It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by finallianstallion
reply to post by phinubian
Veteran of the army...yeah sir you are a drone. You went where ever you were ordered to go even without questioning the orders. Wihtout governments and their orders your brothers in arms would still be alive. A fact.
You are just brainless paws in the games of psychopatic people trying to gain for themselves. 4 percent of the politicians are for the people, rest of them are for themselves...
Learn histiry and Voltaire and everything about history. No war is fought because of the people. They are fought because of egosentristic people who can´t confess they we´re wrong.
Originally posted by finallianstallion
reply to post by Siddharta
Well what I know...
Originally posted by finallianstallion
reply to post by mobiusmale
I´d like to know how do you justify the criminal acts of United States? How do you justify the criminal acts of Vatican?
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by sdrawkcabII
Fruit of the poisonous tree is your answer by the way.
Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally.[1] The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence (the "tree") is tainted, then anything gained from it (the "fruit") is as well.
Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.[2] For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The discovery of a witness is not evidence in itself because the witness is attenuated by separate interviews, in-court testimony and his or her own statements.
The doctrine is an extension of the exclusionary rule, which, subject to some exceptions, prevents evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from being admitted in a criminal trial. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is intended to deter police from using illegal means to obtain evidence.
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:
1.it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2.it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or
3.the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated; or
4.the search warrant not based on probable cause was executed by government agents in good faith.
The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine stems from the 1920 case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[3]
Which has been part of my argument about the manner the documents were released. Wikileaks shot themselves in the foot by trying to expose this in the manner they did, because they guaranteed a challenege to the admissability of the information because of:
The Manner the info was obtained - Stoeln by Pvt. Manning
The manner it was dissesminated (Maning to Wikie, either one way, or assistance from wiki - still open for debate)
The manner it was released - mass dumping of the documents with no way to verify what copies are legit, which ones are fake (which we are already seeing with the "cable about Obama being taken to the bunker during the Spiral light issue in sweden".
All of it can be questioned, from top to bottom, and will raise enough doubt in the American Legal system that I cant forsse it being admitted at all.
Originally posted by radionactive
reply to post by mobiusmale
What governmental criminal activity?
How about telling bald-faced lies to it's own people in relation to foreign policies?
well first of all I will use a simple example, do you know that receiving anything willingly that is stolen is a crime?
now it is debatable whether this idiot is really a bona fide member of the press also, I mean anybody that owns a website can declare themselves a member of the press?????
this is the property of the U.S. government in the first place an our government for whatever reasons chose to classify it for our own security, and honestly it is not everyones business why especially if it were a matter of national security and really that is for no one outside the government to decided