The Instigator
Stupidape
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LeMarquisDEnfer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Hillary for prison 2016.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 94655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Con

No idea why I keep seeing these signs. I tried searching on the web and couldn't find much info. Mostly websites trying to sell me products. Therefore, burden of proof is on Pro. Since a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
LeMarquisDEnfer

Pro

I will be arguing for the legal arguments for which Hillary Clinton should be put in prison, and gladly taking upon myself the burden of proof.

My reason for Hillary Clinton to deserve imprisonment is that she is extremely negligent[1,2], often leading in a risk of harm to Americans or to the leaking of sensitive information that could harm millions by starting a war.

As is the right thing to do when suggesting someone be sent to prison, I am going to show the laws. Executive Order 13526[3] is the first one. Under section 4 it covers the circumstances under which a person may learn about confidential material. One of the prerequisites is a class on how to properly safeguard the classified information. It also states that this training warns them of the consequences of losing information or failing to protect it. Using a private server is not secure enough for this kind of information, and it had not been since 2005[4,5]. The director of the FBI tried her and came to the conclusion that this was simply "extremely careless[6]." The executive order I cited prior stated that people also could be tried when it was done unintentionally[3]. Another expert, a former Attorney General, feels that intent should not have been the only thing upon which they were judging as to whether or not she had broken any classification laws[7]. While intent is definitely mentioned in the classification laws[8], as is "gross negligence."

1. http://dictionary.law.com...
2. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
3. https://www.whitehouse.gov...
4. http://www.factcheck.org...
5. http://www.factcheck.org...
6. http://www.nytimes.com...
7. http://www.breitbart.com...
8. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Con

I've read through my opponent's arguments and links. I see nothing that indicates jail time. Fines and at worst probation. Nothing to indicate jail time. As I see it Hillary messed up and was negligent. Yet, this is not enough to warrant prison.
LeMarquisDEnfer

Pro

Had you read the executive order you would see that section four very clearly states that those who slip up could be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions[1]. A criminal sanction can legally mean anything from probation to execution[2]! A civil sanction can lead to having one's license to practice something revoked[2]! At the very least, and I do by all means the very least, she should no longer be allowed to view information at these levels of classification, which would render her useless as a president, since they have to look at confidential information pretty regularly, and even decide to refuse to share it with the other two branches in some circumstances[3]. But this is not a statement as to why you should not vote for Hillary Clinton, just something I found to be an interesting aside.

But calling "civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions" just fines would surely be a grossly improper statement. It could mean just fines, but it could mean a lot more[2]. It is up for interpretation, hugely, which I find odd in an Executive Order, but alas the vagueness stands! Thousands of Emails were left unprotected, several of which containing highly sensitive information[4]. That should definitely be on the higher end of whatever spectrum those sanctions allow for, and I am against execution as I assume you to be as well, so I suggest prison.

1. https://www.whitehouse.gov...
2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://www.encyclopedia.com...
4. https://wikileaks.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Con

"Criminal sanctions include capital punishment, imprisonment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service." [0]

"and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure." [1]

Yes, prison can be one of the punishments for this crime. Yet, there is so many others, including capital punishment, corporal punishment, banishment, house arrest, community supervision, fines, restitution, and community service.

I agree that she shouldn't just get a slap on the wrist. Yet, I disagree that prison is the correct punishment. I don't know how sensitive these emails were. If there were sensitive enough the situation would warrant execution. Otherwise fines and community service seems adequate punishment. Thanks for the debate.


0. http://what-when-how.com...
1. https://www.whitehouse.gov...
LeMarquisDEnfer

Pro

I have linked to all of the Emails and will do so once more[1]. She was shown discussing the Qatari royal family, information about them, and future plans for foreign relations[2,4]. She was having a conversation in a confidential Email about using deaths in Haiti to get "good PR."[3] She also mishandled something dealing with Egyptian internal politics full of information gained from inside sources that we managed to get in the highest ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood. The phrase "extremely sensitive," is used several times within this Email[5]! It had extremely valuable information and now they are probably looking for a mole. She has put the lives of very useful operatives in danger! The same can be said of the governments of Israel, Iran, Syria, and Turkey[6]. This is a very small sample of what shows up under Confidential[7]. Now if you look up top secret[8] things become even more troubling. She accuses the right wing of being a massive conspiracy more than once[9,10]. There is discussion of taking advantage of the fact that the Yemeni King is willing to claim that American air strikes are his own country's doing[11]. Any of this should have been enough to cause her serious political and legal harm, so all if it should do it without a doubt. I only gave a small sample and invite both my opponent and all of those reading this to examine the links for themselves.

1. https://wikileaks.org...
2. https://wikileaks.org...
3. https://wikileaks.org...
4. https://wikileaks.org...
5. https://wikileaks.org...
6. https://wikileaks.org...
7. https://wikileaks.org...
8. https://wikileaks.org...
9. https://wikileaks.org...
10. https://wikileaks.org...
11. https://wikileaks.org...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
To a degree, but not to a sufficient degree.
Posted by YourMomoness 1 year ago
YourMomoness
Well, in the voters defense, was that explained?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: warren42// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both sides admitted Hillary's guilt. However, Pro showed that prison is a possible punishment for the crimes Hillary committed. They never proved that prison time was the correct sentence for Hillary, and without doing so the BoP, which Pro accepted, is unfulfilled.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to do one of two things as part of an argument vote. They are required to either specifically assess arguments made by both debaters, or assess specific arguments made by one debater and explain why they failed to meet their BoP. In doing the latter, a voter must explain what that BoP is, who had it, and how they failed to do so. The RFD explains all of these except the last, and fails to explain why Pro didn't meet the threshold of what is "the correct sentence for Hillary". That requires explaining why specific points made by Pro met the "possible" threshold but not "correct".
************************************************************************
Posted by YourMomoness 1 year ago
YourMomoness
But, would you at least conclude that this woman should not become president?
Posted by ILikePie5 1 year ago
ILikePie5
She sent/received classified information on her server...8 email chains contained classified info at the time they were sent/received
Posted by YourMomoness 1 year ago
YourMomoness
Davery79:
Here Here!
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I've skimmed through your response, I need time to read the links, this is all new information to me. The most I've seen before is a bumper sticker.
Posted by Davery79 1 year ago
Davery79
Seriously though, what do they mean by intent? She intended to use a private server, she knew it was wrong, even I know that is wrong, and I don't work for the government or with classified emails. Was it not her intent to give away classified information, is that what they are referring to when they say there was no intent?

If there was intent to distribute classified emails to anyone, wouldn't that be treason? There is a reason for these two different distinctions, no one seems to get a clear definition of intent. Maybe everyone knows but me, if that is the case, can someone fill me in?

I agree, she should be held accountable for this, not just "sorry, I'll do better next time."
No votes have been placed for this debate.