OMG I hate you so much for that pun.
Is clever tho.
Ja diese Entscheidung ist wichtig.
Die Angst ist immer dass man keinen fairen Prozess krigt bei Auslieferung, was der exakte Grund ist warum Snowden auch nicht zu den USA zurück konnte obwohl er die Möglichkeit sah.
Whistleblowing-Gesetze sind immer etwas unsicher, denn manche Staaten haben nur Interesse am abschrecken, da kommt dann der Rechtsstaat zu kurz.
Ja diese Entscheidung ist wichtig.
Die Angst ist immer dass man keinen fairen Prozess krigt bei Auslieferung, was der exakte Grund ist warum Snowden auch nicht zu den USA zurück konnte obwohl er die Möglichkeit sah.
Whistleblowing-Gesetze sind immer etwas unsicher, denn manche Staaten haben nur Interesse am abschrecken, da kommt dann der Rechtsstaat zu kurz.
Also not great, although I have to say that it's quite a lot easier to criticize the US military than it is to criticize the Russian military.
You know so many big words and still fail to use them in any cohesive composition.
Erste gehörlose Abgeordnete
begrüßt [...] mit applaus
Irgendwas stimmt hier nicht...
Exempel statuieren ist rechtlich wie moralisch ziemlich kritisch, aber man sollte die Verantwortlichen mit Sicherheit anklagen, denn das war entweder ein schweres Vergehen oder eine Straftat.
Ich bin mal so frei und sage dass es eine große Chance gibt dass für versuchten Mord der Mens Rea fehlt (Planung einer konkreten Tötung einer Person), und ich vermute mal wir befinden uns irgendwo zwischen nem StVO-Vergehen, einem potenziellen Tötungsdelikt, einer Sabotage oder einer Fahrlässigkeit.
If europe starts to feel very french now, that's probably a good thing.
Die einzige situation in der die AfD auf dem Boden der Verfassung steht ist wenn sie diese im Hakenkreuzmuster mit Füßen tritt, bis man sie platt genug gemacht hat.
Genau. Die Schlagzeile sollte nicht lauten: "Polizei erlaubt Rentnerin vor Verhaftung auf Toilette zu gehen" sondern "Polizei vergisst Personendurchsuchung bei Verhaftung".
Die Toilette ist nicht das Problem.
Ich freu mich schon auf die state's response darauf, wo sie dann indictments ansetzen können und nochmal nachtreten werden.
which, seeing as the response was an immediate accusation of bad faith, I feel is more accurate
And here's your problem. You are assuming this, even though he made it clesr thst he didn't appreciate how you assumed we are fine with all the other countries. Nobody said that, and we are not, so no, the first statement was more accurate. Which is also pretty logical, because we are talking about Russia this way BECAUSE of the warmongering, and not because "it's Russia".
And I'm pretty sure the bad faith accusation came specifically BECAUSE you are distracting from this with whataboutism.
It's like saying "we should get rid of Kim Jong Un" and someone else going "ok but what about Xi Jin Ping" - there's no reason to bring this up unless you wanna confront the original argument with distraction or a slippery slope argument.
If you agree, say it like I proposed to you. If you don't, because:
for some reason none of them induce neither the level outrage, nor the hostility to anyone not sharing the level of outrage That's whataboutism and it's dangerous. No need to assume it's only a Russia thing.
Maybe Russia was the point where people were fed up with it, maybe the media didn't report enough about the other conflicts, maybe ppl didn't have the energy to be outraged every time, ...
Don't attribute anything to malice that can be described through different means. The world is complex.
Your argument can be roughly translated to "so whst about those other countries then? Shouldn't they need to be excluded as well?". The point is, no one is disagreeing with you, but you are distracting from the fact that Russia is one of those countries. I'm also unsure if you are intentionally doing it, but you are doing it.
You can do this in a different way: instead of "but what about those countries?" You can say "and if we look into Russia, we definitely need to also look into some of the other countries". This makes it less confrontational and you are agreeing with the premise that there is an issue which should be acted upon.
I can only assume you agree with the base point because Russia doing shady things in regards to the Olympic Games is pretty well documented, and penalizing them is a logical conclusion.
I mean it's not about personal hate. If the Olympic Games are about peaceful competition, you could exclude countries that don't adhere to that based on certain rules.
And yes, it is whataboutism. He was questioning Russia being part of it, he wasn't approving any of the other countries you listed. You can denounce Russia AND other countries. It's possible.
If it's only 5 that's true. That said those 5 can file.
Also I'm curious if there is another claim potentially in class action for all other clients whom thid wasn't disclosed to...
Isn't this also going into cyberattack / responsible disclosure territory? They might be opening themselves up to a class action with this.