Liberal Judge Makes Intercepting Enemy Communications ILLEGAL

My friend was locked-up because they thought he was going to be illegal immigrant, due to a good-bye letter they found in customs. They sent him to jail and deported him (which they don't do for millions of others)...I know what was on that letter, and that was ten times more subjective than this.

The man knows what he's doing is stupid, unless he completely retard.

That's odd, given our perception of equal protection under the law.

Here's what I said:

'Not enforcing a rather reasonable law against those cognitive enough to understand it, is like saying the law is meanless.'

Either your trying to make a point by ignoring what I wrote or your doing what you seem to always do...interpetate things incorrectly. The laws of America apply different per reasonable level of intellectual ability or age that complies with the previous concept. Technically, children aren't 'the people' (per the constitution),...that initially meant in all actuality... white home owners. The definition has change with the 14th amendment, and general culture. Kids are afforded more privelaged rights in most circumstances and this is all modern law.

It's funny how you try to make a point by ignore what I wrote. You're weird at times, yo.

 

Well, America was more conservative back then...don't you think, G?
---------------------------------------------------
Even the democrats were.....I'd say most conservatives I know respect FDR quite a bit. He
makes the modern dems (in some respect) look odd.

 

Yeah, the good ol' days. Would be interesting to note on which administration the law was enacted. I didn't go that far.

 

That's perfectly fine rick. They could have kicked him out of the airport and banned him from flying. No problem with that. Arresting him was too far though.

 

Well, on some levels. I think the racial acceptance is a bit better today....other than that, I'd say America was more unified and rational at that point in time.

Then came Rock and drugs, and a bunch of political mistakes. This coming from a person that loves rock...although I could do without drugs and politicians.

 

I'm making a perfect point rick. The guy is 76 years old. He could easily be in a not so 'balanced' state.. or a not compitent mental state. If that's the case, just like with a 6 year old, his intellectual ability is not all there.

 

Well, then change the law, chief. I don't agree with all the rules given by the federal government or the FAA, but they are what they are. I never cut corners, personally.

 

My grandfathers 82, and he's doing rather fine... but I guess that's just good genetics.

A cop generally can't make medical decesions, thus most likely that's how the action unfolds. You just can't assume the man's perfectly fine, and say leave...they're required to investigate, and that may mean putting him in jail temporarily.

Does it sound trivial...? Sure. But that's how it is.

 

A hypothetical is not a perfect point. In fact, he could be the CEO of Chrysler at that age, or one of the world's wealthiest investors.

One can offer hypotheticals all day long, but at the end of the day, like anyone else that openly discusses having explosive devices in their possession, he was arrested. Personally, I would not want to fly on a plane in these times where someone "joked" or not, about having explosives. The potential to cause caos, flight delays and untold financial losses is far greater than your personal feelings about whether it's right or wrong.

 

*Interesting what's doing down....


'Feinstein proposes that Congress streamline domestic surveillance by adding more FISC judges and intelligence employees to approve surveillance warrants, and by expanding the period during which the government can spy on individuals without a warrant from 72 hours to seven days. Specter proposes to override the warrant requirements laid down in the 1978 FISA Act altogether, allowing the FISC to approve domestic surveillance programs wholesale. Both proposals offer a mechanism by which the FISC could issue “program warrants” for the NSA’s domestic telecom data-collecting operation, effectively legalizing the program.'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/nsau-a10.shtml

**Not necessarily the best source, but interesting.

 

From what I hear, the issue isn't the listening, its that they dont go through the steps to document the listening for checks and balances of the process?

 

From what we've been discussing, the issue isn't that it's illegal because we're at war anyway, it's because there's no time to document it all before getting warrants, as the Brooklyn Bridge plot, and more recently, the liquid explosives incident Proves!

 

What do you mean, dont they have 72 hours to document it with the special court that ONLY takes care of these warrents. How hard is that?

I dont care if they have to listen for good reason, but I sure as hell want it documented so we have some checks and balances.

 

Pretty dang hard when they have to move in at 18 hours.

Then you also want it sure as heck that there's some more attacks that *could've* been prevented, thanks to people like you.

 

You know what? Fine, I'll answer this question (ONE, not many, as you have implied with "questionS") ***AGAIN*** to get you off my back.

Yes, it was. The liquid explosives incidient and the Brooklyn Bridge plot were both caught because of wiretapping.

 

Where is the proof these wiretaps caught him and were the cause of his guilty plea? According to wiki he was a double agent and was ratted out by a fellow named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

Those were not your initial conditions. Only after you learned the program was successful, did you try to make it seem less effective by adding in your own senseless criteria.

You don't make the rules holmes. The program was successful and you are upset because it is. Get over it!

 

Actually, yes they were.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1285773&postcount=111

Notice the words "PROVEN TO CATCH A TERRORIST"

Where is the proof the spy calls in this case were what caught him? How do we know it was the Mohammad guy ratting him out?

Once again Gtech, trying to twist the truth into your own version of lies that fit your agenda. Will it ever stop?

 

Hmmm...quick comparison:

Checks to see if these are the same. Gimme a second. I'll figure it out

 

Where is the proof the wire taps caught him? Is that better?