Statistically, you are right.
I think this due to amazing AI - and most (in the west) are surprised by the technology used in India in Modi's time..(have you seen the video of Modi speaking in pure Tamil?
(I, not an admin deleted my last post)
I actually wonder if there is need to discredit elections in India given poorly implemented election processes in the USA. Unlike at the time of the 2000 Bush v Gore non-election, there are now vast numbers of Internet users from India who are capable of calling out election irregularities in the USA. So an operation to rig elections in the USA would need to sow some doubt in elections elsewhere if only to provide plausible deniability under the excuse that elections are a messy affair everywhere.
I enjoyed it very much.https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaJbgYYMRrxXBTW, there is another video between Modi-Gates that is very interesting
Much as I support doing that to him. The cold and calculating side of me, wants to keep this clown in India.
Jo India mein Gar$hitty woh Americal LA mein bhi Gar$hitty. Gar$hitty will be $hitty anywhere, in India or in USA, LA.Pratyush wrote: ↑01 Apr 2024 19:53Much as I support doing that to him. The cold and calculating side of me, wants to keep this clown in India.
The re-election of this government will be one tight slap to this idiot and the US government. These idiots having to deal with Modi will be revenge enough.
Barking dogs of Biden talk about Khalistani Pannun and redlines and somnobulent (sleep-walking) Biden is sending love letters to Bakistan.Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The enduring partnership between our nations remains critical to ensuring the security of our people—and people around the world—and the United States will continue to stand with Pakistan to tackle the most pressing global and regional challenges of our time.
That includes advancing our shared vision for a future of greater health security, economic growth, and access to education for all. Through our U.S.-Pakistan “Green Alliance” framework, we will also continue to strengthen our climate resilience, support sustainable agriculture and water management, and assist with Pakistan’s recovery from the devastating floods in 2022. And, the United States remains committed to working with Pakistan to protect human rights and promote progress.
Together, we will continue to forge a strong partnership between our nations, and close bond between our people.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
I wonder what supporters of Gar$hitty have to say now?US Ambassador's defense of Pannun reveals tensions between free speech and practical consequences of incitement
In a recent podcast with journalist Smita Prakash, Eric Garcetti, US ambassador to India defended the Biden administration’s stand on Gurpatwant Singh Pannun.
Garcetti said that in America, one can't be punished for speech, instead actions are punished.
“In order to get criminal conviction in the United States of America, you have to actually be taking action, not just making speech,” said Garcetti.
The Ambassador's position has come off to many as absurd. Essentially it suggests that the American state does not take preventive measures to stop any violence.
The absurdity of the argument aside, Garcetti's utterance proves that the US is now openly shielding a terrorist on its soil, who, it increasingly seems, is an asset of its deep state.
But even going by the test that Garcetti sets for the US to take action, it should be easy for Joe Biden's State Department to build a case against Pannun. But let's first look briefly at what US laws and courts say about free speech.
The First Amendment protects free speech in the USA. From press freedom to obscenity, it encompasses every principle. One of the biggest restrictions on it came in Schenck v. United States (1919) case. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that Schenck’s words caused “clear and present danger.” It became a precedent.
In 1969, it was largely overturned in the Brandenburg case. Though the Court let Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Branderbug go scot-free, it overturned the “clear and present danger” test. It says that the Court can’t punish a person whose speech doesn't lead to imminent lawlessness. The Brandenburg test is acknowledged as the last major pronunciation on free speech by US Supreme Court.
This 'test' has been used by the Indian Supreme Court as well.
Amidst perennially ongoing debates on free speech, authorities and law have been at odds. In June 2023, the US Supreme Court even set a precedent under which Pannun and other Khalistanis could be apprehended.
In June 2023, a US court ruled that it is not free speech when one shows reckless disregard for the danger their speech can cause. Here, the operating phrase is reckless disregard.
Now compare them with what Pannun and his Khalistan ilks did
One, Pannun has threatened to kill Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on multiple occasions. Two, in November 2023, Pannun threatened to bomb Air India. Three, in January this year, he threatened to kill Bhagwant Mann, the Chief Minister of Punjab. Four, in January 2024, Pannun threatened to blow India’s National Stock Exchange.
If this wasn't enough, the Khalistanis had attacked India’s consulate in San Francisco on multiple occasions between March and July 2023. Motivation for this had come from the hateful speeches Pannun had given.
Clearly, Pannun has shown reckless disregard to the danger of his speech.
Moreover, this would fit the 'test' laid down by the US court in the Brandenburg case.
But for some reasons, lawyers in the Biden administration have not been able to connect the dots. Or, perhaps, we're being too charitable in our interpretations - perhaps the Biden administration wants to shield Pannun at the behest of the deep state, something that reports say the Indian government believes to be the truth.
Even assuming Garcetti’s argument that it would be tough to prove in Court, what stops the government take to authorities in the United States has been arresting people for jokes posted on social media. The governments in the so-called ‘leader of the free world’ have lowered the bar on punishment for speech when it wanted.
The fundamental principle why free speech exists is to ensure that disputes could be solved with dialogues, rather than going the old tribal route of violence.
Instead, the reality is different in the Pannun case. The terrorist is inciting violence through his speech. So, the speech which should be used to curb violence is being used to promote it. That is a reversal of logic, morality and established principles.
If the US is willing, it is not really difficult to establish a link between Pannun's hateful speeches and the attacks on multiple Hindu temples, common Indians, embassies and diplomats all across the Western Hemisphere. But, it's about the willingness.
The US government is clearly attempting to hunt with the hound and run with the hare. The double standard is really baffling.
At best, Garcetti must find a better excuse for the US' unwillingness to act against Pannun. Perhaps he could tell us why the US has refused to punish those who were responsible for the attack on the Indian consulate in San Francisco.
Welcome to US of A, land of free and home of the brave.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... ed-onstageHumorless government agents have recently inflicted unlawful retaliation against harmless pranksters, and courts have shielded those agents from accountability.
From FBI itself:It was a sarcastic Facebook comment during an argument about a video game. And, according to the father of 19-year-old Justin Carter, it was enough to land his son behind bars for months, facing the possibility of years in prison.
Carter, who is currently on suicide watch in Comal County Jail near San Antonio, Texas, has been locked up since February. He faces a charge of making terroristic threats, a felony that could theoretically bring a sentence of up to eight years.
===Think Before You Post
Hoax Threats are Serious Federal Crimes
Video: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 975029.cmsThe US-based activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun posted a video last week in which he called for a boycott of India’s flagship carrier.
Middle-aged Sikh man with long white beard and black turban raises left fist while holding large yellow flag with black writing that says KHALISTAN and has a symbol and other writing on it.
‘Whether it costs our lives or not’: killing of Canadian Sikh leader reignites historic fight
Read more
“We are asking the Sikh people not to fly via Air India on November 19. There will be a global blockade. On November 19, don’t travel by Air India or your life will be in danger,” he said in the video, a mix of Punjabi and English.
I gave the link to Lenny/Richard Pryor to point out the evolution of free speech within US. They were not of some bygone era of Washington/Jefferson time that we can forget.sanjaykumar wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024 04:28 Lenny Bruce George Carlin Richard Pryor are from another time.
George Carlin continued with his sagacious humour till he died.
But to arrest someone for zombie jokes and a juvenile facebook parody?!
I should enter a monastery.
In many ways, India is definitely one of the freest societies on Earth.
Who the hell does this $hitty think he is?US mission, Eric Garcetti has announced a $130,000 grant for universities, NGOs, and think tanks to conduct policy dialogues in Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Assam, Mizoram, and Sikkim.
GoI needs to strongly counter this move by banning such donations to sensitive areas.
A strange FARTicle.vera_k wrote: ↑05 Apr 2024 01:51 Some kind poker player could ask if these people were offered asylum in the USA as well.
Indian government ordered killings in Pakistan, intelligence officials claim
So now the USA is the only safe haven for Khalistani and Pakistani terrorists.India will enter Pakistan to kill anyone who escapes over the border after trying to carry out terrorist activities in the country, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh told CNN News18 on Friday
However, the NIA announced a reward for Saleem Rehman in March 2022.Saleem Rehmani, also wanted by India as a “terrorist”, was shot dead in January 2022 in Pakistan.
But if the court decides on extradition in due course, what happens next? If more than one state is requesting extradition, how is the decision made?
If the court approves the extradition, the Minister of Justice will decide whether to carry it out. If he agrees, he signs the extradition order. The minister is also a politician, which means that, in addition to the legal criteria that are given, he also takes into account the political interests of the Czech Republic. If there is only one country as an applicant and the permit to issue has gone through the courts, then this is a relatively simple task. However, I can think of a case where the court approved extradition to the US and the minister did not agree to it in the end. It was the case of Ali Fayyad, who, according to the US indictment, was involved in arms trafficking and was linked to a terrorist organization. At that time, we did not extradite him to the USA because Czechs were imprisoned in his home country of Lebanon.
---So we are at the stage where a country has asked us to extradite a person – what happens next?
The proceedings begin at the regional court. As a requested person, you have the right to complain, so you can defend yourself and appeal the court's decision to the High Court. If you are in custody for extradition, there is a three-month period for extradition. This can be extended if the procedure is complex, but for a maximum of another three months. However, some obstacles do not count towards this period, namely if you have a suspension of execution by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or by the Constitutional Court. That's pretty clear. A third obstacle arises when a person is regarded as an applicant for international protection or asylum. Something similar is happening to one of our clients, and we will be filing a constitutional complaint in this matter, because the whole matter needs to be clarified. According to last year's amendment, the Asylum Act explicitly states that it does not block an asylum application or an asylum that has already been granted or does not prevent extradition to a third country. For example, we have you extradited to Canada and you are a citizen of France. You can apply for asylum, but it will only apply for extradition to France. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent your extradition to Canada. The fact that you are being persecuted in France for political reasons or that you are in danger there is irrelevant.
But as a result, we suddenly have two components in the state that interpret the law differently and according to the field in which they operate.
Which is quite important for the person to be extradited...
Yes, that is, because if the deadline is running, in many cases it has been unnecessarily because the court considers that it is not running. However, if the Ministry of the Interior says that there is nothing to prevent extradition, then the deadline should run. In practice, this means that the person has been in custody for more than three months and no one is addressing the fact that the time limit should be extended. Which is exactly the thing I have already mentioned, that we are submitting a complaint to the Constitutional Court and we are very curious to see how they will answer this question.
So what happens when the deadline passes?
If the period for extradition has expired, the person must be released. But that doesn't mean it can't be released. He just can't be in custody. If it starts to move freely, then of course you may not be able to secure it again.