SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the exempt-from-the-law-of-the-land dept.
TechDirt reports:
[...]the FISA Court has the reputation as a rubberstamp for a reason--it almost never turns down a request.
However, in the rare instances where it does, apparently, the DOJ doesn't really care, knowing that it can just issue [a National Security Letter] instead and get the same information. At least that appears to be what the DOJ quietly admitted to doing in a now declassified Inspector General's report from 2008(PDF). EFF lawyer Nate Cardozo was going through and spotted this troubling bit:
We considered the Section 215 request for [REDACTED] discussed earlier in this report at pages 33 to 34 to be a noteworthy item. In this case, the FISA Court had twice declined to approve a Section 215 application based on First Amendment Concerns. However, the FBI subsequently issued NSLs for information [REDACTED] even though the statute authorizing the NSLs contained the same First Amendment restriction as Section 215 and the ECs authorizing the NSLs relied on the same facts contained in the Section 215 applicants...
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday January 02 2015, @07:40AM
I'm going to go with the M.E. on this one.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 02 2015, @02:41PM
That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable. But, when you actually stop and THINK about it - it is somewhat unreasonable. You have chosen to believe an "expert". We all know that there are various levels of expertise. Believing one expert may or may not be bad - but you should probably double and even triple check your expert's level of expertise in a critical decision. Further, I'm certain that by now, we all know that an expert's judgement may be swayed by political beliefs and/or affiliation. It happens. We don't know (or I don't anyway) whether this particular ME has an axe to grind. ME's are people - is THIS particular ME black or white? Is he liberal or conservative? Has he ever lost a family member or friend to police action which he judged as wrong on personal grounds?
Further, we've ALL read stories of court battles in which the prosecution hires their experts, the defense hires their own, and renowned experts offer mutually exclusive opinions. In those cases, we may be looking at legitimate differences of opinion, OR, we may be looking at dishonest experts looking after their bank accounts - or maybe a blend of both.
And, perhaps, this ME has political aspirations of his own. Maybe he plans to run for office, and hopes to sway the black voters in his favor.
I don't KNOW anything about this ME, except that he has apparently made an erroneous judgement in Garner's case. He may be the greatest ME to have ever walked the streets of New York, he may rescue puppies and kittens in his off time, he may deliver meals to the homeless, he may be in line for sainthood. He may be the most likeable person I could ever meet. That doesn't change the fact that I disagree with his judgement in this case.
Watch the video. Trust the evidence given to you by your own eyes.
Please - if you have any doubts what you are looking at, take a little time to research PRECISELY what makes one hold legal, and what makes another very similar hold ILLEGAL. Then watch the videos again.
Once again - there are plenty of police actions that are apparently motivated by prejudice. We can find any number of young black males who have been murdered, because the cops were incompetent, callous, racist, prejudiced, trigger-happy, or whatever. I've already cited two cases above in which the cops involved should be convicted of manslaughter at the least.
There is an old truism, that you should pick your fights. The black community is indeed often victimized by the system. But - if you are going to fight that victimization, then choose carefully which victims you are going to fight for.
Despite the fact that I KNOW blacks are targeted by shithead cops - I am somewhat alienated by the activists who want to change things. I am alienated by the fact that they have chosen TWO cases to fight for, in which the supposed "victims" weren't all that terribly victimized.
Replace Garner with that 12 year old Rice kid who was shot to death for playing with a TOY, and I can wholeheartedly get on board with all the protests. In that case, you have a true innocent, outright murdered by the people who should have INVESTIGATED a false report. For that kid, for his family, I really give a damn.
Garner? Just a dumb old guy who would be alive today, had he only submitted to one more ride down to the precinct, gone through some formalities, and showed up in court some weeks later. If you're going to resist arrest, you better have a DAMNED good reason. His death was his own responsibility, and it was just plain STUPID!
Michael Brown? Please - give that one a break. You can't paint that case in any way that is complimentary to the supposed "victim". That kid was looking for a place to die, and he found it within minutes after committing a strong arm robbery. No matter how you present that case, Brown was a dangerous young man. I can't empathize with him at all.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday January 02 2015, @08:31PM
What makes you believe the M.E. was in error, have you reviewed the autopsy notes and/or video? Are you an M.E. or even an avid armchair anatomist? Did his finding show any failures of logic?
I agree that M.E.s can be in error. That's why we don't just pass sentence on people when the M.E. says homicide. We have an entire due process with a trial and a jury of one's peers to review the M.E.'s findings and decide if the conclusion is trustworthy. That includes the defense having a chance to have their own expert review the autopsy and rebut the findings.
The legality or not of a particular hold does nothing to negate the cause of death, though at trial it may make a great difference in the culpability of the defendant or in the severity of the crime.
As for people overreacting, perhaps a lifetime of seeing things like the Rice kid's killing resulting in a paid vacation and no prosecution have pushed them over the edge. As for Garner, a lifetime of harassment coupled with a bad day can do that to a person. See every story of the bullied kid finally popping the bully in the nose (or going nuts and shooting the place up).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:06PM
"The legality or not of a particular hold does nothing to negate the cause of death, though at trial it may make a great difference in the culpability of the defendant or in the severity of the crime."
And, there you have it. No culpability on the part of the police in this particular case. They didn't choke the man to death. He died of causes other than being choked to death.
Now, that particular hold is MEANT to restrict the flow of blood to the brain. For that reason it has been described as a "sleeper hold" by some. Maybe, just maybe, if liberals could actually properly describe that hold, and define what it is meant to do, we could have a more intelligent discussion.
NOW, may we move on, and discuss innocent young black men who have been gunned down for no good reason? We don't have such a person here.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:56PM
It is clear that your mind is made up and you would prefer not to be confused by the facts, so I'll spare you the discomfort.