(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

24 Feb 2013 12:10 PM   |   16741 clicks   |   Guardian
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 252 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  
Look, if the 14th's "equal protection" clause means all persons, regardless of citizenship or disability or whatever, doesn't the 6th Amendment mean he gets a public trial? And what about speedy? We're going on three years now, and I don't even know that they've set a tentative date for the actual trial yet.

I don't want to hear any jazz about him being a servicemember - the 6th Amendment right to a public trial exists under the UCMJ. See United States v. Harvey.

24 Feb 2013 06:51 AM
Reply
Alphax     
It's certainly another legal black eye for our nation.. and we've run out of eyes already.

24 Feb 2013 06:55 AM
Reply
staplermofo    [TotalFark]  

Alphax: It's certainly another legal black eye for our nation.. and we've run out of eyes already.


We've moved on to the ass now.  Our metaphorical ass is being metaphorically pounded and prolapsed so regularly it metaphorically looks like a pregnant lady's swollen labia 4 hours after childbirth.

24 Feb 2013 06:59 AM
Reply
BronyMedic     

ox45tallboy: Look, if the 14th's "equal protection" clause means all persons, regardless of citizenship or disability or whatever, doesn't the 6th Amendment mean he gets a public trial? And what about speedy? We're going on three years now, and I don't even know that they've set a tentative date for the actual trial yet.

I don't want to hear any jazz about him being a servicemember - the 6th Amendment right to a public trial exists under the UCMJ. See United States v. Harvey.


It's very interesting that you leave out the fact that Manning's trial has been delayed multiple times in the past three years because of supposed attempts at Plea Bargaining that have fallen through each and every time because Manning has refused them once the offer has been placed on the table.

Or the fact that 186,000 classified documents have to be poured through, cataloged  and the evidence put in a manner that it can be presented in court to a jury of his own peers.

The Enron Criminal Trials took 6 years. The Oklahoma City Bombing took two years to bring McVeigh to trial.

It's almost as if complex and multi-factoral crimes require a long investigative and preparatory process, and motions filed can delay that further.

24 Feb 2013 07:10 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  

BronyMedic: It's very interesting that you leave out the fact that Manning's trial has been delayed multiple times in the past three years because of supposed attempts at Plea Bargaining that have fallen through each and every time because Manning has refused them once the offer has been placed on the table.


It's not like Manning himself is asking for the plea deals. I do understand your point, but I disagree with this particular rationale. It's still not fair to delay a trial because you keep making offers for the accused to plead guilty.

BronyMedic: Or the fact that 186,000 classified documents have to be poured through, cataloged and the evidence put in a manner that it can be presented in court to a jury of his own peers.


That averages out to 186 documents per day. A good number of these "documents" are e-mails and other correspondence containing a single line or sentence. Can we not at least make a guesstimate at when this will be completed? The major news outlets had all the "evidence" pretty thoroughly cataloged in a matter of days.

BronyMedic: The Enron Criminal Trials took 6 years. The Oklahoma City Bombing took two years to bring McVeigh to trial.


There is a major difference when the accused waives his right to a speedy trial by asking for the delays himself. Both of those cases involved requests for continuances by the defense, in the Enron case, the judge had to start denying them or we would still be awaiting trial.

BronyMedic: It's almost as if complex and multi-factoral crimes require a long investigative and preparatory process, and motions filed can delay that further.


Which are exactly the excuses used by King George and previous English monarchs when imprisoning those for whom there was scant evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Much of our "rights of the accused" are based on wrongdoings by the British monarchy - see the Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh and for a history of our Right to Face One's Accuser, i.e., cross-examination, as well as the term "Lord Cobham Affidavit" used in legal writings.

If they can't have enough evidence gathered in one year from the date of the arrest to garner a conviction, then the arrest should not have taken place.

24 Feb 2013 07:34 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  

Alphax: It's certainly another legal black eye for our nation.. and we've run out of eyes already.


I agree. Dammit Obama, you're a freakin' Constitutional Law scholar! Why haven't you closed Gitmo? Why is this trial still in limbo? What the f*ck is going on?

24 Feb 2013 07:36 AM
Reply
BronyMedic     

ox45tallboy: It's not like Manning himself is asking for the plea deals. I do understand your point, but I disagree with this particular rationale. It's still not fair to delay a trial because you keep making offers for the accused to plead guilty.


What are you talking about, not asking for the plea deals?
What happens is that manning proposes to accept a plea deal, then backs out at the last minute.
The latest development was in November 2012 when the court approved a plea deal's language, but it has yet to be accepted by Manning.

ox45tallboy: That averages out to 186 documents per day. A good number of these "documents" are e-mails and other correspondence containing a single line or sentence. Can we not at least make a guesstimate at when this will be completed? The major news outlets had all the "evidence" pretty thoroughly cataloged in a matter of days.


Actually, all of those documents, regardless if they're leaked, are still considered classified, noforeign, and compartmentalized information by the US Military, even if they were on SIPRnet. That means they have to be handled by legal personnel who are cleared to do so, and even the defense attorneys have to be vetted to that level of information access.

Even though he leaked that information to a foreign national who published it, it still doesn't remove that fact. It also doesn't remove the fact that witnesses have to be dealt with, and a case built.

ox45tallboy: There is a major difference when the accused waives his right to a speedy trial by asking for the delays himself. Both of those cases involved requests for continuances by the defense, in the Enron case, the judge had to start denying them or we would still be awaiting trial.


Uh, what? Did you miss the part where Bradley Manning's laywers have file multiple motions in the court which have delayed the trial anytime a date has come close to being set, or have set themselves up as willing to accept a plea bargain  only to back out at the last minute or NOT take the offer? The Oklahoma City Bombing trial, for example, took two years from arrest to sentencing because of the amount of forensic material and cataloging involved.

ox45tallboy: Which are exactly the excuses used by King George and previous English monarchs when imprisoning those for whom there was scant evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Much of our "rights of the accused" are based on wrongdoings by the British monarchy - see the Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh and for a history of our Right to Face One's Accuser, i.e., cross-examination, as well as the term "Lord Cobham Affidavit" used in legal writings.

If they can't have enough evidence gathered in one year from the date of the arrest to garner a conviction, then the arrest should not have taken place.


Yes. I'm well aware of the history of our legal system. I'm also aware the laws have not caught up with modern technology, and I'm also aware that he has not been denied the right to face his accuser, despite behaving like a complete ass up to and after his arrest. The last part of your statement, however, is your personal opinion and you're welcome to it, however it ignores the complexity of a case such as this, and the overwhelming amount of evidence and human interviews that can be done.

24 Feb 2013 07:47 AM
Reply
BronyMedic     

ox45tallboy: I agree. Dammit Obama, you're a freakin' Constitutional Law scholar! Why haven't you closed Gitmo? Why is this trial still in limbo? What the f*ck is going on?


Probably because he's tried, and the Republicans have blocked him at every junction in the process.

24 Feb 2013 07:48 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  

BronyMedic: What happens is that manning proposes to accept a plea deal, then backs out at the last minute.


No.

From your link:

While the defense move appears to be a bid to resolve the case, the plea offer is not a plea bargain. The military officer who ordered Manning's court martial has the authority to proceed with the filed charges, which include a charge of aiding the enemy and carry a potential punishment of life in prison.

He's actually trying to speed the whole thing up by admitting to some of the charges. The prosecutor isn't offering a plea bargain.

BronyMedic: Actually, all of those documents, regardless if they're leaked, are still considered classified, noforeign, and compartmentalized information by the US Military, even if they were on SIPRnet. That means they have to be handled by legal personnel who are cleared to do so, and even the defense attorneys have to be vetted to that level of information access.


And it takes them three years to find a few warm bodies with "Confidential" clearance? For crying out loud, civilians can be cleared to read all of that stuff! Seriously.

One line of note from that link: In general, expect a CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET clearance to take between 1 and 3 months.

BronyMedic: Even though he leaked that information to a foreign national who published it, it still doesn't remove that fact. It also doesn't remove the fact that witnesses have to be dealt with, and a case built.


So if all this "secrecy" is necessary, why in the world are they not making the trial public? Why are the rulings not being released, even redacted? And I think the only real witness is sitting in an embassy in London right now, awaiting extradition to Sweden for having sex without a condom (seriously, that's what Assange is charged with, NOT rape) and subsequent extradition to the US.

BronyMedic: Uh, what? Did you miss the part where Bradley Manning's laywers have file multiple motions in the court which have delayed the trial anytime a date has come close to being set


Yes, I did. Please point them out to me.

BronyMedic: or have set themselves up as willing to accept a plea bargain only to back out at the last minute or NOT take the offer?


Because the prosecution always ceases work on building a case anytime there is the slightest hint of a plea bargain, never mind the fact that your link said specifically this is NOT a plea bargain. And then of course they have to start back over from scratch and re-clear everyone.

I don't believe that to be the case.

BronyMedic: I'm also aware the laws have not caught up with modern technology


If anything then, the trials should be made quicker.

BronyMedic: The last part of your statement, however, is your personal opinion and you're welcome to it, however it ignores the complexity of a case such as this, and the overwhelming amount of evidence and human interviews that can be done.


The last part of the statement regarding one year wasn't my personal opinion. It's 18 USC § 3161.

Well, okay, the part about "the arrest should not have been made" is my personal opinion, but we have laws that clarify what exactly a "speedy trial" is, and one year is the generally accepted length of time. I'll leave you to Google "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring to Speedy Trial".

24 Feb 2013 08:23 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  

BronyMedic: Probably because he's tried, and the Republicans have blocked him at every junction in the process.


I know he signed an EO his first day of office. I think he hasn't had the political capital to spare to go balls out and order them remanded into the custody of the American Judicial system, and leave it up to Congress to scramble to find a place to put them.

24 Feb 2013 08:25 AM
Reply
Weaver95    [TotalFark]  
that kid embarrassed the hell outta the war machine in this nation.  you bet his ass is fried.

24 Feb 2013 09:33 AM
Reply
Alphax     

Weaver95: that kid embarrassed the hell outta the war machine in this nation.  you bet his ass is fried.


5th season of Babylon 5, those telepaths threatened to reveal the secrets of all the alien ambassadors.  Well, for once they were all in perfect agreement - they wanted all the telepaths DEAD.

24 Feb 2013 09:35 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  
I'm betting they're holding off on possibly getting Assange out of that embassy so he'll be extradited eventually to the US and forced to testify, then they can hold him in contempt and jail him indefinitely for refusing to testify against Manning because there is really no law that they can hold him to, as his actions did not take place on US soil.

To me, this is kind of like after Abu Ghraib when they ordered sevicemembers to not take cameras into the prisons. They've missed the point entirely - if Bad Things weren't done in the first place, then there wouldn't be a scandal to begin with.

24 Feb 2013 09:53 AM
Reply
Weaver95    [TotalFark]  

ox45tallboy: I'm betting they're holding off on possibly getting Assange out of that embassy so he'll be extradited eventually to the US and forced to testify, then they can hold him in contempt and jail him indefinitely for refusing to testify against Manning because there is really no law that they can hold him to, as his actions did not take place on US soil.

To me, this is kind of like after Abu Ghraib when they ordered sevicemembers to not take cameras into the prisons. They've missed the point entirely - if Bad Things weren't done in the first place, then there wouldn't be a scandal to begin with.


I think the prosecutors just want to lock up everyone involved and throw away the key.  the issue of the US actions being moral, immoral or illegal isn't relevant to this process.  they *need* to smash Manning down, make an example of him.  not just because he leaked classified data (which, lets face it, he did do) but because a LOW RANKING person leaked data that made life difficult for senior officials in the US government....that simply cannot be permitted.  never mind the fact that high level officials leak classified data to serve their agendas, never mind the fact that the US military commits questionable actions in times of war...we're gonna crush Manning because HE BROKE THE LAW gotdammit.  And that's all there is to it.

this whole thing is a mess.  we're arbitrarily enforcing the law, and we're pretty brutal about how we get it done.  I really do think that if the US felt they could get away with murdering Assange and Manning they'd have done so by now.  it's only the fact that there would be massive public backlash that's preventing someone from launching a drone strike on their asses.

24 Feb 2013 10:02 AM
Reply
ox45tallboy    [TotalFark]  

Weaver95: this whole thing is a mess


Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here. The US government did some bad things, and they didn't just get called out on it by Woodward and Bernstein, but by some piss-ant Specialist and a crapload of poor IT infrastructure. Embarrassing on about eight different levels.

I mean, do you beat the sh*t out of your 7-year-old for not knocking before he comes into the bedroom and sees you having sex with the maid? For starters, why wasn't your door locked? Sure, he wasn't supposed to come in without knocking, but punishing him, no matter how severely, doesn't cover up the fact you were f*cking the goddamn maid!!!

24 Feb 2013 10:10 AM
Reply
SilentStrider    [TotalFark]  

ox45tallboy: Weaver95: this whole thing is a mess

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here. The US government did some bad things, and they didn't just get called out on it by Woodward and Bernstein, but by some piss-ant Specialist and a crapload of poor IT infrastructure. Embarrassing on about eight different levels.

I mean, do you beat the sh*t out of your 7-year-old for not knocking before he comes into the bedroom and sees you having sex with the maid? For starters, why wasn't your door locked? Sure, he wasn't supposed to come in without knocking, but punishing him, no matter how severely, doesn't cover up the fact you were f*cking the goddamn maid!!!


Well, there is precedent for throwing a ten year out a window if he catches you getting it on with your sister.

24 Feb 2013 10:15 AM
Reply
edmo    [TotalFark]  

BronyMedic: It's almost as if complex and multi-factoral crimes require a long investigative and preparatory process, and motions filed can delay that further.


So you're saying not doing the work in a timely fashion trumps the Constitution?

24 Feb 2013 11:47 AM
Reply
Marcus Aurelius    [TotalFark]  
Land of the Free.

Home of the Brave.

24 Feb 2013 12:15 PM
Reply
p51d007     
Sorry, the 6th doesn't apply if he or she is ACTIVE DUTY military.

24 Feb 2013 12:15 PM
Reply
Silverstaff     

BronyMedic: It's very interesting that you leave out the fact that Manning's trial has been delayed multiple times in the past three years because of supposed attempts at Plea Bargaining that have fallen through each and every time because Manning has refused them once the offer has been placed on the table.

Or the fact that 186,000 classified documents have to be poured through, cataloged and the evidence put in a manner that it can be presented in court to a jury of his own peers.


THIS

Manning and his legal team have been stalling and playing delaying tactics since the beginning.

Also, the ridiculous amount of evidence to go through, in the form of a six-digit sum of classified files, means a thorough investigation isn't exactly quick.

He's not being held without trial indefinitely, he's getting a trial and due process.

As for public, he's getting the most public proceedings that you can have when most of the evidence is state secrets and the case is about how he stole them and released them.

24 Feb 2013 12:16 PM
Reply
InfrasonicTom     

ox45tallboy: Weaver95: this whole thing is a mess

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here. The US government did some bad things, and they didn't just get called out on it by Woodward and Bernstein, but by some piss-ant Specialist and a crapload of poor IT infrastructure. Embarrassing on about eight different levels.

I mean, do you beat the sh*t out of your 7-year-old for not knocking before he comes into the bedroom and sees you having sex with the maid? For starters, why wasn't your door locked? Sure, he wasn't supposed to come in without knocking, but punishing him, no matter how severely, doesn't cover up the fact you were f*cking the goddamn maid!!!


Enjoying and exploiting the spoils of power and/or money is hardly and 21st century or even an American tradition.

24 Feb 2013 12:18 PM
Reply
Mock26     
Wargarble!  He is a traitor so fFark him and his rights!

24 Feb 2013 12:19 PM
Reply
thenumber5     
Leaving out that he under the UCMJ, and signed paperwork saying "If you do This, you will be put in Military Prison"

A "Speedy Trial" mean you will see a Judge, for many this means you see the judge, they set a date that get delayed a half dozen times before your trial

24 Feb 2013 12:20 PM
Reply
poorcku     
Things sure changed under President Obama. But somehow I got that feeling that this is still Bush's fault.

24 Feb 2013 12:21 PM
Reply
ltdanman44     
i thought service members had a different standard. at least military court vs. civilian court...that kind of stuff

24 Feb 2013 12:22 PM
Reply
thenumber5     

Mock26: Wargarble!  He is a traitor so fFark him and his rights!


UCMJ

When you join the Military, you are Military property for the time of your contract

//Know i guy who got a citation for "Damaging Military Property" after get ting a Tattoo while on leave

24 Feb 2013 12:23 PM
Reply
Doktor_Zhivago    [TotalFark]  

ltdanman44: i thought service members had a different standard. at least military court vs. civilian court...that kind of stuff


Slightly different but the general principals and foundations of the law remain the same.  Only exceptions usually involve combat situations where justice can be dispatched in a more summary fashion.

24 Feb 2013 12:24 PM
Reply
poot_rootbeer     

ox45tallboy: The major news outlets had all the "evidence" pretty thoroughly cataloged in a matter of days.


A HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

24 Feb 2013 12:25 PM
Reply
Flashlight     
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfn U3G0">http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

The people that should actualy be on trial

24 Feb 2013 12:26 PM
Reply
obamadidcoke     
Manning is probably guilty and should go to prison. What I don't get is how Assange, a foreign national can be held accountable for keeping the U.S. Government's secrets.

24 Feb 2013 12:26 PM
Reply
Rozinante     
That Sergeant behind him is a goddamned mountain. Do you think he puts bridging in singlehanded?

24 Feb 2013 12:27 PM
Reply
Brick-House     
2.bp.blogspot.com

24 Feb 2013 12:27 PM
Reply
remus     
I don't get it, everyone on Fark is so willingly gleeful to trample the 2nd Amendment, so why should you care if a few more Amendments are stomped on.  After all, these are simply "reasonable" exceptions and are very "sensible"?  Those are the key words to use?  Right?  That's all I have to do to stomp on an Constitutional Right?  Correct?

// You stomp on one Right without protecting it fiercely because you don't like that one, then you loose a few more Rights when other people do the same...

24 Feb 2013 12:28 PM
Reply
Brick-House     
Soon to be renamed...

farm9.staticflickr.com

24 Feb 2013 12:28 PM
Reply
netgamer7k     

p51d007: Sorry, the 6th doesn't apply if he or she is ACTIVE DUTY military.


Amendment 6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, ... "

"ALL"

/don't make me quote from the dictionary


24 Feb 2013 12:28 PM
Reply
thenumber5     

obamadidcoke: Manning is probably guilty and should go to prison. What I don't get is how Assange, a foreign national can be held accountable for keeping the U.S. Government's secrets.


NATO agreements mostly

24 Feb 2013 12:28 PM
Reply
kim jong-un     

Silverstaff: Manning and his legal team have been stalling and playing delaying tactics since the beginning.


Citation needed.

Silverstaff: He's not being held without trial indefinitely, he's getting a trial and due process.


Infinity -1 is still infinity.

24 Feb 2013 12:31 PM
Reply
wambu     

staplermofo: Alphax: It's certainly another legal black eye for our nation.. and we've run out of eyes already.

We've moved on to the ass now.  Our metaphorical ass is being metaphorically pounded and prolapsed so regularly it metaphorically looks like a pregnant lady's swollen labia 4 hours after childbirth.


Metaphorical pictures?

24 Feb 2013 12:33 PM
Reply
kosherkow     
hmmm three years later... still awaiting on how our national security will/was compromised...

24 Feb 2013 12:34 PM
Reply
WhoopAssWayne     
LoL - The proles still think they have constitutional rights! Walk into a lawyers office and start spouting off about your rights and watch closely to see if they break into a smirk or a giggle. It's a joke at your expense. Many of us thought Obama was the answer, but it's obvious as hell that he isn't. Gitmo, Manning, illegal wiretapping, undeclared wars, free speech zones, transparency, etc. Bush's 4th term. Thanks for nothing, dumbass liberals.

24 Feb 2013 12:34 PM
Reply
enik     
It's a shame the guy next to him in that photo didn't just crack his skull like a walnut.

24 Feb 2013 12:35 PM
Reply
iheartscotch    [TotalFark]  
Yeaaaaahhh; he's sooo screwed. Military law is a lot different than civilian law. They don't require nearly the burden of proof for the prosecution that civilian courts require. It's quite possible that he will get the rope for high treason.

/ the military is pretty funny about treason; and then you have to contend with the fact that he pissed off the entire core. He'd have to be issolated so he doesn't slip and have his skull broken open.

24 Feb 2013 12:35 PM
Reply
whistleridge    [TotalFark]  
Simple fact:if Manning had been given the option of a trial 10, 100, or even 500 days in, he would surely have refused. He's not on trial for his life, but he IS on trial to save the rest of his life. That's the sort of thing you only get one shot at, and you want to make  damn sureyou cover all your bases.

At most, this has run on 6 or 8 months longer than the defense would have wanted it to, and that is reasonable given the sheer amount of material to be processed, the high publicity of the case, and the relatively high number of motions, attempted plea bargains, and other time-consuming legal maneuvers that have taken place to date.

His 6th Amendment rights aren't being arbitrarily violated. There has been a defined reason for each delay, none of those delays are unusual compared to those experienced in similar cases, and the defense has not to date objected to the timeframe that I know of.

24 Feb 2013 12:35 PM
Reply
Catsaregreen     
My biggest question with this case: WTF IS A PRIVATE DOING WITH THAT MUCH ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS?

/That is all.
/Back to spring cleaning.

24 Feb 2013 12:37 PM
Reply
Popcorn Johnny     
Why's he still alive? He should have been shot for treason about 999 days ago.

24 Feb 2013 12:37 PM
Reply
The My Little Pony Killer     

Weaver95: that kid embarrassed the hell outta the war machine in this nation.  you bet his ass is fried.


If they are so confident about it, why not get the trial taken care of already? Why hold him in a cell for 1,000 days?

24 Feb 2013 12:38 PM
Reply
Schroedinger's Glory Hole     

thenumber5: Mock26: Wargarble!  He is a traitor so fFark him and his rights!

UCMJ

When you join the Military, you are Military property for the time of your contract

//Know i guy who got a citation for "Damaging Military Property" after get ting a Tattoo while on leave


No you didn't, no he didn't and you're both liars and failures.  Why do people believe the stupidest farking lies from servicemembers?

24 Feb 2013 12:39 PM
Reply
TheBigJerk     

Weaver95: ox45tallboy: I'm betting they're holding off on possibly getting Assange out of that embassy so he'll be extradited eventually to the US and forced to testify, then they can hold him in contempt and jail him indefinitely for refusing to testify against Manning because there is really no law that they can hold him to, as his actions did not take place on US soil.

To me, this is kind of like after Abu Ghraib when they ordered sevicemembers to not take cameras into the prisons. They've missed the point entirely - if Bad Things weren't done in the first place, then there wouldn't be a scandal to begin with.

I think the prosecutors just want to lock up everyone involved and throw away the key.  the issue of the US actions being moral, immoral or illegal isn't relevant to this process.  they *need* to smash Manning down, make an example of him.  not just because he leaked classified data (which, lets face it, he did do) but because a LOW RANKING person leaked data that made life difficult for senior officials in the US government....that simply cannot be permitted.  never mind the fact that high level officials leak classified data to serve their agendas, never mind the fact that the US military commits questionable actions in times of war...we're gonna crush Manning because HE BROKE THE LAW gotdammit.  And that's all there is to it.

this whole thing is a mess.  we're arbitrarily enforcing the law, and we're pretty brutal about how we get it done.  I really do think that if the US felt they could get away with murdering Assange and Manning they'd have done so by now.  it's only the fact that there would be massive public backlash that's preventing someone from launching a drone strike on their asses.


Just like Aaron Swartz.  Only the American Aristocracy cannot be "made an example."

24 Feb 2013 12:39 PM
Reply
The My Little Pony Killer     

remus: I don't get it, everyone on Fark is so willingly gleeful to trample the 2nd Amendment,


This is the point where I realized you don't make any sort of sense whatsoever.

24 Feb 2013 12:40 PM
Reply
italie     
On the one hand, I can see where spewing military secrets is a major disadvantage.

On the other hand, illegal detainment is pretty shaitty too.

I guess it's a good thing I really don't care either way, or this would be quite the dilemma.

24 Feb 2013 12:40 PM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 252 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined