Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

1,551 to 1,600 of 2,076 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>

Lefties giggle over Cato Institute squabbles


Maybe these attacks on civil liberties weren't such a good idea after all...

Ignore the intelligence! Bombs away!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Lefties giggle over Cato Institute squabbles

Oh this article does make me giggle.

If the Koch brothers weren't so intimately involved with trying to circumvent democracy and dissolve unions in my home state it wouldn't be so giggleworthy, but still a very enlightening article.


Federal lawyers "can't rule out" indefinite detention for excercising free speech.


Stuff like this brings me closer to Bitter Thorn's view every day.


Bah! I rededicate myself to the goal of international proletarian socialist revolutionary trolling!

Vive le Galt!


Oh, Bitter Thorn why hast thou forsaken us?

Without your leadership, right-wing politrolls have nowhere to go except into threads with left-wing politrolls and call them echo chambers. When shall Bitter Thorn return?


I got lots more. Stay tuned, will post in the next few days.


Okay, but I don't consider you very right-wing, Comrade Knife.


just got elected to my county's republican commitee. I consider myself to be very conservative. Its just that what I consider consider conservative (you know actually conserving stuff) isnt shared by most. Im looking to change that by at least a small degree locally.

Although, I'm not allowed to publicly criticise the party. So I had to create a fake facebook account*, so theres that.

*feel free to add Maximillian von Poonhammer III on facebook, to catch my rants, Paizo peeps.


I'm not on Facebook, but that is an excellent nom de plume, comrade.


I knew that if anyone would appreciate it, it would be you.


Police officers, looking for a fight, murder a homeless man. The best the public can hope for is 15 years. Also, NSFW. Also, this is old, but relevant again as its going to trial.


NYPD's Disturbing Practices. New and Improved!


Now you don't even have to be a known "terrorist" on a "kill list" to be droned. You just have to have the same "signature" as one.


Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Police officers, looking for a fight, murder a homeless man. The best the public can hope for is 15 years. Also, NSFW. Also, this is old, but relevant again as its going to trial.

I sincerely hope these guys do time.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.

Referred to committee. Never to be seen again.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.

Referred to committee. Never to be seen again.

Blah. Still a good step, though?


Thoughts=crimes now


Ooh! I missed this thread's resurgence. Good work, Comrade Knife.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Cops beat to death mentally ill homeless man

Boo ya!

When it comes to finding dirt on the government, Comrade Anklebiter is there.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Thoughts=crimes now

This one brings me to a strange page--I think the government is blocking the link!!!


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.

Referred to committee. Never to be seen again.

Blah. Still a good step, though?

I don't get it. What's it about? I can only read the first six lines of the Concurrent Resolution.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.

Referred to committee. Never to be seen again.

Blah. Still a good step, though?
I don't get it. What's it about? I can only read the first six lines of the Concurrent Resolution.

This link worked fine for me. Its not a very wordy resolution and might only contain 6 lines. The other link wasnt working for me, either. I'll see if I can get it fixed.


Thoughts=crimes?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Good news, for once, from Congress

60 years too late, of course. But I'll take it.

Referred to committee. Never to be seen again.

Blah. Still a good step, though?
I don't get it. What's it about? I can only read the first six lines of the Concurrent Resolution.
This link worked fine for me. Its not a very wordy resolution and might only contain 6 lines. The other link wasnt working for me, either. I'll see if I can get it fixed.

Oh, I get it. The "60 years off" comment threw me off--I thought it was referring to a specific incident.

Comrade Anklebiter: not always the quickest on the uptake!


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Thoughts=crimes?

Doubleplusungood.


Oh man, I cant believe I forgot to put this one up.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Oh, I get it. The "60 years off" comment threw me off--I thought it was referring to a specific incident.

Comrade Anklebiter: not always the quickest on the uptake!

It was referring to a specific incident. The Korean War.


Another good report coming from the federal courts

It's a little premature (its only a preliminary injunction), but I'm happy about this. Unfortunately, now we get to sit back and watch the DOJ spend a bunch of taxpayer money fighting it.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Oh, Bitter Thorn why hast thou forsaken us?

Well, BT may have forsaken all of youse guys, but he hasn't forsaken me!

Today, I received an e-mail from him, so I will forward it here:

"From: Gun Owners of America
Subject: Please support the NDAA-neutering amendment to H.R. 4310.

Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2012, 12:50 PM

Thank you for using Gun Owners of America Mail System.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Representative Lamborn
Message text follows:

May 16, 2012

[recipient address was inserted here]

[recipient name was inserted here],

I support the efforts of Representatives Adam Smith (D-WA) and Justin
Amash (R-MI) to neuter section 1021 - and repeal section 1022 - of the
National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].

Section 1021 would - under certain conditions - allow American citizens to
be arrested on American soil, detained indefinitely, tried in a military
court, and deported to a Third World country for torture.

And all of this could be done without a trial!

The Smith-Amash provision would amend section 1021 by barring the U.S.
military from putting any citizen into indefinite detention without a
charge or trial.

Another provision in the NDAA [section 1022] actually requires the
military to put certain civilian suspects into military detention. The
Smith-Amash amendment would repeal section 1022 entirely.

Again, please support the Smith-Amash NDAA amendment to H.R. 4310.

Sincerely,

Bitter Thorn (my edit)"


Unfortunately, it was voted down this morning


Nothing says "Constitutional Republic" quite like secret kill lists

Edit- Napolitano's rubuttal to above.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Napolitano's rubuttal to above.

Why do I suspect he's only against a "kill list" if there's a Democrat in office?

I'm too cynical for my own good.


Then you've never read any of his books

I think the Judge's biggest targets are A) John Ashcroft and B) Janet Reno.

Edit- I highly recommend his book "Constitutional Chaos". The entire first half is about police abuses and Janet Reno's mishaps (Waco/Her Child abuse crusades while AG in Florida/Ruby Ridge cover-up/ Elian Gonzales), while the second half is dealing solely with the legal abuses of the war on terror during the Bush presidency. (so far, about 3/4 of the way through it.)


You may have already seen this, Comrade Knife.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Edit- I highly recommend his book "Constitutional Chaos". The entire first half is about police abuses and Janet Reno's mishaps (Waco/Her Child abuse crusades while AG in Florida/Ruby Ridge cover-up/ Elian Gonzales), while the second half is dealing solely with the legal abuses of the war on terror during the Bush presidency. (so far, about 3/4 of the way through it.)

Thanks for the recommendation -- this sounds really good. Just saw the Randy Quaid re-enactment of the Siege at Ruby Ridge and have mixed feelings about the whole scenario. I mean, yeah, the guy was no good... but at the same time, is it totally unreasonable to expect the "investigators" to refrain from acting as a hunter-killer extermination squad?

Osirion

I lived in Idaho when that happened. I know that particular area very well. The guy who killed my cousin used to take me on trips to buy guns and run drugs. It was a messed up situation, but at the time, that region was really messed up (lots of illegal weapons and drugs flowing through there). I wouldn't put the blame on Janet Reno as much as I would the guys on the ground there.

As for Elian Gonzales, the courts ruled AGAINST the family and told them to return him to his father in Cuba. They refused. It also didn't help that the mother took the boy out of the country without the father knowing it or giving consent. She essentially kidnapped him according to internation and U.S. law. It didn't help that the Mayor stated that the City of Miami wouldn't allow police officers to be used in enforcing the court order to return Elian to his father.


Regarding Ruby Ridge, the only blame given to Janet Reno was the cover-up part. (IIRC, she wasnt even AG when the siege happened.) When your superior gives you an illegal order (shoot any armed adult male) and you ignore that order to perform an even more illegal order (shoot unarmed woman holding babies) you deserve to be punished. The Reno office made sure that neither supervisor or shooter were punished.

Regarding Elian, I dont know where you get your information, but from what I can tell, you have it backwards. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the Federal Government from moving Elian outside the jurisdiction of US courts. When Reno ordered Elians removal from his great-uncles home, it was in direct violation of the courts order, aka kidnapping.
And that doesnt even mention how they tried to keep it secret. The first agent to enter the home kicked and maced an NBC cameraman, to be sure that no video footage would be taken. Luckily AP photographer Albert Diaz hid in the bedroom and captured the iconic image of an INS officer pointing a submachine gun at the chest of a scared 6 year old boy.
Furthermore, the warrant that was used as the pretext for the kidnapping was a charade. The warrant specified that the officers were only there for the retrieval of evidence. It takes quite a semantic slight of hand to equate evidence with a child. Add to that the fact that warrants are only to be issued when evidence of a crime or contraband is being hidden, whereas Elian was often present, for the entire world to see, in Lazaro Gonzales front yard. The absurdity continues when you consider the fact that it was the INS themselves that designated Lazaro to be Elian's guardian and had placed the boy in his care!!


Edit to above: Rereading to make sure I got it right: The judge does not chide Reno over the Ruby Ridge siege/cover-up. It was FBI director Louis Freeh.

Osirion

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Regarding Elian, I dont know where you get your information, but from what I can tell, you have it backwards. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined the Federal Government from moving Elian outside the jurisdiction of US courts. When Reno ordered Elians removal from his great-uncles home, it was in direct violation of the courts order, aka kidnapping.

And that doesnt even mention how they tried to keep it secret. The first agent to enter the home kicked and maced an NBC cameraman, to be sure that no video footage would be taken. Luckily AP photographer Albert Diaz hid in the bedroom and captured the iconic image of an INS officer pointing a submachine gun at the chest of a scared 6 year old boy.
Furthermore, the warrant that was used as the pretext for the kidnapping was a charade. The warrant specified that the officers were only there for the retrieval of evidence. It takes quite a semantic slight of hand to equate evidence with a child. Add to that the fact that warrants are only to be issued when evidence of a crime or contraband is being hidden, whereas Elian was often present, for the entire world to see, in Lazaro Gonzales front yard. The absurdity continues when you consider the fact that it was the INS themselves that designated Lazaro to be Elian's guardian and had placed the boy in his care!!

Right and wrong. Lazaro was the only living relative Elian had in the States, that's why INS gave him custody. The court did order the child returned to the father but that the boy couldn't leave the U.S. until the legalities were played out. Elian didn't leave the States until the SCOTUS turned down the appeals in June.

The use of a SWAT team because Elian's cousin said that there were more than cameras in the house and if they tried to remove him from the house, someone would be hurt.

Juan flew to the U.S. to get his son, Lazaro was told by the courts to turn over Elian but refused. He continued to defy the court. The courts had ruled that Janet Reno had the final say in Elian's legal status.

"In Elian’s case, immigration authorities revoked his parole into the care of his Florida relatives on April 13 after they refused to return him to them at Opa-locka Airport in Florida. Thus, legal care of Elian reverted to the Government, even though he physically remained with his Florida relatives while transfer negotiations continued. After negatively judging the prospects for successful negotiations, immigration authorities obtained a search warrant for Lazaro Gonzalez’ house from a federal judge on the evening of April 21, citing federal criminal rules that authorize the issuance of search warrants to seize
unlawfully restrained persons. The same day, immigration authorities also issued an administrative warrant for Elian’s arrest."

You can read the entire thing here: Legal brief


So who was unlawfully restraining Elian? Thats what you are missing. As far as the 11th circuit court of appeals, your link backs my version up.

-No date cited- protective rights given to Lazaro
-April 13, 2000- Protective rights revoked
-April 19, 2000-11th circuit court issues enjunction, telling the INS that Elian is not to be moved outside of US jurisdiction (ie the Cuban Embassy where Juan Miguel was staying)until it further reviews the case.
-April 23, 2000- Going against the courts order, Janet Reno orders Elians kidnapping
-June 1st, 2000-Thw 11th circuit actually rules with Juan Miguel. If Janet Reno had waited till this date(but see below), she would have been in accordance with the law, but she did not.

As an example, If you are suing someone over possession of a tv, even if you know that you are going to win, you do not have the right to break into someones house and take the tv before the court says you win.

Interesting little factoid about the search warrant: The INS waited until 7 pm on Good Friday, after the regular (presumably less INS-friendly) judge left, so they could get a rubber stamped warrant from a magistrate who was unfamiliar with the case and was notoriously pro government in his rulings. The weapons thing was completely fabricated (a hallmark of Reno's tenure). The INS agent who signed the affadavit presented to the magistrate made ZERO mention of any weapons or threats of violence, just that Elian was to be arrested because he was an illegal alien (never mind that the precedent was for the INS to not arrest Cubans unless they committed a crime, consistent with the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966) and that he was being (serious air quotes here)"unlawfully restrained". ZERO mention of violence or weapons. However also omitted was that Aaron Podhurst, a lawyer from Miami (and coincidently, a long time friend of Reno) was mediating negotions between Lazaro, Juan Miguel, and the Government, even as the affadavit was filed! If Reno would have waited till then, she would have been in the clear, but she didnt.

There was no reason, whatsoever, to use tear gas, guns, and violence. (What exactly did the NBC camera man do again to deserve the assault?)Yet they did, the message for Lazaro Gonzales was the same message that Reno had for the Branch Davidians: "We are going to show them that we control (the compound) and they are impotent."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Thanks for the recommendation -- this sounds really good. Just saw the Randy Quaid re-enactment of the Siege at Ruby Ridge and have mixed feelings about the whole scenario. I mean, yeah, the guy was no good... but at the same time, is it totally unreasonable to expect the "investigators" to refrain from acting as a hunter-killer extermination squad?

Just finished: Overall pretty good book. Id say it was about 45% anecdotes involving law enforcement breaking the law in order to enforce the law, 45% post 9-11 abuses, 5% a breaking down the Constitution in plain English, and 5% Eminent Domain abuses.

Regarding Ruby Ridge: Its pretty amazing how much of the accusations against Randy Weaver were complete fabrications. (note: the book doesnt go into this, just the specific lawless actions of the officers during the siege.) You know the name of that movie, as it sounds like something I would watch?


Even though I often disagree with Napolitano, I find him to be a very enjoyable personality and agreeable (largely) with my interpretations of the constitution. I'd very much like to have a beer (or three).


meatrace, just out of curiousity, could you give me an example where you and Napolitano disagree on interpretation? I'm not trolling or anything, just curious.


Nothing specific off the top of my head, though I'm sure if I read his book I'd think of one.

The thing about the constitution? It was written a very very long time ago, before most of the industrial revolution, before oil, before automatic weaponry, before globalization, before the internet, before right-wing think tanks, before lobbyists, before modern economics, etc. I think that, at the time, it was a great document and a great blueprint for our country. It simply hasn't been adequately re-examined in the intervening time.

There are things that I think are great social strides that are arguably unconstitutional, and I think there are gross injustices that are perfectly constitutional. I also think that it's politically infeasible to further edit or amend the constitution at this point in time, and as such, great swaths of it are, for good or ill, functionally null and void.

I think that if we were hammering out a way that a government should work right now, today, it would look radically different than our current constitution.


IIRC, they went after Randy Weaver because he refused to be a rat on his neighbors. Now, granted, his neighbors were Nazis, but f~*@ being a rat.


From what I understood, Weaver had sued his neighbor over a property sale or somesuch. That neighbor then began sending threatening letters to local, state, and federal officials, while signing Weavers name. He came to FBI attention when he contacted them to let them know that any letters that they recieved werent from him. IIRC, of course, I could be way off.


Hmm. I don't know that part of the story.

I do remember that some undercover fed got him on a weapons charge (I believe sawing off a shotgun barrel) and then leaned on him to rat on local white supremacists/militia-types. When he refused, yada yada yada, Ruby Ridge.

My fellow compoundee was watching some looong video on youtube about it, years later, with Weaver out of jail. I didn't watch the whole thing, but it seemed pretty good. I'll have to ask him what it was called.

1,551 to 1,600 of 2,076 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.