Dotcom Judge Quits The Case

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I guess calling the U.S. "the enemy" wasn't the smartest thing to do when you are supposed to be an impartial judge. :eek:

The judge overseeing the Kim Dotcom extradition case has stepped down after making comments suggesting the United States was the "enemy". Judge David Harvey surrendered his role in the case after making comments during a copyright discussion at an internet conference.
 
Great, now people are going to get all patriotic and make this into an US vs Them thing.
 
Great, now people are going to get all patriotic and make this into an US vs Them thing.

I think you missed where it was made an us vs. U.S. thing already. Not that I don't blame them for resisting. But there's a difference between calling someone wrong and calling someone the enemy. But I see you had zero concern about that.
 
I think you missed where it was made an us vs. U.S. thing already. Not that I don't blame them for resisting. But there's a difference between calling someone wrong and calling someone the enemy. But I see you had zero concern about that.

You just proved my point exactly. For some reason, when American's hear someone doesn't like them, they lose sight of everything.

The judge quit, now lets move on. It's unfortunate he made that comment, but let's not lose sight of what the case is about.
 
You just proved my point exactly. For some reason, when American's hear someone doesn't like them, they lose sight of everything.

The judge quit, now lets move on. It's unfortunate he made that comment, but let's not lose sight of what the case is about.

Really? A judge is supposed to be impartial, regardless of defendant or prosecution. I would like to see ANYONE go to trial and have a judge call them enemy and not worry about their impartiality.
 
Really? A judge is supposed to be impartial, regardless of defendant or prosecution. I would like to see ANYONE go to trial and have a judge call them enemy and not worry about their impartiality.
He stepped down. Let's get back to what the trial is about.
 
But that is exactly the point isn't it? Obviously the Judge was not partial enough to listen to what the trial was actually about.

You mean made up bullshit that was spoon fed to US Feds inorder to impose retarted US IP system on a soverign nation?

You have to realize that extradition is a serious thing. As far as I am concerned I would not extradite any one from my country, especially since they can come under harm in the country they go extradited too. The judge would have to live with that. The americans don't do it so why should Kiwi's.

As far as I am concerned the Judge was right to say US is the enemy.
 
You mean made up bullshit that was spoon fed to US Feds inorder to impose retarted US IP system on a soverign nation?

You have to realize that extradition is a serious thing. As far as I am concerned I would not extradite any one from my country, especially since they can come under harm in the country they go extradited too. The judge would have to live with that. The americans don't do it so why should Kiwi's.

As far as I am concerned the Judge was right to say US is the enemy.

Oh the internet is a fun place.
 
Really? A judge is supposed to be impartial, regardless of defendant or prosecution. I would like to see ANYONE go to trial and have a judge call them enemy and not worry about their impartiality.

This. The Judge did the right thing frankly. If you can't remain impartial than you don't deserve the robes.

Simple as that. Its not a bullshit patriotic thing either , the Judge failed to remain impartial. End of story.
 
The world is our enemy. I'm used to it by now..

I'd describe it exactly opposite. To borrow an analogy from one of my favorite authors, the U.S. is a boulder and a boulder doesn't care who it crushes as it rolls.

We've been an active imperialist power since at least the late 19th century and looking at our history of military deployments it's tough to argue that we haven't been using the military to enforce our economic policies since well prior to that.

Our military is in the vast majority of sovereign states in the world (something self-declared conservatives used to take issue with) and we've overthrown at least half a dozen democratically elected governments through direct sponsorship of domestic terrorism in those countries and/or assassination of their leaders.

With that kind of record how could any nation which is not extremely dependent upon us view us as anything other than an enemy?
 
I'd describe it exactly opposite. To borrow an analogy from one of my favorite authors, the U.S. is a boulder and a boulder doesn't care who it crushes as it rolls.

We've been an active imperialist power since at least the late 19th century and looking at our history of military deployments it's tough to argue that we haven't been using the military to enforce our economic policies since well prior to that.

Our military is in the vast majority of sovereign states in the world (something self-declared conservatives used to take issue with) and we've overthrown at least half a dozen democratically elected governments through direct sponsorship of domestic terrorism in those countries and/or assassination of their leaders.

With that kind of record how could any nation which is not extremely dependent upon us view us as anything other than an enemy?

Well said and great question at the end!
 
The US gov shouldn't had gotten involved in this whole mess to begin with. The entire case is BS.
 
The judge screwed up, and took himself off the case. Fail on the part of the judge, but he handled the fail properly in the end.

What bothers me is the bit about the FBI running off with evidence without consulting the local government. If another country did this to the US it would be a political firestorm. Just because the US is a big and powerful country does not give it jurisdiction to run roughshod over the laws of a sovereign nation that it is at peace with. The US government seriously needs to be reigned in. Kim Dotcom may have broken the law, but if the FBI mishandled evidence, what chance could he have for a fair trial if he is extradited? That's not justice, that's a show-trial and a lynching they're setting up for. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves over this kind of crap.
 
I'd describe it exactly opposite. To borrow an analogy from one of my favorite authors, the U.S. is a boulder and a boulder doesn't care who it crushes as it rolls.

We've been an active imperialist power since at least the late 19th century and looking at our history of military deployments it's tough to argue that we haven't been using the military to enforce our economic policies since well prior to that.

Our military is in the vast majority of sovereign states in the world (something self-declared conservatives used to take issue with) and we've overthrown at least half a dozen democratically elected governments through direct sponsorship of domestic terrorism in those countries and/or assassination of their leaders.

With that kind of record how could any nation which is not extremely dependent upon us view us as anything other than an enemy?

Very well said. Now...try and explain this to the average person (including MOST military people).
 
But that is exactly the point isn't it? Obviously the Judge was not partial enough to listen to what the trial was actually about.

This trial is about the American music and film-making industries protecting their ever increasing profits.

It is also about the world bowing to American interests.

Oh, and the point is that the Judge stood down. Let's hope that when this case comes to the US, your US Judge has the honesty to stand-down if he/she has any ties to the Government or Media industories... Yeah, think not somehow :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top