Maybe in past years that would have been true, but currently we seem to be in a stagnant job market. People aren't leaving their jobs and people aren't getting new jobs. So beware leaving your job. You could have a hard time, even if you excel in your field. I doubt very many have a job they can just walk into.
TFS says Google took the topsoil too. Not helpful if you plan to grow anything else on the site.
Would providing aid or comfort to Iran count as treason? There isn't a declared war, but there has certainly been acts of war there.
In the current situation, the answer is no. Even though a prosecutor might be able to argue that hostilities are happening, the lack of a formal declaration of war makes it very difficult for a prosecutor to argue that an "enemy" exists that satisfies a case for treason.
That doesn't mean a prosecutor can't charge someone with some other offense besides treason, and make it stick. That has happened.
Some of the worst mass murderers in history have also been dictators, but the two are not necessarily found together. Most dictators have been strict authoritarians, but without massive civilian casualties. And there are many examples in history of (non-authoritarian) democracies at war that have inflicted high caualties on their enemies.
TL/DR: someone can be a dictator without being a mass murderer.
This. What would make the IT guys all-smiles is to find that nobody clicked on their phishing-test links.
It's kind of like dentists, who would rather their patients not get cavities they have to fill, even though they get paid for it.
Sorry, you're right, I cited the wrong case. in Cramer vs. USA (1945) there was never a question about whether Germany was an enemy. The focus was on whether Cramer provided aid or comfort, and the conclusion was that he didn't.
The definition of an "enemy" as a foreign power engaged in war with the USA comes from cases connected to the US Civil War, and English common-law sources used by the US Constitution framers.
Prosecutors face an enormous hurdle to charge someone with treason. Part of that hurdle is the fact that an enemy must be formally declared to be in a war with the USA before any charges of treason can be contemplated. This is as it should be: treason is a serious crime that demands serious conditions be met.
There are crimes other than treason that prosecutors can charge someone with for hostile acts against the USA. For example, the Rosenbergs were not charged with treason, but conspiracy to commit espionage, because at the time the USA was not at war with the Soviet Union, even though they were considered to be hostile adversaries.
Maybe I need that one.
That is not true. Treason includes assisting enemies of the USA who are in "open conflict" with the USA. There's nothing in the Constitution saying that there needs to be an officially-declared war.
Just because it isn't in the US Constitution doesn't mean it's nowhere else.
Cramer vs. The United States (1945) resulted in a ruling from SCOTUS that an "enemy" must be an actual recognized foreign power actively engaged in war with the USA. The current conflict with Iran, or indeed any other current conflict, don't apply because they are hostile adversaries, not "enemies" under the strict US definition relevant here.
Congress has the power to penalize treason, per 18 US Code Section 2381. The Justice Department relies on this and precedent to determine whether a charge of treason is possible. Currently it is not.
To the moderator who marked me as Troll: I made a factually correct statement. Go ahead and google what is required for a charge of treason to be possible. None apply to any conflict that the USA is involved in currently.
Again, I'm no fan of what the White House is doing regarding these conflicts, or more broadly for that matter.
I'm certainly no fan of what the White House is doing right now. You can call it many things, but you can't call it treason because the country needs to be in a war declared officially by Congress for treason to be possible. The last time Congress declared war was in 1942.
I'm all for people learning the lessons taught in 1984. But doing it in national education camps? That's ironic, my dude.
It's easy to think you won an argument by making up your own definition for a word.
From Wikipedia: "Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement about supporting life, habitats, and surroundings. While environmentalism focuses on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics, ecologism combines the ideology of social ecology and environmentalism. Ecologism is a term more commonly used in continental European languages, while environmentalism is more commonly used in English, but the words have slightly different connotations."
Your spectre of a movement that "reduces energy available to an individual (and therefore reducing personal freedoms and quality of life)" fits more with ecologism than environmentalism, but even then you're strawmaning it to death.
The department directed to see to the security of the elections instead throws the elections to MAGA. Typical.
It's not as much fun as you appear to imagine.
- She lives in a dormitory-style building with no doors on the bedrooms and no private toilets.
- She has a 5 AM wake-up call. She can exercise for 40 minutes a day, and can read, do crafts, and take courses. She has completed a law apprenticeship program.
- She must work, and gets paid 31 cents an hour for various jobs, including re-entry and legal clerk work for other inmates, and kitchen duties.
- Although there are no fences holding her in, she is not allowed to leave.
- She can visit with family members twice a week.
- And so on.
It's certainly a lot more pleasant than other kinds of incarceration, but would you really want to be there?
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.
