An insane response to an insane group of people, it is like the US is trying to outdo them.
I don't understand why the press insists on calling them ISIS, which they love, vs Daish/Daesh which they hate.
I don't understand why the press insists on calling them ISIS, which they love, vs Daish/Daesh which they hate.
Emulating the enemy is a key feature of the Paranoid Style of typical American politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American...
> why the press insists on calling them ISIS
1. Don't underestimate the value of consistent branding.
2. You might want to reconsider the motives of "the press". If they get paid in proportion to the size of their audience, they are incentivized to act in ways that draw in viewers, i.e. sensationalist stories. The Islamic State is not their audience, so their opinion is not important.
--
[from the plea agreement at justice.gov]
> the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal the conviction and any sentence > within the maximum described above [of 15 years] ... in exchange for the concessions > made by the United States
Maybe I'm missing something, but the only concession made by the United States in the "plea agreement" sees to be a vague promise not to prosecute the defendant again. Given that the government should already have this restriction thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, is this even a concession by the government?
> The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in any terrorism-related asset that > the defendant owns or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, > as well as any property that is traceable to, derived from, fungible with, or a substitute for > property ... involved in the offense.
That could be almost anything.
> the defendant further agrees to waive all constitutional and statutory challenges > to forfeiture in any manner (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) > to any forfeiture carried out in accordance with this Plea Agreement on any grounds, ...
How much do they have to threaten you with to get you to agree to that crap?
> ... including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment.
How is it even legal?
>Maybe I'm missing something, but the only concession made by the United States in the "plea agreement" sees to be a vague promise not to prosecute the defendant again. Given that the government should already have this restriction thanks to the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause, is this even a concession by the government?
Seems to me like the government concedes that they wont demand a higher sentence than agreed to.
>> The defendant agrees to forfeit all interests in any terrorism-related asset that > the defendant owns or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, > as well as any property that is traceable to, derived from, fungible with, or a substitute for > property ... involved in the offense.
>That could be almost anything.
That's what he agreed to, why does it matter? And in any case it's not very broad, it's just stuff related to the crime. > ... including that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine or punishment.
>How is it even legal?
Why not? That essentially means that he agrees that the punishment isn't excessive.