That is the million dollar question. Entirely possible we have some help from Russia, but we have serious issues I just discussed in my blog post yesterday. Trying to prosecute this case is going to be extremely difficult, and I am still looking for a solution. I will be visiting with the U.S. Attorney's office sometime this week. They are more knowledgeable than myself and they might have an angle I have not considered.
For a prosecution to be effective it would have to be within a common law jurisdiction. Common law is inherently theistic, but in general lawyers will not admit this.
Regardless of the basis of our society, religion has no practical application in a court-of-law. Something is either legal or it is not. Whether or not that particular law has a basis in morality is a different discussion and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this one.
The practical application of religion in a court of law is the making of oaths, since an oath is an act of religion. The relevance of theism at law is in matters of truth and ethics, both of which are of course relevant in this case.
As soon as you frame the discussion in terms of humans you are implicitly buying into the cultural and legal baggage of humansim. This investigation goes to the heart of the security relationship between citizens (i.e human beings) and the state, so it's important not to endorse that relationship by using language that implicity accepts the relationship as being of value.
Who CARES???????????????????????????????????????
We are discussing human trafficking, the Clinton Foundation, and how to bring a case (if it is even possible). Please go find Voat/moot court.
view the rest of the comments →
LaDonnaRae ago
That is the million dollar question. Entirely possible we have some help from Russia, but we have serious issues I just discussed in my blog post yesterday. Trying to prosecute this case is going to be extremely difficult, and I am still looking for a solution. I will be visiting with the U.S. Attorney's office sometime this week. They are more knowledgeable than myself and they might have an angle I have not considered.
UglyTruth ago
For a prosecution to be effective it would have to be within a common law jurisdiction. Common law is inherently theistic, but in general lawyers will not admit this.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Talk:Common_law
LaDonnaRae ago
Regardless of the basis of our society, religion has no practical application in a court-of-law. Something is either legal or it is not. Whether or not that particular law has a basis in morality is a different discussion and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this one.
UglyTruth ago
The practical application of religion in a court of law is the making of oaths, since an oath is an act of religion. The relevance of theism at law is in matters of truth and ethics, both of which are of course relevant in this case.
LaDonnaRae ago
OK, but let us get back to human trafficking, shall we? We are not having a philosophical debate. This is an investigation.
UglyTruth ago
As soon as you frame the discussion in terms of humans you are implicitly buying into the cultural and legal baggage of humansim. This investigation goes to the heart of the security relationship between citizens (i.e human beings) and the state, so it's important not to endorse that relationship by using language that implicity accepts the relationship as being of value.
LaDonnaRae ago
Who CARES??????????????????????????????????????? We are discussing human trafficking, the Clinton Foundation, and how to bring a case (if it is even possible). Please go find Voat/moot court.