Slashdot Mirror
Site Claims to Reveal 'Tattle-tales'
Dekortage writes "Have you ever ratted somebody out? If it was a legal case, you might end up on Who's A Rat, an online database of police informants and undercover agents, identified through various publicly-available documents such as court briefings. The data-mined information is now available online at a price. As reported in the New York Times, 'The site says it has identified 4,300 informers and 400 undercover agents, many of them from documents obtained from court files available on the Internet.' Understandably, U.S. judges and law enforcement agents are upset, although defense lawyers seem to like the idea. Where do you draw the line between legal transparency and secrecy?"
This site has been around for a little while so it is not news and I fail to understand why it is causing such an uproar. Here are the US Today article counterpoints I would throw out there...
Since then, it has grown into a clearinghouse for mug shots, court papers and rumors. All publicly available anyway (mug shots, papers, etc.). Rumors... Rumors will always be rampant no matter what.
Federal prosecutors say the site was set up to encourage violence, and federal judges around the country were recently warned that witnesses in their courtrooms may be profiled online. Where is the proof of the federal prosecutors' claim. Do they have substantial evidence that states "This crime happened specificially because of this site". If not then its speculation. Thats like saying "this shooting happened because there was a gun store in town"
"My concern is making sure cooperators are adequately protected from retaliation," Isn't that the job of the US Marshalls who offer snitches protective custody. They turned snitch most often under the agreement of something either financially motivated, or under the notion they would be protected. Not your problem Judge.
"Stop Snitching" T-shirts have been sold in cities around the country What does one have to do with the other. So what T Shirts are being sold across the city. Would it be correct for me to say... "And their is a car dealer in town. So it must be so that those who are committing drive by shootings buy their cars here since its the only car dealer in town." BS.
There is so much crapaganda on this discussion it is disgusting, and if the website is removed, like it or not the government is hindering free speech. Bottom line
Infiltrated dot Net
Irrelevant. Assuming the person who took the drug is an adult and does not have a mnetal disorder, they had a perfectly well functioning brain at the time they made the decision to take the drug. The action of taking the drug harmed noone except the person who voluntarily took that drug and knew the risks. All of the other actions involved here which actually have victims were already illegal without anti-drug laws.
The only thing anti-drug laws accomplish is preventing consenting adults from doing as they wish with their own bodies. The crimes that might be prevented by keeping a few people from taking these drugs in the first place are probably completely offset by the criminal element of the illegal drug trade. And even if they aren't, I'll the freedom (as a general principle) over what little decrease in crime the anti-drug laws may cause.
Do their families deserve to be put in danger? I doubt every undercover agent is single, many of them would have extended family as well. Regardless of what you think of undercover agents, you can't believe that there families should also be put at risk. It doesn't need to be said that they're are some very ruthless people in the drug trade.
Let's apply that logic to non-violent drug users:
Do their families deserve to be put in danger? I doubt that every drug user is single, many of them would have extended family as well. Regardless of what you think of drug users, you can't believe that their families should be put at risk. It doesn't need to be said that they are some very ruthless people in the law enforcement community.
Should non-violent drug users be arrested at gun point?
Should non-violent drug users whom support children and spouses be sent to jail for years?
Should non-violent drug users be forced to through the economic hardship of an expensive legal defense with an iffy outcome?
If you get into the undercover agent business, hunting for random people smoking pot, dropping LSD, and snorting coke, you deserve all the shit that comes your way. If you're married to one of these scum bags, leave them. That's all there is to it.
I have no respect for these people. None at all. They are in the business of ruining lives.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell