[OT] Note to new-ish subscribers: you joined a mailing list, not a "group". (fwd)
J.A. Terranson
measl at mfn.org
Mon Jan 20 18:17:19 PST 2014
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Philip Shaw wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:38 , Cari Machet <carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI now they make laws that are retroactive to indict - i know of a
> > case (or 5 actually) where the law was made to indict and convict 2
> > years after the "crime" yup ppl went to fed prison for years ... seems
> > the breech of the rule of law by the US has come more out of the
> > shadows
>
> Do you have a citation for those cases? I?m not doubting you, but the
> legal sophistry to argue that an ex post facto law was constitutional
> despite the explicit prohibition would be interesting. I?ve heard of
> cases where higher penalties were applied than existed at the time
> (which IIRC is banned by the ECHR and possibly the CCPR, although is
> allowed in the USA and elsewhere), or where statutes of limitations were
> extended, but a blatant ex post facto law seems surprising.
Telecom/NSA/*retroactive immunity* ring a bell?
//Alif
--
Those who make peaceful change impossible,
make violent revolution inevitable.
An American Spring is coming:
one way or another.
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list