I would not believe one word that asshole says. Has much as he has ended up failing in everything else he "promised", there is no way that anyone should ever believe another word to ejects from his face-mouthed audio-projecting/food receptacle.
I always love to hear people use on of the many variations on, "I am doing nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide". Yeah, well, I am not doing anything wrong either, yet I believe that the state is required to follow the law, just like I am. A part of that law is respecting my privacy and respecting my rights.
Except for exigent circumstances, such as law enforcement needing to follow a person to save another person's life(such as in a kidnapping, etc), then I could see a reason the DoJ's point. The thing is, I still believe law enforcement always must follow the law, no matter the situation and there are already exigent circumstances exclusions to many laws today. The issue is that the U.S. Government is simply looking to erode the rights and protections U.S. Citizens enjoy to make their job easier. They(the U.S. Government) does not think, or at least discuss, the possible(and highly probable) abuses that such new power will introduce.
The other problem is that so many idiot voters either vote for the idiots that provoke these changes, or sit back and watch them(the bad politicians) rise to power.
So, baseball players lie to Congress and they get hit with charges and jail time, but the FBI(or insert any other government agency/agency head) and nothing happens? If law enforcement is caught lying in court, they get hit with all sorts of charges(misdemeanors and felonies), but this is tolerated?
I believe it is time to reorganize these law enforcement arms of the U.S. Federal Government, as there are just too many and most are not needed. National Security Letters(NSLs, i.e. printed rights violations) should be done away with, and this stupid mentality that most law enforcement(in the U.S. and abroad) has gained since September 11th needs to be dropped. Everyone you see is not a "terrorist"(new euphemism for unlabeled target) and I refuse to give up my privacy or rights while you(law enforcement) fights "terrorist"(made up targets).
Law enforcement has changed too much since I left the profession. From the looks of it, I am glad I did.
I know that having the party that loses in civil case pay for the other side's legal bills(which does happen now, in some cases), but just ask the guy that sued those idiots that protest military funerals(among others)(http://www.godhatesfags.com/). The Westboro Baptist(not) "Church"(I use that term loosely) is a horrible(and good) example of how your idea is pretty bad.
The father had to pay Westboro Baptist "Church's" legal bills(http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/justice/westboro.baptist.snyder_1_military-funerals-albert- snyder-westboro-baptist-church?_s=PM:CRIME), which is an extreme travesty and totally legal. Perhaps the father can get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this and overturn his loss(though that is questionable), but he is going to have to pay the freaks that were violating the privacy and dignity of this father(and the Marine's other family), who was trying to grieve the lose of his loved one.
Just who the hell are you, Lili, to decide what is "right or wrong"? I consider myself to be a law-abiding, highly moral/ethical person, yet I dislike people attempting to tell me what they believe is right or wrong. If I listened to idiots like you(and consequently did what I was told by idiots like yourself), then I would not be able to carry my firearm, consume alcohol from time to time, or a few other legal and responsible activities I engage in.
I know that you feel like something needs to be done "for the children", but it is not ethical to expect one group to be harmed for the benefit of another group. If you figure out how group A(that is being harmed) can be assisted without group B(your target, and the group that would be harmed if group A is helped, without thought for group B) being damaged, then I am ready to hear it. The fact is that YOU have no damned clue what you are talking about.
You can take it from ex-law enforcement(me), you really have no clue .
Ohio State is just another arm of the government, is it not? In Georgia(where I live), our State Universities are governments by our government and, in turn, owned by our Government. I am guessing that Ohio State is run wholly by the State of Ohio, so how does the State believe they can just trample this publisher's rights?
There is no argument here; this is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. If this were a private college/university, then there might be some argument, but even those entities receive public funding(a lot, actually), so it would be a hard argument to run with.
This publisher should have been able to go into court a yell, "FIRST AMENDMENT, damn it" and walk away a winner. What was their argument? Sun spots created a wormhole, and we thought this was ok?
Want to piss of the U.S. Government? Just transfer your data(updated, if it changes) and wipe your laptop when you are getting ready to travel internationally. When they ask you see your laptop, just smile, and tell them to go wild. It is at this point that I tell them that I have sent the updated Ghost file to my home, over the internet, and that all they are going to see is a completely wiped laptop. If you have a lot of data(which most of us do), you can also just mail your hard drive between where you will be staying and your home. I usually make a backup, in case the hard drive is lost or the data become corrupt.
I also use software they writes over the entire hard drive multiple times, similar to what they use in sensitive areas of commercial and government sectors. Most of the time, the border agent will sigh and give me my laptop(s) back. There have been a few times that a border agent has tried to tell me that what I have done is a crime, but I just warn them that I know better(ex-law enforcement here) and they can drop the act. I had one agent demand to know where the information was being stored, but I laughed and told him no.
Yeah, it can be a pain, but it is better than having some idiot border agent looking through your personal, private data. It is not their right, and I refuse to bend to their stupid demands. It is also fun to humiliate the agent.
No, criminal's interest in making money off of the suffering of others is the reason that gangs and these "cartels" exist. Even if all chemical substances were made readily accessible to all people, without the need for prescriptions, these gangs would find something else to terrorize regions for. It just so happens that their current motivation is to sell certain drugs.
The "War on Drugs" has been a magnificent failure, but it is because the governments in and around the world(for the most part) have not been willing to go far enough. Really though, there is no way to win this farce of a "war". It still does not mean that government should just give in and let everyone have access to any type of chemical compound they wish.
Now, if government were to tell the people that all drugs were, from this day forward, available to anyone that wants them, with the caveat that taxpayer money will not be available to cure them of their drug habit, then I am all for it. I refuse to see our money to go to people that willingly abuse drugs. If you want to abuse drugs, then you will have to pay for your rehabilitation if and when your use of that drug, or drugs, becomes a problem.
Where do we draw the line? Should we let eight year old children start mainlining cocaine? Should we let 14 year old children start popping OxyContin? Perhaps we should let everyone, from two years old to eighty years old start smoking marijuana. I mean, it comes from the earth, so it has to be good for your body. Of course, narcotics(morphine, codine, oxycodone, etc) comes from the earth too, so that logic is a complete failure.
So, where is the line drawn and how would such a measure be implemented?
How is our society better now than it was 20 years ago? Point to something that even hints to such a fact. How will it get any better in 10 years? It seems that voters, and the public in general, are masochistic...at best. How do you plan to hold sites like Wikileaks "accountable"?
It is good to talk about these issues, but there has to be clear and concise options for fixing these issues. We cannot just say, "oh, we need to fix this and that", yet never arrive a any good options. This is why the United States is quickly failing and it is a sad that this is happening to such a great country.
Classified information, no matter how trivial or unimportant, cannot be released to those without the proper clearance and reason to know, unless it is first declassified by the proper authorities. There are proper channels for those that see illegal actions in classified material, and Wikileaks is not one of them. The fact is that this is treason by definition, but I doubt the solider involved will be charged with treason.
While some of the released information might not hurt U.S. troops or the U.S. in general, there might be some information that will harm the U.S. and/or our troops by giving away locations, troop movements, or any number of things the U.S. does not need the enemy knowing. I believe that the solider that released this information should be hung for this and that Julian Assange should be arrested and held until all information is turned back to the U.S. He should be tried and convicted for crimes against the U.S.
If you are in a position to handle classified information, keep it to yourself. If you see something illegal, then you contact the proper authorities. If they fail to act, then you check for the other option available to you. There is always someone you can go to that will properly deal with any problems a person might observe. The fact is that this solider was probably trying to act all cool and failed miserably.
Wikileaks only interest is to bash governments and promote the organizations flat-out anti-war policy. If Russia were to directly invade the United States, Wikileaks would be bashing Russia for the invasion(well, maybe) and the United States for protecting itself. People disagree, people hate, war is inevitable and Julian Assange needs to deal with it. As long as humans live on this planet, wars will occur.
When law enforcement entices a person to commit a crime that they would not likely commit without the influence of law enforcement, that is entrapment. If this guy sold a DVD or two, law enforcement was contacted about the sell, then law enforcement performed a undercover operation to verify this claim, this would not be entrapment. It really depends on the event chronology.
If this guy had sold a copy of the video that he legally owned and law enforcement was told about it(which, most of us know that it is legal to sell property we own), then law enforcement enticed this guy to make copies of the DVDs to sell(copies that he was not legally allowed to do for resale), then that would be entrapment. I am interested in know exactly how law enforcement became aware of DVDs. Small town gossip?
Aside from the attempt at humor by Colbert, I really have a problem with this case. A judge has no legal authority to tell anyone that they cannot sell their own property(aside from a few, extremely narrow situation, of which this is not one). This sounds like the mayor of this town, and the law enforcement working in this town, are violating people's rights.
Perhaps they fails at proper training and certification methods in this town and state. Either way, the people in that town need to oust that mayor.
On the post: Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?
On the post: Justice Department Insists It Should Be Able To Secretly Stick GPS Devices On Cars Without Warrants
Except for exigent circumstances, such as law enforcement needing to follow a person to save another person's life(such as in a kidnapping, etc), then I could see a reason the DoJ's point. The thing is, I still believe law enforcement always must follow the law, no matter the situation and there are already exigent circumstances exclusions to many laws today. The issue is that the U.S. Government is simply looking to erode the rights and protections U.S. Citizens enjoy to make their job easier. They(the U.S. Government) does not think, or at least discuss, the possible(and highly probable) abuses that such new power will introduce.
The other problem is that so many idiot voters either vote for the idiots that provoke these changes, or sit back and watch them(the bad politicians) rise to power.
On the post: FBI Made Up 'Threats' At Peace Rally, Lied To Congress, To Justify Spying Activity
I believe it is time to reorganize these law enforcement arms of the U.S. Federal Government, as there are just too many and most are not needed. National Security Letters(NSLs, i.e. printed rights violations) should be done away with, and this stupid mentality that most law enforcement(in the U.S. and abroad) has gained since September 11th needs to be dropped. Everyone you see is not a "terrorist"(new euphemism for unlabeled target) and I refuse to give up my privacy or rights while you(law enforcement) fights "terrorist"(made up targets).
Law enforcement has changed too much since I left the profession. From the looks of it, I am glad I did.
On the post: Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
Re: Prepare to be disappointed...
The father had to pay Westboro Baptist "Church's" legal bills(http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/justice/westboro.baptist.snyder_1_military-funerals-albert- snyder-westboro-baptist-church?_s=PM:CRIME), which is an extreme travesty and totally legal. Perhaps the father can get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this and overturn his loss(though that is questionable), but he is going to have to pay the freaks that were violating the privacy and dignity of this father(and the Marine's other family), who was trying to grieve the lose of his loved one.
On the post: Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
Re: Re: Research
I know that you feel like something needs to be done "for the children", but it is not ethical to expect one group to be harmed for the benefit of another group. If you figure out how group A(that is being harmed) can be assisted without group B(your target, and the group that would be harmed if group A is helped, without thought for group B) being damaged, then I am ready to hear it. The fact is that YOU have no damned clue what you are talking about.
You can take it from ex-law enforcement(me), you really have no clue .
On the post: Is Publishing A Magazine & Website About Ohio State's Sports Teams Infringing?
There is no argument here; this is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. If this were a private college/university, then there might be some argument, but even those entities receive public funding(a lot, actually), so it would be a hard argument to run with.
This publisher should have been able to go into court a yell, "FIRST AMENDMENT, damn it" and walk away a winner. What was their argument? Sun spots created a wormhole, and we thought this was ok?
On the post: ACLU Suing Homeland Security Over Laptop Searches... Even Though Other Cases Have All Failed
I also use software they writes over the entire hard drive multiple times, similar to what they use in sensitive areas of commercial and government sectors. Most of the time, the border agent will sigh and give me my laptop(s) back. There have been a few times that a border agent has tried to tell me that what I have done is a crime, but I just warn them that I know better(ex-law enforcement here) and they can drop the act. I had one agent demand to know where the information was being stored, but I laughed and told him no.
Yeah, it can be a pain, but it is better than having some idiot border agent looking through your personal, private data. It is not their right, and I refuse to bend to their stupid demands. It is also fun to humiliate the agent.
On the post: Anonymous Mexican Blog Becomes Go To Source For Drug War Info, 'Pro' Journalists Upset
Re: Re:
The "War on Drugs" has been a magnificent failure, but it is because the governments in and around the world(for the most part) have not been willing to go far enough. Really though, there is no way to win this farce of a "war". It still does not mean that government should just give in and let everyone have access to any type of chemical compound they wish.
Now, if government were to tell the people that all drugs were, from this day forward, available to anyone that wants them, with the caveat that taxpayer money will not be available to cure them of their drug habit, then I am all for it. I refuse to see our money to go to people that willingly abuse drugs. If you want to abuse drugs, then you will have to pay for your rehabilitation if and when your use of that drug, or drugs, becomes a problem.
Where do we draw the line? Should we let eight year old children start mainlining cocaine? Should we let 14 year old children start popping OxyContin? Perhaps we should let everyone, from two years old to eighty years old start smoking marijuana. I mean, it comes from the earth, so it has to be good for your body. Of course, narcotics(morphine, codine, oxycodone, etc) comes from the earth too, so that logic is a complete failure.
So, where is the line drawn and how would such a measure be implemented?
On the post: Wikileaks Afghan War Document Leak Again Raises Questions: Treason Or Whistleblowing?
Re:
It is good to talk about these issues, but there has to be clear and concise options for fixing these issues. We cannot just say, "oh, we need to fix this and that", yet never arrive a any good options. This is why the United States is quickly failing and it is a sad that this is happening to such a great country.
On the post: Wikileaks Afghan War Document Leak Again Raises Questions: Treason Or Whistleblowing?
This is a violation of the law: So, Treason
While some of the released information might not hurt U.S. troops or the U.S. in general, there might be some information that will harm the U.S. and/or our troops by giving away locations, troop movements, or any number of things the U.S. does not need the enemy knowing. I believe that the solider that released this information should be hung for this and that Julian Assange should be arrested and held until all information is turned back to the U.S. He should be tried and convicted for crimes against the U.S.
If you are in a position to handle classified information, keep it to yourself. If you see something illegal, then you contact the proper authorities. If they fail to act, then you check for the other option available to you. There is always someone you can go to that will properly deal with any problems a person might observe. The fact is that this solider was probably trying to act all cool and failed miserably.
Wikileaks only interest is to bash governments and promote the organizations flat-out anti-war policy. If Russia were to directly invade the United States, Wikileaks would be bashing Russia for the invasion(well, maybe) and the United States for protecting itself. People disagree, people hate, war is inevitable and Julian Assange needs to deal with it. As long as humans live on this planet, wars will occur.
On the post: Colbert Helps Save World From Polka Pirates
Entrapment
If this guy had sold a copy of the video that he legally owned and law enforcement was told about it(which, most of us know that it is legal to sell property we own), then law enforcement enticed this guy to make copies of the DVDs to sell(copies that he was not legally allowed to do for resale), then that would be entrapment. I am interested in know exactly how law enforcement became aware of DVDs. Small town gossip?
Aside from the attempt at humor by Colbert, I really have a problem with this case. A judge has no legal authority to tell anyone that they cannot sell their own property(aside from a few, extremely narrow situation, of which this is not one). This sounds like the mayor of this town, and the law enforcement working in this town, are violating people's rights.
Perhaps they fails at proper training and certification methods in this town and state. Either way, the people in that town need to oust that mayor.
Next >>