this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
54 points (84.6% liked)

World News

39081 readers
3212 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teft 18 points 9 months ago (5 children)

So a judge who has taken cases because he is qualified to see top secret information is assigned a case that contains top secret information.

Why is this a problem? I don't see a conflict of interest here.

[–] WaltJRimmer 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I guess they're trying to insinuate that there's a conflict of interest because he worked for a government agency and Wikileaks leaked documents pertaining to that government agency.

But, like... That would be like saying no judge could oversee the case of someone who attacked a courthouse because they work for the same legal system. That would be a real loophole in the law if by breaking the right ones, you just couldn't be tried anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

It's more like only having to say "purple" and then only get people who worked with purple before and are much more likely to be pro-purple than normal people who are overwhelmingly anti purple.

Just replace "purple" with "government secret".

load more comments (3 replies)