Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The “no-fly” list has many problems. Pretty much any fed can “nominate” someone for the list. Pretty much everyone on the list has almost zero chance of getting off it other than by filing a lawsuit. And even though the government has been forced by court decisions to offer a venue for challenges, the federal government is still under no obligation to tell people why they’ve been placed on the list, much less promise to never put them back on it again.
When people have been removed (almost exclusively following lawsuits), they’re simply told they’ve been removed. The only way to find out if they’ve been reinstated is to buy a ticket to ride only to have it denied after they’ve already spent their money and arrived at the airport.
Then there’s the cross-pollination of federal law enforcement databases, which turns people on the “no fly” list into suspected terrorists, even if there’s nothing in the database that supports this implication or any cop’s corresponding inference.
As unjust as this all is, at least there are some limits. Well, maybe one. And maybe one that only applies to this specific incident. But, there’s at least one limit and it’s spelled out by this decision [PDF] handed down by the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court. And that limitation is this: you can’t stop someone from driving just because they’re not allowed to board a plane. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)
Here’s how this all went down in Georgia, leading to this federal lawsuit:
First, they ignored direct instructions telling the officers not to detain the driver. Then they kept him detained for 91 minutes which, if nothing else, definitely violates the Supreme Court’s Rodriguez decision — the one that says officers cannot prolong traffic stops without the reasonable suspicion to do so.
The State Police officers didn’t have any of that. All they had was a “no fly” hit that came coupled with instructions stating that his mere presence on this list did not justify further detention. And none of that justified the warrantless search of his truck.
And, according to the allegations in the lawsuit, the only reason Meshal was on the FBI’s “no fly” list was because he had refused to become an FBI snitch.
Not exactly an improbable allegation! The FBI has been known to do this. A lot. Even if it feels it can’t justify a “no fly” list nomination, agents feel more than comfortable threatening people with deportation or further disruption of their travel plans. That a state officer would feel comfortable detaining someone in contravention of direct instructions otherwise makes it clear anyone the government merely wants to pretend is a terrorist is justification enough for any further violation of their rights.
At the district court level, all involved officers (Janufka, Oglesby, and Wright) were denied qualified immunity for this prolonged, suspicionless detention of Meshal, as well as for the completely unjustified search of his vehicle. They appealed. And the 11th Circuit says, too bad. Maybe don’t violate rights if you don’t like being sued.
The court first cites the Rodriguez decision in response to the officers’ arguments that the stop was not “unreasonably” prolonged. It also addresses their claim that detaining Meshal was necessary, even though the original stop was (allegedly) for him following another driver too closely.
As for the claim that it was the FBI’s fault the detention took 90 minutes due to officers waiting for a return call from the agency (after ignoring the agency’s direct instructions not to detain the driver), the court is even less sympathetic. An extended stop can’t be justified just because officers chose to involve an outside agency.
Driving the point home, the Appeals Court says all of this is stuff officers should know — so clearly established they can’t plausibly claim they weren’t “on notice” that detaining someone on a no fly list (much less searching his truck) for driving isn’t acceptable under the US Constitution.
The lawsuit will continue. And rights that were always present have been reaffirmed, something that’s going to help plenty of people who have been placed on the FBI’s “no fly” list (as this lawsuit alleges) for purely vindictive reasons. I would expect the state of Georgia to settle soon, rather than just wait around for more precedent curbing officer misconduct to be solidified.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:47AM (40 children)
Because you know, this is America. We have due process of the law here. We don't have secret courts condemning people without trial on bogus charges. Otherwise we'd be no different from China or the USSR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:23AM (30 children)
Don't worry! It'll be coming quickly enough if people make the wrong voting decision next month!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by snakeplissken on Sunday October 06 2024, @01:33PM (29 children)
The bizarre thing is, that from across the pond I can't tell which side of the political divide that comment puts you! :)
snake
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @01:45PM
Maybe these headlines will help you decide.
https://thepostmillennial.com/hillary-clinton-calls-for-more-censorship-of-americans-on-social-media-or-we-lose-total-control [thepostmillennial.com]
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/bidens-ministry-of-truth/ [nationalreview.com]
https://www.outkick.com/analysis/robert-f-kennedy-calls-out-democrat-party-censorship [outkick.com]
(Score: 3, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:11PM (7 children)
Let me help you with that:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-plan-cops-violent-american-death-squads-1235123895/ [rollingstone.com]
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-maga-fascist-violence/ [thenation.com]
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/trump-violent-day-policing-crime-00181619 [politico.com]
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/donald-trump-police-should-violently-assault-americans-for-one-hour [vanityfair.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:04PM (6 children)
How about don't?
The dude could literally joke "What's with all these illegal immigrants, they're flooding across the border like rats from a sinking ship" and the media would carry water for the Democrats by trumpeting "Trump says illegal immigrants are rats and...uh...wants to drown them at sea using a sinking ship"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sgleysti on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:18PM
When Trump says that kind of stuff, I don't think he's joking. Making a big fuss about immigration is pretty central to his messaging.
That said, yeah, the language is a fairly hyperbolic simile. Media reporting on such statements should interpret it as such.
I do think he deliberately misrepresents the situation with immigration and that his rhetoric is needlessly causing harm to a lot of people.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:18PM (4 children)
(Score: 4, Touché) by Whoever on Monday October 07 2024, @01:03AM (3 children)
Just a reminder that he still hasn't shown his taxes. Remember that he promised to do that back in 2016?
Apologists will continue to carry water for Trump.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday October 07 2024, @02:27AM (1 child)
There are other tax returns that would be much more interesting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/10/22/how-the-bidens-earned-167-million-after-leaving-the-white-house/ [forbes.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Informative) by weirsbaski on Monday October 07 2024, @09:08AM
Just so it's clear, the article is that Bidens earned 16-point-7 million, not 167 million, over 3 years. And it was after he left office, and came from speaking-engagements and book deals where those dollar amounts are not unheard-of for former high-level politicians.
Let's compare that to the 45th president, who earned over 550 million (not 55-point-0, it's $550 million) while actively being president.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2024/08/05/how-donald-trump-earned-550-million-in-the-white-house/ [forbes.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Monday October 07 2024, @02:30AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @06:02PM (17 children)
> I can't tell which side of the political divide...
Makes sense. There really isn't much daylight between the two major parties in the U.S. They both serve the same masters.
Unanimous support for the genocidal terrorist, racist, Jewish-supremacist, Israeli state-- There isn't a single Republican in national office who has publicly opposed the genocide, and you can count on a single hand's fingers, the number of Democrats in national office who publicly opposed the genocide. Two of those Democrats, in national office, were recently forced out by Israeli interference in our elections. Democrats and Republicans act as foreign agents of Israel regardless of it being harmful to the United States (both due to the direct bribes^H^H^H campaign contributions, and due the (entirely rational) fear that Israel will fund their opponent to replace them). The Biden-Harris administration _enabled_ the current genocide including going around congress to transfer weapons from US military bases to the Israelis without Congressional approval (reminiscent of Reagan going around lack of congressional authorization to provide weapons to his far-right Central American death squad militias). Trump has pledged to provide even greater support for the Israeli genocidal attacks on the indigenous Palestinian population (not sure how this is even possible-- Biden-Harris have not held back anything).
Both parties are also beholding to the wealthy and corporations that provide the funds to get them "elected" especially after the current corrupt, far-right, Catholic*, highly partisan majority on the supreme court declared "money is speech, claiming that restricting the wealthy from influencing elections with money would be restricting the free speech rights of the wealthy" (Citizens United v Federal Election Commission) and followed that one up by legalizing bribery (Snyder v United States). George (Baby) Bush said, "I will represent the rich." Hillary Clinton said (to a room of wealthy donors), "[she has] both a public and a private position [on finance reform]” and, that these wealthy donors need not worry that she will act against their interests, regardless of what she tells the plebs. Romney, "I don't care about the poor." Obama's health insurance law is nearly identical to the plan proposed by a member of the far-right Heritage Foundation (the same Heritage Foundation behind project 2025) and also nearly identical to the health insurance law Republican Romney had earlier signed into law in Massachusetts which was also inspired by the Heritage Foundation member's proposal etc. Obama's, Romney's and the Heritage Foundation member's plans all preserved and enhanced the ability of rent-seeking private insurers to enrich themselves while providing no benefit.
Reagan (along with Thatcher in the UK) were the first to really push neoliberalism. Bill Clinton's two terms were basically Reagan's 3rd and 4th terms accomplishing parts of Reagan's neoliberal agenda that Reagan had been unable to do himself, like signing into law NAFTA which gutted American manufacturing, deregulation of retail banking by signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which directly led to the 2008 financial crisis, etc.
On all but a few "culture war" issues, the two major parities, in the US, have essentially the same policies (i.e., whatever policies they are payed to have). But, it is in their interests and the interests of their wealthy masters, that the plebs do not notice this. Hence, all the culture war BS from both parties and the corporate media.
*Catholic church leadership in the US is far-right. The US Catholic Bishops even tried to remove the current pope as too left due to, among other things, his support of liberation theology. But, the entire far-right majority on the court being conservative Catholics is more behind their attacks on bodily autonomy of women than their legalizing corruption to ensure moneyed interests' continued control over US politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:38PM
I would mod you up, but the Israelis are not committing genocide. In these modern times the word has become worthlessly diluted by people who got bad service at a restaurant. Today's events simply don't compare to the horros of the past.
But you are right, republicans and democrats are a single power sharing structure designed to corral the narrative. They still have 98% of the vote. Whaddya gonna do?
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:19AM (15 children)
If there's a genocide going on then why aren't the victims concerned enough about the genocide to do something about it? I gather you're speaking of Gazans as the alleged subjects of the genocide. On October 7 of last year, instead of defending themselves from genocide, they deliberately escalated their conflict with Israel and committed a variety of heinous acts - that would conveniently justify a genocide.
And there doesn't seem to be much point to complaining about refusal to oppose imaginary genocides.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday October 07 2024, @02:57AM (14 children)
I was having this conversation with someone over the weekend. In my view, Israel isn't actively committing Genocide (they are not going out of their way to kill all Palestinians), but are simply indifferent to civilian casualties that happen in their quest to destroy Hamas. Although both positions are terrible, there is a difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @08:24AM (2 children)
The pager bombs were more than two years in the planning and execution. Makes you wonder how much of the rest of it was planned that far in advance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:22PM
The October 7 attacks were planned pretty far in advance too. One did a far better job of not targeting civilians than the other.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @08:32PM
It sounds like the pagers were acquired fairly recent? Perhaps Israeli intelligence planned to put bombs in the pagers years ago, but the point at which they would have committed to bombs would have been more recent - after Hezbollah restarted their attacks on Israel in support for Hamas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:26PM (10 children)
What's the evidence for that? I suggest that clever efforts like the pager bombs demonstrate otherwise.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday October 07 2024, @10:20PM (9 children)
The fact that the IDF haven't changed their tactics in Gaza despite a very high civilian body count.
Agreed that was a good way to target enemies while minimizing civilian casualties, but that operation targeted Hezbollah in Lebanon, not Hamas in Gaza. The IDF may care more about avoiding civilians in Lebanon than Gaza, maybe not - time will tell.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @12:52AM (8 children)
How can they change their tactics in a way that still defeats Hamas? Sounds like the key problem is simply that Hamas deliberately hides in civilian areas - via shields, lack of military uniforms and markings, military use of civilian infrastructure, etc.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @03:02AM (7 children)
I can see that we're about to go around in circles, as you have changed topics (from goals to methodology).
Perhaps it's easier for me to instead ask your view. Which of the following is closest to your viewpoint?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @04:26AM (6 children)
You explicitly spoke of methodology, "but are simply indifferent to civilian casualties that happen in their quest to destroy Hamas" - the alleged indifference is a methodology not a goal issue, so now we speak of methodology.
And true indifference to civilian casualties would have resulted in more of them than we have seen so far. This sort of one-side siege doesn't last long when the superior force goes all out: for example, the Mongolian conquest of the Nizaris in the mid 1250s or putting down the Paris Commune in 1871.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @05:47AM (5 children)
Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to choose 1, 2 or 3 either.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @09:15AM (1 child)
But you are not surprised either, I bet .....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @12:32PM
I certainly am not over here. Which of the three choices will you pick? 1. a ridiculous assertion, 2. my favored answer, or 3. a second ridiculous assertion? This was merely a variant of a leading question.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 08 2024, @01:33PM (2 children)
I could choose, but there wouldn't be a point to it. 1 and 3 are ridiculous. There's no genocide (and we both acknowledged that already) so we already know 1 isn't the answer. And it's quite clear that Israel isn't choked up with guilt - nor much of a reason for them to be so. That leaves your favored answer 2 as the only relatively serious option, and we already know I didn't choose that one.
My take is that Israel wages war with some effort to reduce civilian casualties. Probably not enough for your satisfaction and perhaps not enough to avoid war crimes. But nobody else offers a serious solution to the ongoing murder problem of Hamas.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 08 2024, @10:24PM (1 child)
Thank you. I'll interpret that as something like "Option 2.5" (somewhere between 2 and 3).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @11:45AM
What was the point to that exercise?
My take on this is that Hamas had no illusions about what Israel would do after the October 7 attack. In fact, the heinous character of the attack was probably intended to provoke Israel's full-out siege response we see now. Maybe the Hamas leadership thought Hamas would eventually win, or maybe they thought they'd be able to exit stage left with a lot of money. But they certainly would have their propaganda game ready.
So when Hamas pulls an October 7 and the genocide narrative emerges before the bodies have a chance to cool, that's propaganda noise. My take is let's give Israel a few years to sort this out.
(Score: 2) by Sourcery42 on Monday October 07 2024, @06:30PM (1 child)
As a USAian, you just can't fucking tell anymore, and it isn't worth trying to figure it out.
Discussions are dominated by two childish extremes who only see things in black and white, refuse to acknowledge any gray, and follow a distinctly fascist "our way or the highway"/"with us or against us" tack. It may not be fascism by the European book, but it is close enough. I estimate those groups only constitute 5 - 20% of the population, but there can be no meaningful dialog with them. They're so convinced their philosophical opposites are cartoonishly evil that it would be comical, if it weren't just plain sad. The mouthiest parts of the left and right have horseshoed around so far, that both camps are like opposite sides of the same bad penny, clamoring for power and control. The rest of the middle mostly just wish they'd shut the fuck up.
I long for the days of 10 - 15 years ago when it felt like there was a strong dissatisfaction and more general alignment across the political spectrum that things were going very, very poorly in the USA. I'm talking about things like the post 9/11 surveillance state, the drift towards authoritarianism, and the growing wealth divide. People were pissed off at the leadership of the government in general, not just at what "the other side" was doing. It felt like it could be time for a real modern Bull Moose to emerge. We're due for a Trust Buster to stop big business from sucking the corpse of America dry and enact some reforms, but alas, since 45 both sides of the debate are so angry at one another, that there is zero chance of sweeping political reform. That general dissatisfaction with the government and state of affairs has been wholesale replaced by enmity for "the other side" that has fully entrenched the status quo. You've got to vote for a lizard, so the wrong lizard doesn't get it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08 2024, @04:06AM
No self-respecting, red-blooded, hyphen-using American would refer to themselves as a "USAian.'
Who are you and why are you pretending to be American?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:47PM (8 children)
Friend of ours was a retired FDA field agent, with an FBI field agent for a husband. Said husband was one of VERY few native Farsi speakers in the FBI on 9-11, and had the last name to match.
After a few years of No-Fly style harassment based entirely on the ethnicity of her married name (she worked as a consultant with frequent trips coast to coast and to/from facilities in the Caribbean) she finally just changed back to her maiden name and the harassment stopped.
Husband in the FBI couldn't fix it, any amount of testimonial support from her former FDA employers couldn't fix it. Simple name change on her travel IDs fixed it.
The false sense of security that TSA and the rest try to give us is their greatest dis-service, of many.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Sunday October 06 2024, @05:03PM (1 child)
Over the few weeks after 9/11, the social club I was part of started noticing some members had stopped attending and couldn't be reached. When we checked out who it was, it was all a bunch of people called Ben-something or Al-something, of arabic descent, on a visa or a green card. After a few inquiries, we learned they had been quietly arrested and deported. No charges were filed, they hadn't done anything. They were simply kicked out of the country.
That's when I realized the rule of law didn't apply in this country anymore.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 06 2024, @05:46PM
Never did:
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/post-war-united-states-1945-1968/civil-rights-movement/ [loc.gov]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres_in_North_America [wikipedia.org]
But we're real sorry about all that, after the perpetrators are all dead of natural causes.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @07:45PM (5 children)
I sometimes wonder if I'm on a list.
Beginning around 15 years ago, I was pat down screened or had my laptop swabbed 3 out of every four domestic flights, and nearly all international flights. Random can work that way, but it seems unlikely.
In Australia, I was pulled off a flight headed to the US, after already having been seated; the Aussies apologized, and said it was due to US rules that they had to search me.
Several years prior to my first time experiencing friction in security screenings in the US, I had been attempting to check in for a flight from Israel to Italy. I was searched, detained and repeatedly questioned for over 24 hours, my property (including contacts list) was seized, and my SLR camera was physically destroyed. I had arrived overland from Jordan, and had visited many Arab countries prior to arriving in Israel. While in Israel, I mainly stayed with Palestinians. I guess this counts as justification for paranoid genocidal racist Israelis. I also, e.g., stayed at a Moshav[1] in the Golan Heights (land stolen from Syria), and a Christian hostel in Haifa (an entirely segregated city that is known as the most integrated in Israel). But, I guess also staying with Jews (and even traveling on a Jewish-only road) doesn't counteract "consorting with [sub-human] Arabs".
My Interaction with Palestinian people within the borders of historic Palestine (and Palestinian refugees in Jordan) and other Arab peoples outside Israel is the only thing I can think of that would have triggered such reaction by the Israelis. I hadn't been a critic of Israel until after this trip, and witnessing first-hand the horrific abuse of the indigenous Palestinian people by the Israeli colonists, and following that up with research into the many massacres by the Israelis and other horrors inflicted in the process of ethnically cleansing historic Palestine of the indigenous Palestinians to make way for Jewish settlers over the last 3/4 century.
I've been an outspoken critic of US wars of aggression and an outspoken critic of Israel's horrific treatment of the indigenous Palestinians. Both while not hiding my identity. These are the only things I can think of that might have landed me on a list. But, if these "thought crimes" are all it takes, the US is already a fascist police state. If it is due to "intelligence sharing" with Israel, well... same thing-- you are the company you keep-- a fascist police state.
[1]https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshav
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:29PM (2 children)
More likely you fit a profile... Skin color, apparent wealth or lack thereof, you know that professional law enforcement can spot the guilty "snap" just like that, it's all in the distance between the eyes.
(All too sadly true to be sarcastic.)
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 07 2024, @12:14PM
To further that theory:
Law enforcement's pre-judgement of suspects based on "profiles" becomes a self-fulfilling system. Harass a person long enough based on meaningless attributes, and that harassment will turn the person against law enforcement and society in general - meaning that the profile then becomes a valid test of criminality: we always harass "those kind" of people, and look: they _do_ really hate us.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @04:38PM
You know the color code [twimg.com], right?
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:37PM
So extensive interaction with Palestinians and ideology. It's still thin - assuming that they don't have a more valid reason of course (like a legitimate concern that you're unintentionally carrying bombs onto airplanes for example), but I'm not surprised that you're on a list.
As to sharing your concerns? Better not do things like October 7, if you want my sympathy.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 08 2024, @03:28PM
It could be because you are Anonymous on SN.
Never fear, Smith is here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:11PM (44 children)
Some people seem to be of the opinion that the cops can do no wrong. Others of us understand that cops are human, and a lot of humans will do wrong, so long as they can get away with it. Yes, that most certainly includes cops. Youtube has several channels dedicated to exposing police misconduct, including 'audit the audit'.
We need a Supreme Court case to strip away virtually all of the police's 'qualified immunity'. Many, many instances of police misconduct will almost cease to exist, once cops understand that they CAN BE SUED for their asinine conduct.
That 'qualified immunity' should protect cops from frivolous lawsuits, such as misspelling a name on a ticket, or transposing a number in an address. Bullying citizens should never have been immune to lawsuits.
And, I suppose I need to remind everyone that this 'qualified immunity' was never written into law. The Supreme Court fabricated this concept out of thin air.
https://eji.org/issues/qualified-immunity/ [eji.org]
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:13PM (37 children)
I agree with you on the topic of QI, but want to point out that Trump's recent statements make it clear that QI will be protected as long as people keep voting Republican. He wants more violence form the police.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:25PM (36 children)
So, Trump is an ass who sides with the police in this case. He also sided with the Telcos by appointing that fuckwit Ajit Pai to regulate the Telcos. Trump is an ass.
But Trump has not engaged in government sponsored censorship of US citizens. Trump has not proposed a Ministry of Truth to enforce that censorship. There is a lot of evil shit the Dems are engaged in, that Trump either does not support, or he opposes.
Trump is at least on the right side of this "cultural revolution" that the Dems are pushing.
And, no matter what Trump wants for the police, the courts are already on a trajectory of taming the police. We already have body cams on most cops in the US. When cops attack citizens without reason, it's recorded. Thanks to QI, sometimes that is not enough to convict the bad cop, but the bad cop is often fired anyway for "violating department policy". Trump can't, Trump won't change that.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:29PM (22 children)
Much like abortion is an issue left up to voters in individual states, qualified immunity is probably best left to the state.
Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, and New York City have ended or severely limited qualified immunity for state employees.
...although that doesn't deal with federal employees fucking up your life for no reason.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:41PM (21 children)
Interesting. But, I see a problem with that. You live in a state without qualified immunity, but you often shop or visit in a neighboring state with QI. Basically, when you cross state lines, you leave behind some of your rights and privileges regarding police interactions. Meaning, you DO NOT want to be involved in a traffic stop, an accident, or any kind of an altercation in that neighboring state. We already see that same problem with abortion. Some states want to make it illegal for a woman to travel out of state for the purpose of getting an abortion. That's pretty screwed up.
I think that I'll just disagree with you, insisting that the Supreme Court should get a case, and that they should redefine qualified immunity, very narrowly. And, with abortion, Congress needs to take action, creating laws that mostly conform with EU laws. I've cited EU abortion law in the past, and found them to be mostly pretty damned reasonable.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:59PM (19 children)
And while abortion is in the discussion, what about Republican efforts in some states to stop doctors and others from providing information about out-of-state abortions?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:17PM (18 children)
That shit will be beaten down. There are times when abortion is justified, even for the most blockheaded moron. Rape, incest, and threats to the mother's health are most obvious. What I want to see ended, is abortion on demand. Seriously, what sort of society even contemplates post partum abortion? Keep the kid comfortable for days or weeks, while mother decides if she wants to keep the baby?
I refer you once again to EU laws. Not all EU nations are the same, I think Poland may be the most resistive to abortion. But, none of the EU countries offer abortion on demand, as Democrats seem to want. I actually opened a couple dozen web pages at one point in time, checking to see what the EU countries have decided. I insist that if we split the difference among them, we would arrive at a reasonable "common sense" abortion law. And, it's up to congress to do so. It is not up to the Supreme Court and/or activist judges ruling in favor of their party.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:22PM (17 children)
Wow! You are deep into Trump's lies.
There really is no point discussing this further when you are posting Trump's fever dreams as though they were facts, while attempting to avoid the central fact that Republicans are trying to censor people.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:36PM (1 child)
And, you are not deep into Democrat lies? You believe all the stupid shit anyone has to say, just because they have a D beside their name? Do you still believe in Russiagate? Still believe that Hunter Biden is just an innocent young man, being victimized by the right? Still believe that Joe Biden didn't extort the Ukraine government into firing a prosecutor who was investigating Hunter? And, I suppose you approve of the Ministry of Truth that Biden has proposed?
I'm gonna say it one more time, for your benefit. Trump is an ass. I don't like Trump. But, Trump is the alternative to the Evil Left. I've never voted for Trump, but maybe I will this time around. You vote for the fuckwits who don't know what a woman is, and want to ensure that boys have tampons in their locker room when they start bleeding monthly. The same people who insist that a child has the right to "transition" before they have acquired the right to vote, to drink, to drive, or to sign a contract. You vote for the insanity, I won't.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 07 2024, @11:44PM
🙄
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈 - Give us ribbiti or make us croak! 🐸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @06:03PM (14 children)
Trump! Trump! Trump!
Try to find one bit of difference between him and Harris on "no fly lists".
Yeah, Runaway is a trumpie in denial, but don't think for a second that the dems will make the smallest difference here, they are totally complicit. And this FBI is under a democrat administration right now, so don't go around complaining any more about Trump than you should about Biden.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:38PM (13 children)
It's not about the FBI in this particular case. From TFS:
The Georgia State Police were the fuck ups here. As for the detainee, nowhere does it say that he was placed on the "No Fly" list during Biden's presidency. Or Trump's, for that matter. It could well be he was placed on such a list by the Bush II or Obama FBI.
But in this particular case the FBI left instructions not to detain this person because he was on some "list" and the Georgia State Police did just that -- because he was on said list.
Reasonable people may disagree about the appropriateness of such lists, and I suspect you and I would be in substantial agreement in a discussion around them.
However, the FBI/DOJ's direction was knowingly and explicitly ignored. How is that the FBI's fault?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:50PM (7 children)
We are uder the Biden presidency. Why is he still on the no fly list? Democrats and republicans are together in this atrocity. Neither is better than the other. It is up to us to fix this and vote them out.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @03:18AM (6 children)
Offtopic?
What, it's against the rules to directly respond to a specific comment here? Everything about the whole "no fly list" thing is fair game.
Oh, wait, I see, the remedy I recommended offended some partisan so-'n-so. I guess they think the no fly list is a good thing. The "no drive list" is just mission creep, which should be expected. This case is totally anecdotal, most of these injustices don't make the headlines. Soon to follow will be your "no leave the house list".
And reminding people that this will go on indefinitely while we reelect the same politicians over and over is definitely not "offtopic", unless nobody really wants the issue resolved, which, after 20 years and four presidents (in fully bipartisan fashion), appears to be the case.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @04:13PM (5 children)
More typical political partisan down modding... Well, obviously somebody doesn't like hearing the truth, and definitely not interested in making the feeblest effort to remedy the situation. Yeah, very offtopic
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @07:39PM (4 children)
very offtopic
The subject of injustice is verboten! Here we are permitted discuss only superficial details that resolve nothing. The big picture is very offtopic
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @09:41AM (3 children)
No, that is not true. You can discuss the topic in any way that you wish and express your personal views, which you have done. However, others can moderate you as they deem appropriate. I do not know why you received an 'Off-Topic' but perhaps it is because the discussion is about a specific police force and the trend of the last few comments has been to turn into (another!) political discussion and hint that it is a failure on the part of the President. I would have thought that the management of the Georgia police is, at most, a State matter and could even be resolved at a much lower level? The FBI are not involved at all in the abuse that is discussed in TFA. The moderation is, of course, speculative on my part and I do not know the detailed thoughts of the moderator.
On the other hand, those who agree with you are just as welcome to moderate you positively. Perhaps they will in the coming days. Not everyone reads every story every day and you may gather some positive moderations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08 2024, @10:23PM (2 children)
And I am reminding people they don't see the forest for the trees. That is not offtopic. This discussion would not exist without the "no fly law" and the quite phony "War on Terror" being used as a legal pretext to harass people. The chronic injustices and resulting corruption permeate the entire system and go all the way up to the top. These local cops are mosquitoes in comparison, an inevitable result of corrupt law from above. Despite all your hopes, they will not get what they deserve, not in this life. Pointing that out is not offtopic either.
The down mod is simple case of somebody taking personal offense, or suffers from poor reading comprehension.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @11:14PM (1 child)
OK. Life is not perfect. You have been on the site long enough to have seen that before, haven't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09 2024, @02:02AM
Hmm, very dismissive.. Who said anything about perfection?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:26AM (4 children)
For starters, by putting him on that list. It should be obvious that some people will ignore said direction because this guy is on an FBI list.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday October 07 2024, @01:41AM (3 children)
It is not obvious at all - in fact they shouldn't have ignored it. Perhaps you would have ignored it, but that says something about you rather than the FBI or Georgia police.
So there is, as yet, no evidence that is how the name came to be on the list. Allegations have to be proven. I thought that you were keen to see things proven and the 'obvious' not accepted as fact (cf. your arguments regarding Jan 6)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 07 2024, @01:55AM (2 children)
Welcome to the real world with real people who often don't follow instructions. I hope it is obvious to you now.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday October 07 2024, @02:13AM (1 child)
More importantly - I hope it is now obvious to the Georgia Police too. I hope they get what they deserve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @03:44AM
Heh, we will all die waiting for that to happen. The effort to rein in these abuses is just not there, doesn't affect enough people.
23 years, and there is no light at the end of this tunnel, just the abyss.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Reziac on Monday October 07 2024, @02:34AM
So, I see you've visited New Jersey....
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:56PM (12 children)
What do you think all the threats of libel actions are? What do you think Trump's vow to open libel laws are, except to provide a means to censor citizens?
Please, try to get out of your bubble once in a while:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/media/trump-threatens-retribution-against-press/index.html [cnn.com]
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/enemy-people-trumps-war-press-new-mccarthyism-and-threat-american-democracy [harvard.edu]
https://thehill.com/homenews/4222082-trump-blasted-threats-against-comcast-nbc/ [thehill.com]
https://www.peoplefor.org/trumptastrophe-trumps-ongoing-attacks-against-media-and-journalistic-freedom [peoplefor.org]
So, yes, Trump has threatened censorship of US citizens.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:09PM (11 children)
Well, Democrats have been playing lawfare against Trump since before he was sworn in, in 2016. It's time some of those Dems answered for their malfeasance.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 3, Touché) by Whoever on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:19PM (5 children)
That's your response? It's pathetic.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:28PM (4 children)
You're right, the lawfare between Trump and the Dem party is pathetic. You do remember that Dems were exploring impeachment possibilities before Trump was sworn in? You remember the 'resistance'? It has all been so pathetic. Yes, I want to see the other side punished for malfeasance in office, as well as malfeasance in reporting. That "Russia, Russia, Russia" hoax was pushed by virtually everyone in the media, as well as the D party, while the Biden scandals were smothered and censored. Malfeasance all around. Democrats started the lawfare campaign, and I truly hope that Trump ends it.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:11PM (3 children)
I don't remember them, but I do know of a lot of impeachable things he did that he wasn't brought up for. I'm not talking about things like trying to impeach him because his son has dick pics on his laptop, I'm talking about treasonous activities like meeting with Putin and refusing any aides or translators to be present, then coming out and throwing your intelligence community under the bus and siding with Putin on issues. Or outing foreign informants to Putin to show Putin what kind of cool information he gets to know. Taking a picture of an image from a classified satellite and uploading it to Twitter, just so you can dunk on Iran (such a great reason to expose your classified capabilities, to "own" Iran on Twitter). How about those trademarks his daughter (oh, sorry Presidential Advisor) get awarded, like right before Trump announcing he wants to ease sanctions on the Chinese, or how about all those friendly favors for the Saudi prince, who then gives Trump's son-in-law (oh, sorry, Presidential Advisor who is so compromised that he can't get a security clearance) two billion dollars for his "investment firm"? And I won't even bring up details on the 200+ TS//SCI papers he stole and spilled, unless you can't appreciate the importance of SCI. That alone, he should be in jail for the rest of his life (especially according to the EO he authored), and is such a sad fact that anyone would even consider voting for him. We really need people who believe in America and not this traitor.
The man did a treasonous act about once a month. But yeah, sure, 'them Dems being all political.' 'Both sides' bullshit and all that.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 06 2024, @10:40PM (2 children)
You're pissing into the wind about classified documents. I'd have to look up some details, but both Bill Clinton and Obama were challenged on the use of classified documents. The decisions was, the President can declassify a document on a whim, there is no one with standing to challenge him. Biden took home documents as well, not to mention Hillary Clinton, who was never even president.
You may have a case on the Saudi prince - but if so, we apply the same standards to Biden and his family, and Trump and his family. Instead, all I see is partisan sniping. Apply the standards, burn whoever violated them, and let the chips fall where they may. You don't get to protect Biden Inc while prosecuting Trump Inc.
I said what I said. - Sophie Cunningham
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:46PM (1 child)
But neither Joe Biden nor any member of his family are running for *any* political office. Trump is running for US President.
If Biden or Trump committed crimes, then prove it in court and let them be punished for those crimes. You know, like the rule of law says they should be.
So only only one incredibly compromised and allegedly traitorous individual is running for President at the moment.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to vote for an elderly traitor who spits on the Constitution, the rule of law, and our way of life. Will you do so? If so, why do you hate America so much that you'd vote for a traitorous blowhard?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @05:12PM
Biden is the US president! That makes him fair game. The no fly law, the entire patriot act, with all its corrupt punitive enforcement is a totally bipartisan thing. There is nobody on the ballot that intends to correct the injustice. What we are voting for is demeanor. One is pleasant, the other is definitely not. Everything else is just chum.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @06:52PM (4 children)
Lefty here-- e.g., won't vote for corrupt, right-wing Democrat/Republican(s).
Agreed that Democrats have been going after Trump in a political manner. Similar to Republicans going after Clinton, in a political manner, for lying about a blow job. Jan 6, however, was a legitimate court case but if it had been done for more than political points, many Republican politicians, Republican political operatives, and members of the Trump administration would be sitting behind bars today (evidence of their complicity and intention of a coup is in the public record).
There isn't a former/current Democrat or Republican president that shouldn't be rotting in jail for their crimes. Real crimes. E.g., Biden enabling a genocide, Trump attempting a coup, Obama ordering the summary execution of an American citizen, Bush W., illegal wars of aggression / torture, Reagan and Clinton illegal wars of aggression and sponsoring terrorists, even Carter, the least criminal / corrupt president in the last half century, ordered a military mission where aircraft were disguised as humanitarian aide agency aircraft-- against international law, and along with Obama's fake polio vaccination ruse led to the deaths of real humanitarian aide workers.
*Note, I only gave a single example for each president. Every US president is guilty of multiple crimes that would result in, at minimum, a very long prison sentence if committed by an individual. If we counted executions/assassinations- drone strikes, seal team strikes, etc., as the murders they are, Bush "W" and Obama, Reagan, Nixon would be facing many thousands of death sentences each. No, the hundreds of wedding parties and funerals Obama/Bush hit with drone strikes killing/maiming half the attendees were not "terrorists"-- and re-defining any male over 14yrs old as a "combatant" isn't valid nor does it cover the women and young children Bush W and Obama murdered in these intentional massacres of civilians. Nixon secretly (hidden from US oversight/public by faking that the missions were in Vietnam) bombing villages in Cambodia solely to demonstrate to the Vietnamese that he was a mad man capable of mass murder-- the man should have met his end by firing squad or at the end of a rope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @07:35PM (3 children)
I can agree with you on at least one point. Clinton's blowjob was not impeachable. Republicans were morons for going that route. Clinton gave good reason to be impeached, but not for a blowjob.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @11:55PM
What might those reasons have been? I don't recall any *real* charges being brought against him, and if there had been, Ken Starr [wikipedia.org] would have nailed Clinton to the wall -- he was not impartial in the least.
So please, do tell what "good reason" there was other than lying about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky -- which wasn't a good reason for impeachment in the first place.
We're waiting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @01:13AM
I liked the cigar part and then tried it myself!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 09 2024, @05:24PM
Clinton's lying about it under oath was a felony. Would be impeachable in my book.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 06 2024, @02:52PM (5 children)
I would say: most (at least 70% of) cops don't do wrong intentionally, themselves, except when they turn a blind eye toward other cops doing wrong.
I would say, on balance, we are pretty much all better off with the USA cops we have than we would be if they just all disappeared tomorrow. However, the room for improvement is huge, the wilful ignorance and insensitivity is vast, and the good ones definitely aren't protected well enough to straighten out the bad ones.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @03:53PM (1 child)
I would posit that that 70% who do not do wrong intentionally do wrong inintentionally 70% of the time.
I would also posit that that 70% gets put behind a desk 70% of the time, while those who do wrong *intentionally* 70% of the time take up the street work, maybe because they're not good enough to do desk work, maybe because they make better lies after the fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06 2024, @05:06PM
> wrong uninintentionally 70% of the time.
I know I corrected that before I hit submit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Sunday October 06 2024, @04:51PM (2 children)
Q. If you have one bad cop and the remaining nine look the other way, what have you got?
A. Ten bad cops.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 06 2024, @05:41PM
It's true, and it's (morally) wrong, and it needs fixing.
Make me immortal dictator for life and I will get around to it, eventually.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 08 2024, @03:34PM
Not all police are bad. About 90 % of police give the rest a bad name.
Never fear, Smith is here.