear all of Trumps speech about this but what I did hear left me with the impression that he doesn’t know North Korea was already on this list once before.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I didn’t hear all of Trumps speech about this but what I did hear left me with the impression that he doesn’t know North Korea was already on this list once before.
That's a shocker.
Edit: I was considering "I didn't listen to any of Trump's speech and I could have told you that". However, Brevity is the soul of wit, as the Bard says.
I think that classification at State is a necessary precondition for certain sanctions?
Is there anyone at State who cares if protocol is being followed or will enforce if it is not?
They're trying to push China to stop dealing with them entirely, so they may take enforcement pretty seriously.
That will be a disaster. If China stops supporting them they fail.
China won't ever stop supporting North Korea in some fashion. They don't want to deal with all the refugees and they still view the DPRK as a buffer between them and the US
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
No, the State department's job is to ensure that American citizens arrested abroad receive fair and humane treatment, not to get them out of jail.
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
No, the State department's job is to ensure that American citizens arrested abroad receive fair and humane treatment, not to get them out of jail.
It's both. Which is part of why State suggests you contact the local embassy/consulate when traveling abroad. Also, natural disasters.
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
No, the State department's job is to ensure that American citizens arrested abroad receive fair and humane treatment, not to get them out of jail.
It's both. Which is part of why State suggests you contact the local embassy/consulate when traveling abroad. Also, natural disasters.
You negotiate to get those citizens out of a foreign prison because it's the right thing to do, not to feed your fucking ego.
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
No, the State department's job is to ensure that American citizens arrested abroad receive fair and humane treatment, not to get them out of jail.
It's both. Which is part of why State suggests you contact the local embassy/consulate when traveling abroad. Also, natural disasters.
The State Department didn't get them out of jail, China voluntarily chose to let them go. Because State has no power or authority over foreign sovereign States. It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
And no, I don't mean that in the literal Public Defender sense either because they explicitly legally can't do that either and say as much.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
This is like that time we got the asian dawn out of prison.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
With what? Surely not everything I wrote.
Don't minimize what they did to "nicking sunglasses". We know they stole from at least three stores. Given that one was Louis Vuitton, we're likely talking $1,000+ of stuff here. And 10 years is just a BS Trump claim, not what they would have likely ever served.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
With what? Surely not everything I wrote.
Don't minimize what they did to "nicking sunglasses". We know they stole from at least three stores. Given that one was Louis Vuitton, we're likely talking $1,000+ of stuff here. And 10 years is just a BS Trump claim, not what they would have likely ever served.
Deciding the charges are nonsense sounds an awful lot like holding a trial, which I don't believe the State Department is in the business of doing. Making exceptions seems like a risky business.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
As an example, in Minnesota theft over $1000 but under $5000 (which is likely what this was) could result in 5 years of jail. That's not inherently a much different maximum penalty
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
As an example, in Minnesota theft over $1000 but under $5000 (which is likely what this was) could result in 5 years of jail. That's not inherently a much different maximum penalty
I mean, I consider our sentencing guidelines to be excessive, draconian, and in desperate need of reform as well. But this is becoming a tangent.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
This is like that time we got the asian dawn out of prison.
BREAKING: Homeland Security Department terminates temporary residency program for almost 60,000 Haitians.
It's bad enough Haitians got screwed over by the Red Cross. Now this.
Why? I'm not being facetious with this, what is the benefit of doing this? How are they spinning this as a positive?
I believe they are claiming they are fixing an "abuse" of the program. As it's temporary, but keeps getting renewed. They probably don't want to give the impression that "temporary" things turn into permanent things.
The better solution would be to grant them all citizenship (if they want it), and let them stay. Kicking them out is terrible.
BREAKING: Homeland Security Department terminates temporary residency program for almost 60,000 Haitians.
It's bad enough Haitians got screwed over by the Red Cross. Now this.
Why? I'm not being facetious with this, what is the benefit of doing this? How are they spinning this as a positive?
Trump and his people are anti-immigrant. Especially for non-whites. I'll bet they think it's inherently positive and needs no further benefit.
Add to that their hatred for Haiti in particular (and the two centuries of insanity that was built upon) and you get people who are probably quite happy about the effective refoulement of sixty thousand people. It might be being spun as shutting down an abusive program, but I wouldn't be surprised if the administration just finally thought it found a demographic it could get rid of without political or legal difficulties.
It can, does, and should advocate on behalf of Americans abroad.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
I'm not in the know for this, but on China forums I've mostly seen people laughing at the idea of anyone getting 10 years for shoplifting. The general response has been, "lol if only, more like a long afternoon."
While 10 years may be the theoretical maximum, apparently that kind of punishment rarely happens.
But that's from people who live in China, not academics, so they might be blowing hot air too.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
As far as I've read, this is actually an ongoing position by the US, which the Obama administration opposed as well, on freedom of speech grounds.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
As far as I've read, this is actually an ongoing position by the US, which the Obama administration opposed as well, on freedom of speech grounds.
We need to stop pretending that making any sort of laws to curb hate speech will destroy our freedom of speech.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
[D]ue to this resolution's overly narrow scope and politicized nature, and because it calls for unacceptable limits on the fundamental freedom of expression, the United States cannot support it.
Your link is from 2016.
Shit, sorry. Someone has linked it on Twitter earlier today, I didn't post the tweet because the person who posted it wasn't anyone I knew about.
Posts
That's a shocker.
Edit: I was considering "I didn't listen to any of Trump's speech and I could have told you that". However, Brevity is the soul of wit, as the Bard says.
That will be a disaster. If China stops supporting them they fail.
China won't ever stop supporting North Korea in some fashion. They don't want to deal with all the refugees and they still view the DPRK as a buffer between them and the US
I get your broader point, but getting US citizens out of a foreign prison is not inherently the right thing to do. These players weren't going to court for some bullshit political charge.
It's what the State Department is supposed to be fucking doing
No, the State department's job is to ensure that American citizens arrested abroad receive fair and humane treatment, not to get them out of jail.
It's both. Which is part of why State suggests you contact the local embassy/consulate when traveling abroad. Also, natural disasters.
They explicitly tell travelers that they cannot get them out of jail if they get arrested.
Right.
And no, I don't mean that in the literal Public Defender sense either because they explicitly legally can't do that either and say as much.
I disagree. Or at least, I don't consider pressuring another country to ignore its justice system to be be the kind of advocacy that should be performed in the absent of extenuating circumstances.
An American getting arrested abroad is not inherently an injustice. In fact, if the American actually committed the crime in question, the US government applying pressure for their release would be an injustice. Fortunately, I don't believe the State department does generally do this except in special cases (such as the charges being nonsense, the sentence excessively draconian, or domestic political pressure).
This is like that time we got the asian dawn out of prison.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I disagree, and fortunately so do embassy staff.
Also, 10 years for nicking sunglasses is pretty draconian.
With what? Surely not everything I wrote.
Don't minimize what they did to "nicking sunglasses". We know they stole from at least three stores. Given that one was Louis Vuitton, we're likely talking $1,000+ of stuff here. And 10 years is just a BS Trump claim, not what they would have likely ever served.
As an example, in Minnesota theft over $1000 but under $5000 (which is likely what this was) could result in 5 years of jail. That's not inherently a much different maximum penalty
I mean, I consider our sentencing guidelines to be excessive, draconian, and in desperate need of reform as well. But this is becoming a tangent.
Why? I'm not being facetious with this, what is the benefit of doing this? How are they spinning this as a positive?
Yeah, me too. So how's he gonna enforce new sanctions on DPRK and still manage to ignore the Russian sanctions Trump was forced to sign into law?
Trump and his people are anti-immigrant. Especially for non-whites. I'll bet they think it's inherently positive and needs no further benefit.
I read about them from Time Magazine
With Trump's admin it's difficult to tell. Chad got this after their passport paper ran out, the people running the country are fucking insane.
I believe they are claiming they are fixing an "abuse" of the program. As it's temporary, but keeps getting renewed. They probably don't want to give the impression that "temporary" things turn into permanent things.
The better solution would be to grant them all citizenship (if they want it), and let them stay. Kicking them out is terrible.
Good freaking riddance.
That works. See ya, Bob!
Add to that their hatred for Haiti in particular (and the two centuries of insanity that was built upon) and you get people who are probably quite happy about the effective refoulement of sixty thousand people. It might be being spun as shutting down an abusive program, but I wouldn't be surprised if the administration just finally thought it found a demographic it could get rid of without political or legal difficulties.
I'm not in the know for this, but on China forums I've mostly seen people laughing at the idea of anyone getting 10 years for shoplifting. The general response has been, "lol if only, more like a long afternoon."
While 10 years may be the theoretical maximum, apparently that kind of punishment rarely happens.
But that's from people who live in China, not academics, so they might be blowing hot air too.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
As far as I've read, this is actually an ongoing position by the US, which the Obama administration opposed as well, on freedom of speech grounds.
We need to stop pretending that making any sort of laws to curb hate speech will destroy our freedom of speech.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Your link is from 2016.
Shit, sorry. Someone has linked it on Twitter earlier today, I didn't post the tweet because the person who posted it wasn't anyone I knew about.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yep.
Is that... does Mugabe have... a Hitler 'stache?