Nobody is suggesting that people "stand up" for the rights of pedophiles and drug dealers to be pedophiles and drug dealers.
Actually yes there are, not only in advocacy, but also in various legal and legislative fights. There are people that post such advocacy on Slashdot with some regularity.
It is the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and lets not forget evidence planting.
That should apply in any case. There will obviously be debates about what constitutes "unreasonable."
Your rationalization (it isn't a rationale, it's a rationalization) is that the people are guilty and so there is therefore no reason to follow due process to determine their guilt.
No, I think that due process must be followed.
You should learn to see. You should also learn basic civics.
I might suggest the same to you, as well as to become better informed.
Murderers have rights. Pedophiles have rights. Rapists have rights.
That's right, they do. They have the same rights as the rest of us, including the right to a speedy, fair, trial by jury, and the right to remain silent. What they don't have is the right to murder, molest children, and to rape. I don't know how people don't get that.
You have this correct, "Yes you need the defend the rights of pedophiles and drugs dealers. The are the same rights as the rights of the innocent people." They have the same Constitutional rights as other people, but they do not have the right to engage in their crimes. Pedophiles have the right to remain silent, and trial by jury, but not to molest children.
He wrote "pedophiles," not "alleged pedophiles," and "drug dealers," not "alleged drug dealers." I assume he knew what he meant with his rhetorical device.
Oh no, no, no. The ACLU does not protect the rights of everyone. They are both selective and can be highly doctrinaire about whose rights they protect. They work towards a particular vision of society and only protect "everyone's" rights when it fits with their views.
Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case? Now we know that, at least for a while, the FBI was running the servers. The FBI was responsible for serving up, by all accounts, half the *.onion-based child porn sites in the world.
Are you trying to claim that the FBI pushed child porn to people that weren't looking for it? Or are you complaining that they seized an existing child porn distribution network and ran a sting against people that came looking for it?
It's possible that they will ditch North Korea. Within the last few years China has made them aware of their displeasure.
On the other hand, China sent large numbers of combat troops that fought against the US and UN forces during the Korean War. The new Chinese leader appears to be a hard liner that wants to pull back from the liberalization of the last few decades and return to traditional Communist ways. North Korea never left those ways.
The FISA court isn't a Star Chamber. It doesn't hold criminal trials. Its primary function is hear requests for warrants.
Although it is interesting that you have an opinion about national security law and court rulings, there is a practical problem here. How do you plan to enforce your "ruling" against the FISA courts and government?
Being a defendant means an arrest has taken place, charges have been filed, and things are heading to court. Yes, at that point the defendant's legal team can oppose motions, etc. But while the investigation prior to arrest is going on, there is no defendant, or legal team, to oppose the warrant.
In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America
Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason
Well, you get right on forming that new government and let us know when its ready to take charge.
There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think carefully before proceeding.
The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission....
President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.
I see you did leave an out though, since the charge almost certainly won't be "treason."
Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.
Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation. So you don't really have that right. The warrants are apparently legal and proper. Congress passed the laws authorizing them, and the courts have allowed them.
Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is suggesting that people "stand up" for the rights of pedophiles and drug dealers to be pedophiles and drug dealers.
Actually yes there are, not only in advocacy, but also in various legal and legislative fights. There are people that post such advocacy on Slashdot with some regularity.
It is the right against unreasonable search and seizure, and lets not forget evidence planting.
That should apply in any case. There will obviously be debates about what constitutes "unreasonable."
Your rationalization (it isn't a rationale, it's a rationalization) is that the people are guilty and so there is therefore no reason to follow due process to determine their guilt.
No, I think that due process must be followed.
You should learn to see. You should also learn basic civics.
I might suggest the same to you, as well as to become better informed.
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered
It isn't that they pick their battles, but what battles they pick.
A better link for the first link: The ACLU Never Forgets Its Pro-Communist Roots
Murderers have rights. Pedophiles have rights. Rapists have rights.
That's right, they do. They have the same rights as the rest of us, including the right to a speedy, fair, trial by jury, and the right to remain silent. What they don't have is the right to murder, molest children, and to rape. I don't know how people don't get that.
Yes, including this: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - H. L. Mencken
You have this correct, "Yes you need the defend the rights of pedophiles and drugs dealers. The are the same rights as the rights of the innocent people." They have the same Constitutional rights as other people, but they do not have the right to engage in their crimes. Pedophiles have the right to remain silent, and trial by jury, but not to molest children.
There is no "right" to molest children.
He wrote "pedophiles," not "alleged pedophiles," and "drug dealers," not "alleged drug dealers ." I assume he knew what he meant with his rhetorical device.
Oh no, no, no. The ACLU does not protect the rights of everyone. They are both selective and can be highly doctrinaire about whose rights they protect. They work towards a particular vision of society and only protect "everyone's" rights when it fits with their views.
The ACLU Never Forgets Its Pro-Communist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage
That may cover Larry Flynt, for better or worse, but it won't cover Geoffrey Portway .
Given the message of the original "First they came ..." by Martin Niemöller, are you suggesting that people "stand up" for pedophiles and drug dealers?
You have quite a confused hodgepodge of things in your list. I see agitation, but not insight.
Great comment, and interesting reading. Thanks.
Remember when we used to think that U.S. LEOs still had some sense of ethics and would never actually send child porn to anyone to make a case? Now we know that, at least for a while, the FBI was running the servers. The FBI was responsible for serving up, by all accounts, half the *.onion-based child porn sites in the world.
Are you trying to claim that the FBI pushed child porn to people that weren't looking for it? Or are you complaining that they seized an existing child porn distribution network and ran a sting against people that came looking for it?
Its called "unauthorized access of a computer" which is a federal offense.
That sounds bad. I hear that police cars have been known to speed, and police officers have shot people. What is the world coming to?
And I'll bet somebody has patented the 1836 technology.
Patent 1836 technology? Well yes, someone has patented it, including:
Gridirons (cooking)
Circuit breakers
Propellers
Colt's revolver
Sewing Machines
Personally I'm holding out for 1839 - both the bicycle and the hydrogen fuel cell. Of course vulcanized rubber is nothing to sneeze at.
So you're thinking Intel has no way to test a major functional part of their chip to know if it's good? I doubt it.
That wouldn't work out so well.
I doubt that an altered chip would pass BIST testing.
It's possible that they will ditch North Korea. Within the last few years China has made them aware of their displeasure.
On the other hand, China sent large numbers of combat troops that fought against the US and UN forces during the Korean War. The new Chinese leader appears to be a hard liner that wants to pull back from the liberalization of the last few decades and return to traditional Communist ways. North Korea never left those ways.
The FISA court isn't a Star Chamber. It doesn't hold criminal trials. Its primary function is hear requests for warrants.
Although it is interesting that you have an opinion about national security law and court rulings, there is a practical problem here. How do you plan to enforce your "ruling" against the FISA courts and government?
The V2? If you're thinking rockets, I've got to go with the Saturn V - man's ride to the moon and back.
Being a defendant means an arrest has taken place, charges have been filed, and things are heading to court. Yes, at that point the defendant's legal team can oppose motions, etc. But while the investigation prior to arrest is going on, there is no defendant, or legal team, to oppose the warrant.
In fact, treason has been committed, by the current government of the United States, against the very country of the United States of America
Anyone who chose to side with the treacherous regime that is lording over the citizens of the United States of America could be, in future, charged with treason
Well, you get right on forming that new government and let us know when its ready to take charge.
Or is this what you're talking about? Sovereign Citizens: Radicals Exercising 'God-Given Rights' or Fueling Domestic Terrorism?
There is a legal proverb that states, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." Have you put yourself on that path? Do you understand the domains criminal law, national security law, and Constitutional law, and their interplay? I see you quote only one amendment, but say nothing about an entire relevant article of the Constitution, nor about relevant court cases that are precedent for the law when it is an issue in the courts. You are on dangerous ground, my friend, dangerous ground. Think carefully before proceeding.
Surveillance Court Upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping
The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review — the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance — has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission. ...
President Bush’s Terrorist Surveillance Program — carried out by the NSA without court oversight, just as wartime presidents have always conducted national security surveillance without court oversight — always stood on strong authority, including a 2002 ruling from the same Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.
I see you did leave an out though, since the charge almost certainly won't be "treason."
Refusing a search w/o a *proper* warrant is not treason. Secret court generated 'warrants' do not count as being proper by any stretch of common law.
Warrants are pretty much always requested in a confidential setting. Experience has shown that when you call ahead to tell people you're getting a search warrant, or their friends tell them, evidence tends to disappear. The only thing that is different here is that the recipients of the warrant can't tell people they received it. Since they aren't the suspects, letting them inform other people that there is an investigation going on about them would interfere with what is a highly sensitive investigation. So you don't really have that right. The warrants are apparently legal and proper. Congress passed the laws authorizing them, and the courts have allowed them.
Since these warrants tend to be used for national security investigations, such as into spying and terrorism, how to you think that telling people they are being investigated isn't a bad thing?