magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
No bio...
User ID: 1103
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18hr ago
It's not that hard to build a nuke if you don't have to worry about law enforcement (including "international law enforcement" in the sense of other countries firing missiles at your house). You'd need millions of dollars (though not billions), a year or three, and maybe a degree of recklessness regarding whether you get cancer, but it's doable.
What's nearly impossible is hiding that you are building a nuke. If Omega gave me Satoshi's bitcoin codes, took me off the various watchlists I'm probably on, and told me I had to build a working nuke without anybody knowing or the world would end, I might be able to pull it off, but I'd still bet against it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
19hr ago
The general understanding is that "not under the jurisdiction" covers invading armies
There is a rather-trollish argument, which I don't think the dissents mentioned (though holy shit, those things are long, so I've only skimmed them), that by definition an illegal immigrant who is still actually present in the USA is someone against whom the USA is failing to exercise jurisdiction, in much the same way as it is failing to exercise jurisdiction over an invading army.
I don't think I'd considered this before today (though I did when still reading the opinions, not from your post), and I'm not sure I agree with it, but it does seem colourable.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
20hr ago
I'm certainly open to believing the framers were so intellectually rigorous as to consider it necessary to incorporate language for the situation where an occupying army brought along their own women
I will note that the idea of "camp followers" should have been accessible to them; camp followers are so old that the Romans talk about them, and they persisted all the way into the 20th century*.
*The obvious example is the Imperial Japanese Army. Obviously, most of the "comfort women" were actually Korean and Chinese sex slaves and that was a crime against humanity. But one thing that's often forgotten is that some were actual Japanese prostitutes who volunteered and were paid; those were not a war crime, and very much were in the ancient tradition of camp followers - and could indeed be considered part of the occupying Japanese army rather than the Chinese populace or some third category.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
21hr ago
I'm not sure why nuclear bombs should affect your ability to sit down and peacefully let someone else rape you to death.
If we have to point at a recent development which would undercut my claim, it'd be brainwashing camps, not nukes.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
22hr ago
Much as "those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf",
This isn't true. The early Christians, famously, did not abandon pacifism against the Romans.
It's more correct to say that pacifism (absent a non-pacifist protector) tends to get you killed or enslaved. But you can do it.
I've managed to confirm the Mig-29 (assuming that was a typo in his name), but not "fully armed". Could you provide a source for this?
More options
Context Copy link