POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

Or young grade school kids having to listen to other ruthless kids going "You want some Eggs Benedict with your lunch?"

All because proper protocol wasn't followed, and because the leopard cannot shed his spots.

cthia wrote:

The E wrote:You have so far:
1. Not established a legal theory under which treason against a regime that was overthrown through said treason can or has to be prosecuted by the successor government

Pffft, legal theory has been emplaced by the law since its inception!

A law is only a law if there is an agency enforcing it. When the People's Republic of Haven was dissolved, no agency capable of enforcing its laws remained; crimes against it thus stopped being enforceable except for those crimes the newly constituted Republic of Haven considered to be worthy of prosecution.

We do not know the legalities of how the Republic of Haven assumed its position as a legal successor to the People's Republic. Assuming that the Republic considers itself as being in continuity with the pre-Legislaturist republic (an assumption supported by various references made by its officials positioning themselves as being part of a restoration of said state), then the legal code under which it chooses to prosecute former PRH officials is likely to be the original code of laws of the Republic.

So, again: Who would be the prosecutor acting on behalf of the People's Republic? With what authority would that person act?

2. Not established an authority that would be able to prosecute on behalf of said ex-government.

Governments are -- taking our own Constitution for example -- of the people, by the people, for the people. The people, E. NOT the RHN or President Pritchart. The crime of treason was committed against Haven and its citizens. The crime of murder was committed against Haven and all of its citizens. Along with Saint-Just and Saint-Just's loved ones and friends.

The crime of treason under discussion was committed against the Committee of Public Safety, an arguably treasonous institution which, by the time the crime was committed, was itself guilty of numerous crimes against the people.
It can be argued that the CPS stopped representing the people a long time ago (probably with Pierre's death).

So I am coming back to the question, who is going to prosecute a crime on their behalf?

Before you fly off all half-cocked as usual and ask something silly, as usual like...

"Who cares?"

The segment of the population who supported the Old Regime, cares. Saint-Just's family and loved ones care. Those who abhor President Pritchart and or even Thomas Theisman care. I don't know what percentage of supporters the Old Republic had. Neither do you! All we as readers were exposed to, as far as I can remember, are the prejudiced rants of officers of the military. Sure, as a reader I can sympathize with the officers of the RHN. But that is besides the point. Everyone is having a hard time removing their own personal bias. Typical here. And again, typical, you all see yourselves as being correct because you are all in the majority. Please!

Which old regime are you referring to, specifically? The pre-Legislaturist one? The Legislaturists? The CPS?

Sure, neither Pritchard nor Theisman are universally loved (this is even brought up at several points). But that does not change the legalities of the situation, as far as I am concerned. A crime, any crime, needs a prosecutor and a legal system under which restitution can be sought. All of these things are a given for the murder charge, but not for the charge of treason: There, nothing remains that could seek retribution.

Remember my earlier point about treason against the GDR? None of those cases were prosecuted, could be prosecuted, because no entity remained that was capable of claiming damages and seeking restitution. Similar considerations, in my opinion, apply towards Theisman and his crime of treason against the People's Republic.

And what is that authority, in that moment? Who are the judges, who are the investigators? Who will execute the verdict?

That is for the proper authorities to decide. Hell, if Honor could do it on Hades. What is the problem? Please!

We know exactly what sort of legal setup Honor used there. Quite specifically, she empanelled her Courts Martial using the rules and regulations laid down in the People's Republic Uniform Code of Conduct. At that point, she essentially appointed herself as an executor of the PRH's policies. She was applying laws as they existed at the time she took over the role of governor of Hades; Her actions were in keeping with the letter of havenite law. At no point during those proceedings did she set out to institute a complete new legal environment.

Regarding Theisman, the situation is markedly different. Following his coup and the resurrection of the original Republic of Haven, the legal environment in which his specific actions (excluding that one murder charge) were a crime ceased to exist.

There should be no need for Theisman to turn himself in on the charge of murder. Murder is a self-charging crime. As in the DA has to seek justice. He should be charged regardless. Murder is illegal even if committed against someone in another country, regardless even if that person is dead.

Okay, just to be clear here: When it comes to the murder charge, I can see where you're coming from and I even agree to an extent. It's the treason charge I'm interested here.

It. Is. Not. Formal. So that the segment of the population who are still screaming will be appeased. So a blot won't go down in the history books. A blot which can be seen through the whiteout by those with a magnifying glass.

From what we can tell by the books, most of the opposition Pritchard has to handle is about people who disagree with her policies for the new Republic, not people wishing to return to the Legislaturist or CPS days, and it is arguable whether those segments of the population are worth appeasing at this time.

Believe it or not. There are citizens of Haven who are not amused. Who are indeed still screaming treason and murder! They have a right to be represented!

They do. That doesn't necessarily translate into a necessity for the legal system of the Republic to prosecute treason against the CPS, though.

It seems you have no formal debate experience.

Yep, you caught me. Ain't got no formal debate experience whatsoever.

I do know how to construct and defend an argument though.

Says who? The E? Theisman? The majority of the constituents of Haven? The minority donstituents of Haven? Does the crime of murder against Saint-Just not exist because HE does not exist? Nonsense!

When I wrote "I'm saying", I thought it pretty obvious who was speaking (it was me). And, again, I was talking about the treason charge, not the murder one.

But Theisman does not have the right to assume his own innocence! Gees!

He does have a measure of authority to act in the service of the state due to his oath of office though.

The E wrote:You were arguing that your interpretation was the correct one,

IS the correct one. I think you know it, as I certainly made it clear. Stubbornness just won't allow you to admit it. But do continue in your error.

Do you understand Death of the Author? Do you understand critical theory? The interpretation intended by the author of a given text is no more priviledged than any other, especially when it comes to quotes and texts filtered through decades and centuries of diverging uses.

Your interpretation is correct. Mine is too. There is no single definitively correct one.

It has never been used in support of treason. Never! It has been a mocking jester at it. Always! Better schools produce lesser fools.

Are you willing to bet on that?

The E wrote:I don't give a single fuck about how busy you are. You chose to start this topic, you chose to defend your positions; You choose to be on this forum despite whatever else you may be doing with your time, and if you cannot find the time to do so, well, that's not my problem.

It is not your problem, no. Rules on the forum demand a bit of respect. That IS your problem. No need to use such language. Not a single fudk of respect? How 'bout a half-a-phuck?

In this post of yours, you have called me small minded, insanely asinine, a fool, childish and insane. You complain that I have been disrespectful to you.
I have tried my best, after Duckks' recent intervention, to be as respectful to you as I possibly can be.
However, as far as I am concerned, there's a difference between "being respectful" and "keeping quiet", and I feel like it's the latter you really want. It doesn't matter what formulations I use, the mere fact of me objecting to your ideas and trying to discuss the issues I find in them is objectionable to you, and there's no chance of that ever stopping (it's far too much fun).