2012: Ruski sud osudio je blogera na pet godina zatvora zbog toga sto je na svom blogu pisao o poskupljenju u Rusiji i pozivao ljude na proteste protiv poskupljenja gradskog prevoza u Tomsku.
Meni ovo lici na vreme Staljina, ne znam kako vama izgleda, ali je dobro imati u vidu kakva je realnost i ne zavaravati se pricama o lepoti koja ce doci "sa istoka"

procitajte ceo tekst

Ja sam vise puta ponovio da se iz istorije mnogo toga moze nauciti.

2012:
Ruski sud osudio je blogera na pet godina zatvora zbog toga sto je na svom blogu pisao o poskupljenju u Rusiji i pozivao ljude na proteste protiv poskupljenja gradskog prevoza u Tomsku.

pajapop:


Pa ako se procita ceo tekst koji si postavio na linku, vidi se da tu ima nesto ozbiljnije od kritikovanja poskupljenja...Kritika ucestvovanja rusije u Ukrajini, odnos prema izbeglicama iz Ukrajine, pozivanje na svrgavanje vlasti...Te njegove aktivnosti su okarakterisane kao "ekstremisticke"...Nije na nama da sudimo, ali ona vlast drzi do sebe i nece da im neko buska i huska narod protiv vodjenja politike koje oni smatraju svrsishodnim i potrebnim...Nije demokratija dozvoljavanje svakom da bilo sta prica i pise ako to nije po njihovim merilima u "interesu naroda"...Naime, ako neko smatra da mere vlade i drzave nisu u redu, onda on treba da se prikljuci nekoj opozicionoj politickoj partiji, pa kroz politicki rad i legalne institucije gura svoje ideje, a ne da stane na stub i glasno vice...onda moze svasta da ocekuje...

Rusija nije demokrastska zemlja, nije nikada ni bila.

HeYoo: 



Nece valjda neki gologuzan slobodar da zaustavi poslove u kojima se vrti ogromna suma $$. Naravno da ce biti sklonjen na manje ili vise "demokratski" nacin.

Morpheus NS:
Jeb'o Ratove zvezda i Tuđina protiv Predatora... "2012 i ssi protiv Putina" ima više epizoda (tema), a često je i zabavnije.

ssi: Hvala, to je i ideja, ali ne bismo uspeli bez botova.

2012: Mozes da napakujes coveku sta ti je volja.

Ima ona narodna: "kadija te tuzi, kadija te sudi"

Medjutim postavljaju se dva pitanja:

- zasto niko na zapadu nije okrivljen ili osudjen zbog pisanja na blogu?

- zasto niko u Velikoj Britaniji nije osudjen zbog zalaganja za odvajanje Skotske, ili recimo u Spaniji, ili recimo u Kanadi za odvajanje Kvebeka, ili recimo u Belgiji.
Kako to samo u Rusiji, Kini i Severnoj Koreji sude i osudjuju ljude zbog javno iznesene misli?

aleksamat:

krao je bostan u Batajnici ili je lajao na zvezde?

branko tod:
Saudijski bloger osuđen zbog uvrede islama doveden je u petak nakon molitve na glavni trg u gradu Jeddahu i 50 puta izbičevan pred stotinama promatrača. Svjedok je kazao kako su noge i ruke Raifa Badawija, oca troje djece, bile povezane, a lice svima vidljivo. "Bio je tiho i nije plakao", kazao je svjedok te dodao kako je bičevanje trajalo 15-ak minuta. Badawi je osuđen prošlog svibnja na 10 godina zatvora i 1000 udaraca bičem jer je kritizirao moćne klerike Saudijske Arabije na liberalnom blogu čiji je osnivač. Amnesty International je kazao da će Badawi primiti 50 udaraca bičem jednom tjedno narednih 20 tjedana.

Six years in jail, no charge: the war on terror's forgotten victim speaks
Babar Ahmad, 35, is the longest-serving prisoner held without charge or trial in the UK. In his first media interview since his arrest on a US extradition warrant in 2004, Mr Ahmad tells Robert Verkaik that he is the forgotten victim of the 'war on terror'. In March 2009, he was awarded 60,000 pounds, in compensation after an admission by the UK's anti-terrorist police that they subjected him to 'grave abuse, tantamount to torture' during his first arrest in December 2003.

Can the ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Send Americans to Military Prison Without Trial?

U.S. Citizens suspected of terrorism and caught on U.S. soil forfeit their rights to due process and the presumption of innocence underlying the Constitution.Indefinite Detention Bill NDAA Can Send Americans to Military Prison Without Trial

That appears to be the current position of the Senate, according to many legal analysts and some in Congress, unless President Obama vetoes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.
...
“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,”

'Ma, I can't take it anymore': Last words of tragic man, 22, to his mom the night before he killed himself after THREE YEARS in Rikers without being charged with a crime

Kalief Browder, 21, was arrested in 2010 for allegedly stealing a backpack
The teen, from the Bronx, NY refused to accept a plea deal and wanted to go to trial to prove his innocence
He spent three years in Rikers Island before the charges were dropped
Surveillance video leaked from the prison showed the teen being slammed into the ground by a guard
Mr Browder committed suicide on Saturday at his family home


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ead-suicide.html#ixzz3vup0NseT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

SlobaBgd:
@dusanboss
Šta je, frka ti je što si propagirao narkomaniju, i pisao protiv rada policije i pravosuđa?!
Nećemo tako, Dino! :D

Otto23:

svako ko je pod sumnjom da je "terorista" moze biti uhapsen i zatvoren bez sudjenja, i obrazlozenja. Tako je to u USA

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub.L. 112–81. This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021-1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40.[6]

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).


SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
Deadline.
President.
Applicability.
10 USC 801 note.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 19:18 Jan 31, 2012 Jkt 019139 PO 00081 Frm 00267 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL081.112 PUBL081 anorris on DSK5R6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
125 STAT. 1564 PUBLIC LAW 112–81—DEC. 31, 2011
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.

Dakle, svako ko je pod sumnjom da je "terorista" moze biti uhapsen i zatvoren bez sudjenja, i obrazlozenja. Tako je to u USA

kad USA shatrp moze da odluci ko je terorista bez sudjenja, i da ga zatvori na koliko mu se prohte

Otto23:

nista ja ne treba da dokazujem, jer to nisu moja tvrdjenja, vec defacto stanje koje postoji i koje se primenjuje. Dakle, postoje ljudi na koje se to primenjuje, na koje se primenjivalo (koji su prosli sve to), i koji su i sad po zatvorima bez presude ili optuzbe, po prostoj proceni USA shatrpa, tj. stavljanja potpisa na listu, i samim tim autorizovanja zatvaranja bez sudjenja i dokazivanja krivice - na neodredjeno.

Dakle, svako ko je pod sumnjom da je "terorista" moze biti uhapsen i zatvoren bez sudjenja, i obrazlozenja. Tako je to u USA

kad USA shatrp moze da odluci ko je terorista bez sudjenja, i da ga zatvori na koliko mu se prohte

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. Although the White House[12] and Senate sponsors[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.

Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.

Ti kako hoćeš ali ja nemam nameru da trolujem.

Otto23: 

Steta sto narod u Srbiji nije jos toliko zaglupeo - vec trazi alternativu... u bezalterantivi. Bas steta...

Otto23:
Kad ne moze nobelovac, Obama (vec je zauzet), dobar je i Soros... i njegove NVO, slobodni mediji. Realno, neki papan poput ovog 2012, ili nekog shiptarskog bota sa ES-a, bi bio idealan za dalji "napredak" Srbije.

Steta sto narod u Srbiji nije jos toliko zaglupeo - vec trazi alternativu... u bezalterantivi. Bas steta...

Emmy: za tvoju informaciju brajkane:

u Srbiji proruske stranke i putinjugend ne mogu da predju cenzus.

Ceo parlament nam je od proevrospkih stranaka, a precednik je takodje pobedio na proevropskoj platformi. Sad je poceo nesto da svirucka sa Rusijom, prva ljubav ipak zaborava nema, ali to cemu i kraj biti izvesniji. Izbopri za godin i nesto i posle baj baj Tomi Tomislavovic Nikolic !

Emmy:
Izbopri za godin i nesto i posle baj baj Tomi Tomislavovic Nikolic !

Otto23:
Kad ne moze nobelovac, Obama (vec je zauzet), dobar je i Soros... i njegove NVO, slobodni mediji. Realno, neki papan poput ovog 2012, ili nekog shiptarskog bota sa ES-a, bi bio idealan za dalji "napredak" Srbije.

Steta sto narod u Srbiji nije jos toliko zaglupeo - vec trazi alternativu... u bezalterantivi. Bas steta...

payge: 

Srbija treba da ostane neutralna.

2012:


Nece moci da prezivi kao neutralna, to je sustina problema.

Podji od proste pretpostavke koju sam vec spomenuo, da li ima dovoljno novca da pokrije troskove gole egzistencije?

Drugo, da li ima snagu (vojnu i policijsku) da se recimo spravi sa pobunom na Jugu Srbije i u Sandjaku. Ili recimo, uslede jaci zahtevi za odvajanje Vojvodine, sa sinhronizovanom pobunom na Jugu Srbije i u Sandjaku.
Ajde razmisli malo, pa mi odgovori.

payge:
Ja na to gledam ovako:

Samo ti ovde najavljujes frku na Sandzaku.
Ako ste svi ili vecina s' juga takvi kao sto si ti u tom slucaju juzni problem je pic.in dim.
Sorry, nista licno.

Sto se tice frke koju najavljujete u severnoj provinciji, vidim, glavni lokalni borci su komandosi i gerila tipa:
@ssisije, Emmy-i (tako se zvala jedna moja kobila), @vruciSulundar i ostala boranija.

Nema nista od svega toga, sorry.

biciklista:


Vidi vidi, pa i ti ponekad ubodeš baš tamo gde bi trebalo. To je u stvari centralno pitanje, samo je problem u tome što ni politička ni intelektualna elita nema odgovor na to pitanje, a tek ne ono što na ovim prostorima zovemo narod. Svi se nekako uzdaju u protok vremena, odlaganje, zatvaranje očiju i zabijanje glave u pesak. Tu smo šampioni, nema ni najmanje sumnje.

2012: Evo ti mi odgovori, svo vreme nesto filozofiras, pa je red da das svoj odgovor na jedno veoma jednostavno i realno pitanje.

2012:Ti kazes da se treba distancirati od zapada, a ja te pitam ko ce da te spasava kad pocnu da te tuku.

2012:Da li znas da je Srbija bila daleko snaznija i organizovanija kad je izgubila Kosovo (sto vi kazete: "pobedila NATO), nego sto je sada.

2012:

Odgovor ti je krajnje infantilan, pokusaj sa ozbiljnijim odgovorom (ako mozes).

malicious communications

the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient

hotchimney:
Što se tiče smislenosti, izjava je smislena jer jedini način da se zaustave ratovi 90-tih bio je vojni kolaps Srbije a što se na kraju desilo. Nakon toga zavladao je mir koji traje evo već 16 godina. Prema tome takva izjava je imala smisla.

hotchimney:


Možda negde ima snimak te emisije pa se može utvrditi šta je tačno rekla.

Što se tiče smislenosti, izjava je smislena jer jedini način da se zaustave ratovi 90-tih bio je vojni kolaps Srbije a što se na kraju desilo. Nakon toga zavladao je mir koji traje evo već 16 godina. Prema tome takva izjava je imala smisla.

hotchimney:
....
Što se tiče smislenosti, izjava je smislena jer jedini način da se zaustave ratovi 90-tih bio je vojni kolaps Srbije a što se na kraju desilo. Nakon toga zavladao je mir koji traje evo već 16 godina. Prema tome takva izjava je imala smisla.

mrle011:
Ako je nekome žao tog blogera, samo neka zamisli da je to hotchimney.

Emmy:
protiv odluke engleskog suda vec se diglo 10tine orghanizacija, dok su se u Rusiji svi zakarabuljili da ne bi bili sledeci.

Meni su smesli ovi nasi rusofili. Na zapadu uocavaju i najmanju truncicu, a u Rusiji ne vide ni balvan !

Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world."

branko tod:
Zato je kod nas demokratija najdemokratskija: http://www.vesti-online.com/Ve...ijala-sam-da-Srbija-izgubi-rat

payge:

A u medjuvremenu,
sve vreme dok tvoji obozavaoci vode virtuelne ratove na netu brdjani im karaju zene i sestre na terenu,
vasa osnovna slabost, jaki ste na recima a losi na delu.

2012: ....Realnost pokazuje da brdjanima zene i sestre odlaze u gradove, a da brdjani ostaju po brdima bez zena...

2012:pa moraju da se karaju medju sobom.

XMTR: 
Znam da mozes kako hoces,
samo Te ljudski pitam .....


....ima li smisla ?

branko tod:
Zato je kod nas demokratija najdemokratskija: http://www.vesti-online.com/Ve...ijala-sam-da-Srbija-izgubi-rat

dusanboss:


I sta je tu problem ? To je njeno misljnje, kojim nikoga nije povredila.

ssi:

Evo mene je povredila.
Imam li ja isto pravo da reagujem, da podignem opštu frku i da se društvo digne dok ova tvoja ne završi u zatvoru, isto kao što se digla javnost u Engleskoj zbog nezvanične izjave na smešnom Fejsbuku? I da sve koji je podržavaju tretiram jednako kao i nju - kao izdajnike, krvoloke, lopove i strane plaćenike?

SlobaBgd: Što pitaš? Da li si isto to pitao i one Engleze koji su ćorkirali onog tipa? Ili se to ne dovodi u pitanje, a moja uvređenost (ili nekog drugog odavde) treba da se preispituje i analizira?

SlobaBgd: Pa ne mora direktno da me spominje.
Ja sam kolektivno uvređen, kao građanin. :)

ssi:


Na koji nacin ? Sta ti se tu nije dopalo ? Zasto je onda ne tuzis ?

Kako si ti to "kolektivno" uvredjen. Ti nisi mnozina.

SlobaBgd:

Ja sam kolektivno uvređen, kao građanin.