Intergalactic Summit

Which is an utter lie, that only idiots will believe. Of course I don't support that crap and claiming that doesn't make you look smart at all.

Really, goon. If you have nothing to say of value, don't say anything. You're only making yourself look unreasonable, though, on the other hand, your organization already grants you this status.

Your propensity to attack the source of claims, rather than the claims themselves, is speaking volumes of your character.

I'll say nothing more on the subject.

Now, all these trolls aside - and to return back to the discussion.

I have to admit - I did commit an infringement, that I can be accused of.

I have terminated contracts prematurely without legal reasons to do so. But I have paid the fine and compensation for committing it. Thus, I don't think that accusing me in this would have any value or weight anymore.

Oh, harboring a terrorist is a crime. That it definately is. Now the actual question is, does anyone have any actual proof that those she has laid off performed any terrorist acts? Planned any? No action or intention, no terrorist. Affiliations dont specifically make terrorists, bombs or plans to use bombs do. I've yet to see any proof saying any of her ex employees had either. Why is this still a discussion if no one has actual proof to push this issue? As much as I hate to admit it I'm defendig you, then again I'm a liar so what do I know?

Affiliation and action while one can lead to the other, are not the same thing.

Membership in, sometimes mere affiliation with, a banned terrorist organization is often a criminal offense itself. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Commander Kim herself made public the fact that her crews included these people, and that their affiliation was enough to dismiss them from employment. Arguing about whether her terrorist affiliated former crewpersons ever actually bombed anyone seems to be a red herring.

Not disgrace myself with a public display of barbarity. If I were in military service, not disgrace my uniform and the State I claim to serve.

In which case stop spreading slanders about me tia.

Not true. If any of those individuals gave money to the organization, and any money from the organization was used in the execution of terrorist acts, then they're legally co-conspirators.

Really, RICO laws are pretty clear about this all over the damned place.

Reading this channel is fascinating. There appears to be quite a number of legal scholars who are intimately familiar with all nations' laws. Even more interestingly, they appear to agree that Federation law is the default for the cluster and applies to the State in both employment law and acts of political violence.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. I am somewhat confident that State law - and perhaps more usefully, individual corporate law - is not quite so clear cut in the matter. It seems clear that the Dragonaurs are a proscribed organisation. However, does the State practice collective responsibility in law? Do members of an organisation bear guilt by mere belonging or political affiliation, or do individuals have to be accused - or convicted - of a crime before being labelled a 'terrorist'? I am not so intimately familiar with State law as to be able to make such a judgement. Perhaps m'learned friends will fare better from their encyclopaedic knowledge?

In many tribal jurisdictions within the Republic, it is not only legal to commit acts that the fine people of this channel have labelled 'terrorist', these acts are viewed with some sense of approbation. This is justified under the agreed principle of Historic Self-Defence. In other words, all acts - including against civilians - are legal when the freedom of a slave or slaves is at stake. Holders and their families, overseers, and associated civiil servants, hauliers and facilitators have all been executed in the course of freeing Minmatar. (I should note that many tribal jurisdictions do consider these murderous acts nowadays - and judgements can be inconsistent in the matter now that clan tribunals apply the law).

In the Republic, these acts are seen as just and good. In the Empire, they are seen as terrorism. Indeed, the Empire is fond of labelling the entire Republic as a terrorist state. Thus, I submit, the definition of 'terrorism' is somewhat of a moveable feast depending on one's point of view. Some jurisdictions codify it and describe it in law, others define it under existing laws on murder. Being essentially a political act, it depends on the politics of the moment. The FIO and the Federation Senate particularly are fond of designating opposition as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers to froth up the yellow press and the impressionable voter. That is not law, that is politics.

To be clear, I am not supporting Commander Kim's actions nor condemning them. I just note that this is perhaps a matter for State law and her employing mega corporation, and that many of the pronouncements here make the assumption she is wrong prima facie.

Whereas if we were truly embracing Federation law as being the default, surely the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would apply to judgments of her crew, at the very least.