Aside from moving them I can see that you have way Too much empty space between your goal posts. :smile:
Rex Murphy: Removing Julian Assange’s halo
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Aside from moving them I can see that you have way Too much empty space between your goal posts. :smile:
Isn't hindsight awesome.
To bad it isn't a legal consideration.
But don't let that fact get in the way.
Who said that?
There are provisions in the AR and UCMJ, to protect informants. It's the same legal standard as applies to Law Enforcement CI's.
If you admit to the error in your assertions, or prove them, I'll be happy to pass along the Code.
Last edited:
I wasn't aware of any statute of limitations on this sort of treasonous document posting.....
I never said there was.
But clearly in 2011, hundreds of afghans were not under any threat.
I never said there was.
But clearly in 2011, hundreds of afghans were not under any threat.
What's your view on TIPS being made public????
I guess petros would consider them rats unless such a phone call would reveal who had stolen his truck???
Sure point out where foreign rats have protection under laws that apply to the US military personnel.
Afghanis can phone crime stoppers and get Canadian rights? Really?
A paid informant isn't US military personnel.
Maybe you should reply in context to that string of commentary.
That way you wouldn't look so silly.
But I can imagine how you would want that to actually be moving of the goal posts.
Absolutely....
I guess you don't like my TIPS analogy only because it destroys your reasoning in defending Assange ?
Can a confidential informant be made to testify in court?
- A: Possibly. A confidential informant or source is a person who assists the police by providing information used to charge or convict another person of a crime. The informant might be acting only out of a sense of duty to help apprehend violators without regard to personal gain. This kind of informant is called a "citizen informant." Other informants provide information in exchange for money. And still other informants provide their information in exchange for leniency in matters involving their own wrongdoing.
Prosecutors must disclose the informant's identity if it would be relevant or helpful to the defense, or essential to giving the defenant a fair trial. Common examples of this are where the informant was an eyewitness to, or a participant in, any of the offenses that were charged.
An informant can be made to testify at either a pretrial hearing or at a trial. For example, if the informant's identity is ordered disclosed because she was the source of information for a search warrant, and was present and witnessed the illegal acts that resulted in the warrant being issued, the informant might have to testify as a witness at a hearing before trial in which the defense argues the warrant was improperly issued.
If the police or prosecutor don't want to reveal the identify of the informant, either for the informant's safety or so as not to "blow his cover" so the informant can be used in future cases, they'll go to great lengths to avoid having the informant testify. But in the end, it's up to the judge. She'll balance the request not to disclose the informant's identity against the constitutional rights of the accused to present a defense and to have a fair trial.
Are you so dense that you don't know what an analogy is or you simply deflecting again?