> Read 18 U.S.C. § 6002 it does not grant blanket immunity. If I testify truthfully and reveal perjury in the past I can be tried for that perjury now.
I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.
> Completely bullshit. They held her in prison for a year with no charges and now they want her to pay a quarter million in fines? Fuck off.
It's not bullshit. Manning was basically obstructing justice by disobeying a court order. If sanctions like this didn't exist, people wouldn't have any incentive follow court orders at all, and the court system would become ineffective and break down.
Also, I'm not sure if the concept of "charges" is even relevant here. Aren't those leveled by a prosecutor? In contempt cases the judge is directly punishing noncompliance with court proceedings.
> The notion of property rights is not created by the law, but a law of nature, a concept intuitively understood by human beings. The same goes for theft. The law only adopted these concepts, but it created taxes. It is not intuitively obvious that some entity is entitled to a percentage of the money you're earning.
Nope, sorry. You might be on to something if you limited yourself to the "foreign relations" of a community, but we're talking about intracommunity relations here. If you're looking for laws of nature, socially obligatory sharing is far more fundamental and important than any primal notions of exclusivist private property and theft.
Concepts like private property, theft, and taxation do have primitive antecedents, but you're guilty of anachronism if you think those antecedents make some modern ideological notion a kind of fundamental law.
> Tax-funded UBI is theft, slavery, and extortion.
Our law creates both property rights and taxes. Taxes aren't theft because, by law, that money is actually the government's property. If you want individualistically overrule our law to make taxes theft, I might as well do the same to make your property mine.
> A bit alarming to see the government embracing an end-to-end chat system with perfect forward secrecy, considering both the head of the FBI and the CIA have confirmed that the lack of a back door would impede the fight against ISIS.
Why is it alarming? I don't think the FBI and CIA are advocating backdoors for government encryption. The fact that the military endorses it for their own operational security is weak evidence that Signal is more secure than other apps.
I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't grant immunity for perjury committed while testifying under immunity, which is a completely reasonable exception. Without it, a guilty criminal would have no incentive not to give false testimony portraying his guilty friends as innocent.
You might want read this: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...
> Again, this violates the 5th amendment.
That's your opinion, but the Supreme Court's opinion differs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastigar_v._United_States