Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 27, 2017, 08:47:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102434 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 294
11551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: November 23, 2009, 11:43:02 AM
To get us to concede East Europe to its sphere again, and to control the gas supplies of Central Asia (the Georgia issue can be seen in this context).


11552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 23, 2009, 11:41:27 AM
Am I surprised?

Not. One. Bit.
11553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 20, 2009, 09:02:54 AM

Without seeing all the reports, and especially seeing all the crime scene photos, it's impossible to say that it's not a suicide unless the GSW was positioned in such a manner as to make it impossible that it was self inflicted. A contact GSW looks the same, no matter if it was self inflicted or done by someone else. Now if it wasn't a contact/close range GSW, then you have something....
11554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 20, 2009, 08:27:19 AM
No I don't have a better method, though it annoys me to be told someone is dishing up tasty omelets while being assured no eggs were broken in the process. You can't have it both ways by posting all the constraints intelligence agencies are supposedly operating under and then bragging on results that clearly had to involve a lot of sifting before archiving the data for several years.

**What are the 4th amendment protections enjoyed by British nationals emailing Pakistanis?**
11555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 10:41:43 PM
Can you show me the source docs? People TEND to shoot themselves with their dominant hand, however that alone is not evidence of homicide.
11556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 10:24:20 PM

American convert to Islam says it is not permissible for Muslims to join an Infidel army

Wait a minute. I thought only greasy Islamophobes believed that there was any problem with Muslims in the military. Will Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR denounce Umar Lee as an "Islamophobe"?

Glossary: Kaafir, kufr = Infidel. Deen = religion. Ummah = global Islamic community. Ulamaa = Islamic scholars. Al wala wal bara = "Love and hate," i.e., love for Muslims and hatred for non-Muslims.
11557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 08:14:48 PM
And you've got a better method you'd wish to be used? I'd love to hear it.
11558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Legal Issues created by the War with Islamic Fascism on: November 19, 2009, 04:15:52 PM
Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff

Trying KSM: Why? An insane protocol
November 18, 2009 Posted by Scott at 3:18 PM
In his press conference this past Friday and in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Holder has explained his decision to refer KSM and his 9/11 co-conspirators to trial based on a "protocol" released in July.

What protocol? I don't recall reading anything about it at the time it was released, or seeing anything about it in connection with Holder's decision to deliver KSM et al. to federal court in New York for trial cloaked with the constitutional rights of American citizens.

I called the Justice Department this morning to ask for a copy of the protocol and was directed to the document in issue. It is titled "Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution." The first paragraph describes a process for determining which cases are to be referred for criminal prosecution. The second paragraph sets forth the "Factors for Determination of Prosecution." It reads as follows:

There is a presumption that, where feasible. referred cases will be prosecuted in an Article III [federal] court, in keeping with traditional principles of federal prosecution. Nonetheless, where other compelling factors make it more appropriate to prosecute a case in a reformed military commission, it may be prosecuted there. That inquiry-turns on the following three broad sets of factors, which are based on forum-selection factors traditionally used by federal prosecutors:

A. Strength of Interest. The factors to be considered here are the nature of the offenses to be charged or any pending charges; the nature and gravity of the conduct underlying the offenses; the identity of victims of the offense; the location in which the offenses occurred; the location and context in which the individual was apprehended; and the manner in which the case was investigated and evidence gathered, including the investigating entities.

B. Efficiency. The factors to be considered here are protection of intelligence sources and methods; the venue in which the case would be tried; issues related to multiple-defendant trials; foreign policy concerns; legal or evidentiary problems that might attend prosecution in the other jurisdiction: and efficiency and resource concerns.

C. Other Prosecution Considerations. The factors to be considered here are the extent to which the forum, and the offenses that could be charged in that forum, permit a full presentation of the wrongful conduct allegedly committed by the accused, and the available sentence upon conviction of those offenses.

Despite the bare bones nature of the enumerated factors and the lack of detail regarding how they are to applied, this is a shocking document. The operative presumption is a rule in favor of criminal prosecution. Nothing could more clearly indicate the Obama administration's treatment of the war on terrorism as a venture in aw enforcement. In the words of the late John Lennon: "WAR IS OVER! (if you want it)."

Given the referral of the case against KSM et al. for prosecution in federal court, we can do a little reverse engineering to figure out how the enumerated factors are apparently applied by the Obama administration. If the attack occurred in the United States, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. If the attack focused on American civilians, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. (It is less clear to me how the other factors are weighed and applied in practice.) Application of these factors can convert heinous acts of war and war crimes into criminal offenses with respect to which the perpetrators are subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States.

That way madness lies. The Obama administration is engaged in a venture that will simultaneously undermine the prosecution of the war in which we are engaged while it blurs the distinction between war and crime. It is a venture that works a great burden on the federal courts and prosecutors. To what end?

With a few exceptions, Attorney General Holder has been exceedingly wary of articulating the application of the "factors" to KSM et al. other than by general reference to the "protocol." As we pointed out, what Holder has said about application of the factors makes no sense at all. Attacks on Americans in the United States are presumably to be treated as crimes subject to prosecution in federal court. Why? What is the underlying rationale? Again, Holder has been wary of articulating it.

Whatever it is, notice should be taken. The Obama administration's "protocol" sends up a red flag signaling a great danger to the people of the United States.

UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy comments here.
11559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 19, 2009, 03:42:47 PM

NSA-Intercepted E-Mails Helped Convict Would-Be Bombers
By Kim Zetter  September 8, 2009  |  6:26 pm  |  Categories: Surveillance

The three men convicted in the United Kingdom on Monday of a plot to bomb several transcontinental flights were prosecuted in part using crucial e-mail correspondences intercepted by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to Britain’s Channel 4.

The e-mails, several of which have been reprinted by the BBC and other publications, contained coded messages, according to prosecutors. They were intercepted by the NSA in 2006 but were not included in evidence introduced in a first trial against the three last year.

11560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 09:08:17 AM

See it yourself.
11561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 19, 2009, 08:58:50 AM

Nidal Hasan’s Ominous Islam
by  Robert Spencer


Before he killed or wounded 54 Americans at Fort Hood on November 5, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan had raised eyebrows with his Islamic proselytizing, which he carried on even when he was supposed to be conducting medical briefings. One such presentation has come to light: the June 2007 briefing which Hasan gave to other doctors at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Hasan’s PowerPoint slides say many of the same things found in jihadist literature and propaganda throughout the Middle East and among its apologists here in America.   

Hasan’s Islam is rooted in traditional understandings of the faith as taught by the authoritative schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence. It also is the same Islam that is taught by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
11562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 10:49:38 PM,0,3218383.story

Just reading this, it doesn't seem atypical.
11563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 05:26:58 PM

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I § 1809. Criminal sanctions
 (a) Prohibited activities

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended—
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and
(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
(d) “Sabotage” means activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States.
(e) “Foreign intelligence information” means—
(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against—
(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or
(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or
(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to—
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or
(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
(g) “Attorney General” means the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or, upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security under section 507A of title 28.
(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
(i) “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title Cool, an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(j) “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(k) “Aggrieved person” means a person who is the target of an electronic surveillance or any other person whose communications or activities were subject to electronic surveillance.
(l) “Wire communication” means any communication while it is being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications.
(m) “Person” means any individual, including any officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any group, entity, association, corporation, or foreign power.
(n) “Contents”, when used with respect to a communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
(o) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any territory or possession of the United States.

But hey, they are from the government and are here to help. No doubt I should cease my ruminations and find a public teat to suckle on or something.

**Suckle on whatever you wish. It's a free country.   grin **
11564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 05:08:41 PM
Ah, I see. I'm 'sposed to be comforted by their incompetence and misallocation of resources. Got it.

**Well, unless you think Maj. Hasan was missed because the N-VA. JTTF was too busy parsing through your posts on global warming, yes.**
11565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 04:52:09 PM
The current administration makes a lot of hay out of right wing extremists. The spook agencies work for that administration. Do you need me to connect the dots?

**You're going to need a lot more dots to bridge that gap between those two data points. As much as Barry and Rahm would love to do something to quiet the critics, us individuals on the interwebs can say what we will, short of violating an actual law. The CIA, NSA or other such entity can't arrest us. KSM is getting a lovely show trial with full discovery of all sorts of vital national security secrets to be burned, with ACLU types chomping at the bit to spin legalistics webs around the federal prosecution.
With the terrorists that butchered 3000 of us on one morning getting the full measure of protection usually afforded to shoplifters, I'm not going to worry about how the new Stasi will be coming for me anytime soon.**
11566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 04:38:53 PM
Perhaps here, perhaps now. It certainly not the case in Russia, China, and many other places. Are you of the opinion it could never happen here?

**It could happen anywhere, including here. Thankfully, we are far away from any real threat of it happening here anytime soon. Let me know when Glen Beck gets frogmatched off to the gulag.**
11567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 11:32:27 AM
You just used the L word again! I can hear all the good little bureaucrats jumping up and down with glee! Another reason to raise taxes, become more overbearing with the use of force to tell more people how to run their life!

**And instead of the rule of law, you'd prefer what?**

The property owner puts up whatever cameras he sees fit, it is his land.  The cops like those cameras, it helps them to remember to toe the line (a good thing) and also serves to document various aspects of their job- fine.  I know I am being surveyed, the cop is in my business. 

It is all the other stuff.  A cop cruising around with a license plate scanner "looking for business" is definitely going to be one of the ones I am going to dislike. 

**Actually, doing traffic is one of the best ways to catch fugitive felons and roll up crimes before they happen. The career criminal stopped for a minor traffic violation that ends up getting arrested isn't free to victimize you the next day.**

Most of that equipment is more for revenue collection than actual crime catching anyway. 

**Wrong, as pointed out above.**

 The speeding cams, the stop sign cams.  The speed traps, the attitude that everyone is a crook.

**The stop sign cameras save lives. Speed enforcement saves lives. Like it or not, those are the laws created by state legislatures and signed by governors and upheled by the courts. Law enforcement just enforces those laws.**

  The stopping of random people behaving "suspiciously" and checking pockets, they behave suspiciously because 2 funny dressed goons from the govt are here using force against innocent citizens. 

**First read up on a Terry Stop. Facts are good. Having an informed opinion is a good thing, you'll find.  My kingdom for a libertarian that can debate from facts rather than emotion.**

Cops are walking with their hand on their gun way to often, that is almost a direct threat of anyone within sight. **Uh huh. What's you training and experience in the use of defensive firearms. Are you a criminal? What do you frighten so easily?**  Unethical when police are the disturbance of the peace even though they are the LAW. ** Really? Please cite the statute you are alleging was/is being violated?**

I do not need anyone to watch over me,

**Really? for such an independent tough guy, you seem to get scared awful easy.**

 I would gladly embrace the privilege of a free man to starve to death if he cannot find a way to eat.

**Well, based on your prior post where you state that you can't afford a bus pass, it's seems you are well on your way there.**

 It solves a whole bunch of problems rather nicely.  I never want to be a burden thru taxes that are taken by force from another person for welfare.  Taxes are required by LAW, I am stealing indirectly thru a proxy.  That is still as unethical as stealing a pie of the neighbors windowsill.  I do not need someone to protect me, any one who attacks me is assuming the risk of losing the fight. I do not need anyone to tell me who initiated the attack first.  All a cop should do is verify "fair fight", and tell the kin where to pick up the looser (hospital, or morgue).  The crowd will know who the criminal is and point that out if I fail to protect my right to life.  It is unethical to remove a persons ability to defend himself, by requiring me to run away and call a cop, that is exactly what is being done, because there is often no option to run (bullets are pretty fast, knives/rocks can be thrown, etc.).

Yeah it is the LAW but an unethical law is worse than no law at all, and that is why laws are observed more in the breaking than the keeping.

**Rather than be angry at law enforcement, you should focus that rage on whomever was supposed to educate you. Print out a copy of your posts and take them to an attorney so they can file a tort claim on your behalf. **
11568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 18, 2009, 11:07:06 AM
Cost Benefit does not apply to people, it has already been determined that lives are not bought and sold.  

**I was discussing the use of cameras vs. hiring more police officers as a budgetary matter, although I will point out that lives saved or lost do figure into the equasion.**

I do not trust human beings to get it right with any kind of predictability.  The old Lady in Florida and the Kids in New England are simply too much used of SWAT levels of force.  

**Ohhhkayyyyyy. What old lady in Florida? What kids in New England? What does "are simply too much used of SWAT levels of force." mean?**

Regular beat cops screwed up recently in Henderson where someone appears to have ended up dead over a parking ticket and a language barrier.  (Henderson cops in nNevada have had a "rep." for years, they really stepped in it this time)

** And you know the Henderson cops screwed up how, exactly? You were there? What is the basis for you to judge the use of force by a law enforcement officer. What's your training and experience on the topic?**

The camera surveillance is to invasive, yes there is no expectation of privacy, but to be on camera just because you are in public?  No that is not an answer either.  Cameras at ATMs and Banks and places where there is an "expectation of monitoring' is fine, but generic authorization for general surveillance, nope I do not agree with that.
**And your policy solution is what?**
11569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Yottabyte Me on: November 18, 2009, 10:56:46 AM
I'm feeling kinda silly these days. I'm something of a geek and a big time early adopter so I've glommed on to a Google Voice account as well as Google Wave, and have all the above integrated with various others stuff. I'll be out in bum fornication Kentucky next week but will have about six integrated ways to keep in touch with work including by video if need be.

I mention all this because of a paranoid fantasy:

**I'm glad you have the insight to recognize this is a paranoid fantasy.**

what if Google was a wholly owned subsidiary of some spook agency? Someone leaves a voicemail on my Google Voice account and it gets transcribed into a text email that finds me wherever I am. If they can transcribe a voicemail that quickly they could certainly do the same to any conversation I route through them. They have my web history, and as I start getting into Wave they'll have those collaborations too. Expect they have some of my shopping and doubtless other stuff; link it all together and a pretty complete picture of me emerges.

**And aformentioned spook agency would care why?**

Well Google doesn't have to be wholly owned as there is the Patriot Act and FISA amendment that allow the feds to co-opt just about any communications resource to their end. NSA is building a new storage facility in Utah rumored to have yottabytes (1 yottabyte=1,000,000,000,000,000GB) of drive space where all sorts of electronic utterances could be stored and collated. The thought of my accreted internet wanderings and warblings being stored somewhere and then used for who knows what end down the line give me the willies. Plenty of times and places where my anti-federal, anti-authority, well-armed, somewhat trained perspectives and predilections would have lead to a gulag or worse.

**Yeah, they'll get to you as soon as they roll up the muslim army majors who just happen to be dialoging with AQ affilitated imams about jihad.**

I say all this as a reaction to some of the discussion occurring currently and as preface to this CATO piece. Said piece has a lot of links to Electronic Frontier, Wired, and other sources that are will worth exploring. I fret for a country that has yottabytes of data about their citizens stored and I fear the day looms when a politician will put said data to a mass, malign use.

**Please cite the source where the yottabytes will be used to document our collective warblings.**

CATO piece follows

A Handy PATRIOT Act Cheat Sheet

Posted by Julian Sanchez

While there are a slew of USA PATRIOT Act reform bills buzzing about Capitol Hill, the focus in Congress is now on two chief contenders, reported out by the House and Senate judiciary committees respectively. The very very short version is that the Senate version renews expiring PATRIOT powers with very few modifications, and that the House version includes an array of moderately more robust civil liberties safeguards. As Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has argued cogently, these differences are really far less important than the need to reform the FISA Amendments Act, which vastly expanded the surveillance powers of the National Security Agency, in effect permitting the Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping to proceed with some cosmetic trappings of oversight. Still, the House bill does go some ways toward restoring the quaint notion that government should pry in to the private records of its citizens only when some evidence exists to provide grounds for individualized suspicion.

The Obama administration, alas, has decided to back the Senate’s bill, though the Justice Department also expressed “concerns” about the handful of actually-substantive checks on government spying power, and made clear that it intends to continue “working with the Committee” to gut those before the bill reaches the floor. For those with a taste for the gory details, Wired points to CDT’s handy dandy cheat sheet comparing the main provisions of the two bills.

11570  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 18, 2009, 10:46:01 AM
How does this apply to law enforcement?
11571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 06:22:45 PM
I'm unaware of anywhere in the US where one is constantly under scrutiny, especially government scrutiny. I'm curious what sort of legislation you'd suggest to restrict the use of cameras. Does the local stop-n-rob or Walmart get to keep their cameras? Howabout the security cameras at schools? Do Private Investigators working insurance fraud cases get to use cameras? Does a patrol car keep it's cameras?
11572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 02:18:56 PM
I think we should look at the topic from a cost/benefit analysis. Outside of certain specific environments, I'm thinking the money would be better spent on police officers.
11573  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: November 16, 2009, 11:27:56 AM
It has always seemed strange to me that it seems to come down to where you happen to be standing as to what actions you can (legally) do to defend yourself. If I'm in Pennsylvania, by the time I worked out whether or not I was actually being threatened and to what degree, I'd be dead - at least I think I would, since I'm not an attorney and can't really interpret the law well enough where I would be sure that my opinion would hold up in court.

Home in Missouri, though, I have the state's castle doctrine and -- I believe much more important, I know most of the people at the Sheriff's department -- so when a couple patrol cars show up, they're going to have at least a preliminary idea that me, the old guy with the gun, is probably the good guy.

Another question in an earlier post, what's a threat? Somebody in my home is a threat and I'm not talking to them. My home, so I'm just attacking whatever my German Shepherd is biting. But, and this did happen, some clown showed up late one night and tried to kick in the front door. Threat? Not at all. I got a shotgun and the big dog and my wife called 911. Fifteen minutes later, two cars showed up from one direction and then another car from the other way (our neighbor, also a deputy, decided to get up and see what was going on). The guy who had attempted to break the door down didn't realize the door is steel with reinforced everything and I guess he broke his knee or something, the deputies found him outside in the yard. Oops. No threat. Had he made it through the door, which I thought was extremely unlikely, I'd have taken some action, but again, didn't think that was possible unless he had some kind of breaching tools.

I think that had I shot through the door, that would have been excessive and unwarranted. Perhaps that isn't the way to look at the situation, but as long as I consider myself "safe," then I don't see any reason to attack. I'm sure various laws will castigate me both ways..........


Did the bad guy act in a manner where a reasonable person would fear for their life?
11574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 11:18:34 AM
As far as cameras everywhere, in the US the vast majority of the cameras are privately owned and thus not subject to the 4th amendment. Cameras in public spaces are no different than having a police officer view what is open to anyone in that public place.
11575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 11:03:12 AM
Do you think the court decided correctly in Kyllo?

As for your mockery of "Oh my god, the police have a camera!"-- yes you bring lucid rejoinders, but IMHO we also need to address the profound implications of CAMERAS EVERYWHERE, RECORDING MOST EVERYTHING.

Yes, the court was correct, although I'd actually draw a different bright line rather than "not currently in the general public's use". Rather, I'd use a standard that the 4th applies equally to a police officer physically intruding into a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, or by any technological means, breaching that privacy. A search is a search, no matter if it's "actual" vs. "virtual".
11576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 09:31:42 AM
Kyllo v. United States

Facts of the Case:
A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."


Decision: 5 votes for Kyllo, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment
11577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 09:22:39 AM
I will point out that we have not extensively covered law enforcement practices. Mostly it's been "OMG, the police have a camera! We are but minutes away from an orwellian dictatorship!" And then me trying to inject a dose of reality into the discussion.
11578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:54:32 AM
Although not a law enforcement practice, I have condemned Kelo. Does that count?  grin
11579  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:48:58 AM
I will point out that i'm a small "l" libertarian. I don't want an orwellian police state. However, a key concept often forgotten is there is no freedom without the rule of law. Unless the laws are enforced, then individual freedoms are lost.
11580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:25:38 AM
If something is seized as evidence, it is retained until all legal avenues are exhausted.

best evidence rule

A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph, or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable.
11581  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 16, 2009, 08:05:05 AM

It's not a matter of not having respect for you as a person, but not having respect for an uninformed opinion. I get really tired of libertarian armchair theories on policing based on emotion and the most cursory of legal knowledge.
11582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 16, 2009, 04:11:41 AM

A Web of Lone Wolves
Fort Hood shows us that Internet jihad is not a myth.

Upon learning of the reported "missed" link between the alleged culprit responsible for the massacre at Ft. Hood -- Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan -- and Anwar al Awlaki, my heart sank for a multitude of reasons. Al Awlaki is an infamous character in the halls of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and he has been for several years at least. The cleric's recurring presence again in the Ft. Hood case seems to be powerful and disturbing evidence of how fringe extremists -- who otherwise might remain in obscurity with no real means of living out their private jihadi fantasies -- are quite literally being equipped for battle by so-called "theological" advisors known only to them through the Internet. In short, it is a reminder of how real online terrorism networks have become.
11583  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 16, 2009, 03:22:29 AM

Judith Miller
The Mexicanization of American Law Enforcement
The drug cartels extend their corrupting influence northward.

Leslie Hoffman/AP Photo
Customs and Border Protection agents have been bought off by drug dealers.Beheadings and amputations. Iraqi-style brutality, bribery, extortion, kidnapping, and murder. More than 7,200 dead—almost double last year’s tally—in shoot-outs between federales and often better-armed drug cartels. This is modern Mexico, whose president, Felipe Calderón, has been struggling since 2006 to wrest his country from the grip of four powerful cartels and their estimated 100,000 foot soldiers.

But chillingly, there are signs that one of the worst features of Mexico’s war on drugs—law enforcement officials on the take from drug lords—is becoming an American problem as well. Most press accounts focus on the drug-related violence that has migrated north into the United States. Far less widely reported is the infiltration and corruption of American law enforcement, according to Robert Killebrew, a retired U.S. Army colonel and senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for a New American Security. “This is a national security problem that does not yet have a name,” he wrote last fall in The National Strategy Forum Review. The drug lords, he tells me, are seeking to “hollow out our institutions, just as they have in Mexico.”

**Reading this chilled me to the bone.**
11584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Intel Matters on: November 16, 2009, 02:11:48 AM

What do you think was shoddy about Yoo's briefs?
11585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Foreign Policy on: November 15, 2009, 04:17:44 PM

Smart power!
11586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 15, 2009, 03:50:31 PM

'Moderate' terror pals

Last Updated: 3:43 AM, November 13, 2009

Posted: 1:48 AM, November 13, 2009

Just as security officials overlooked Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's links to al Qaeda cleric Anwar Aulaqi, who exhorts American Muslims to kill US soldiers, so did our leaders long turn a blind eye to a "mainstream" Muslim group's ties to this same 9/11-tied imam and other Islamic extremists.
11587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: November 15, 2009, 02:49:56 PM

 More Steyn goodness.
11588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: November 15, 2009, 10:15:11 AM

And now for a somewhat alternate take.
11589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Legal issues on: November 14, 2009, 04:12:41 PM
I have no problem with the seizure of property post-conviction, but the "civil forfeiture" as currently practiced is indeed outrageous. I can't believe that the courts have upheld this practice.
11590  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 14, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
Ok, Rarick,

I guess you can't answer the question I posed.

How is placing the "Armadillo" in a location different that placing a police officer in that location, aside from cost to the taxpayers, related to 4th amd. issues?
11591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 14, 2009, 10:06:03 AM

CAIR boasts of influence on media after Fort Hood
Group treated as voice of Muslims despite fresh evidence of terror ties
11592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: November 14, 2009, 09:55:42 AM

Fitzgerald: Salam al-Marayati, loyalty, and patriotism

“Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati is the newest blogger for the popular website The Huffington Post. Here is an excerpt from his first blog: ‘As Muslims, when we take an oath of citizenship or allegiance, it is tantamount to making an oath with God: “And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by a pledge, and do not break [your] oaths after having [freely] confirmed them and having called upon God to be witness to your good faith: behold, God knows all that you do.” - Quran 16:91. As Muslim Americans, when we take the oath of allegiance to America witnessed by our families and our friends (and now DHS), we must remain true to our word. It is an Islamic obligation to defend what we are taking an oath to, namely the constitution of the United States of America. That does not equate with supporting the policies of the government. Patriotism is not waving the flag or using it to intimidate others; patriotism is love of country, and when we as Muslim Americans see a danger to our country, such as terrorism or xenophobia, or policies that hurt the image and interests of the United States, it is our American and Islamic responsibility to change toward the betterment of America….’” -- From the Huffington Post, which apparently will now regularly include articles by Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (see the announcement here)

This is the purest taqiyya, or kitman, or combination of both.

Islam teaches -- inculcates, rather -- the notion that Muslims do not owe any allegiance to non-Muslims, not to their countries, not to their institutions, legal and political, not to anything. Within Islam -- uniquely, among world religions -- such a doctrine has arisen, and has been elaborated, and has been written about, one that is based on both the letter and spirit of the Qur'an and on the example of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). See the assurances given the Meccans in the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya.

Look at the false equivalences: “terrorism or xenophobia,” with the first referring to real acts of terror by Muslims, following promptings that are found in the texts of Islam (see the Qur’an, see the Hadith, passim) and the “xenophobia” in question merely being, in this case, not “hatred of foreigners” but, of course, the fear and suspicion of those who are adherents of Islam, a fear and suspicion that are entirely rational, and that are felt most by those who have taken the most time to inform themselves about the texts and tenets and history of Islam.
And note how carefully he says that “we must remain true to our word” when we “take the oath of allegiance to America.” Why? It makes no sense to remain true to a word, or an oath, given to an Infidel polity in order to obtain American citizenship or to relieve the suspicions of non-Muslims. Islam is a Total Belief-System that reinforces, through a whole variety of means, again and again the idea that for a Muslim the main thing, possibly the only thing, in life that truly matters is being Muslim, and that loyalty to fellow Muslims and to the teachings of Islam are the only things that matter, not the trivial and the transient, the without-worth because non-Muslim, Infidel polities.

Al-Marayati pretends that Muslims are just full of the patriotism and loyalty that animates other Americans. Is this true? Have Muslims rallied to the cause of fighting against “Muslim extremism” abroad? Have they flocked into the military, imitating the Japanese-Americans of the 422nd Regiment during World War II, the first (or possibly second) most decorated regiment in the entire U.S. military? Or have the handful of Muslims who have served reported how difficult it has been for them, how they have been repeatedly criticized and attacked by other Muslims for fighting “for the Infidel”?

And what has been the behavior of Muslims, and Muslim organizations, in this country? Have they encouraged Muslims to report on that “tiny handful of extremists,” or have they repeatedly refused to do so? Have Muslim organizations, and not only CAIR, exhibited a spirit of cooperation, or have they repeatedly urged Muslims not to voluntarily cooperate but to carefully go through them, and what’s more, have encouraged Muslims to report any and all supposed “anti-Muslim incidents,” all of which are scrupulously investigated, and almost all of which have been found to be baseless, or greatly exaggerated? Have they not encouraged in Muslims themselves, and in a credulous media that believes uncritically Muslim complaints, the idea that Muslims are being “victimized”?

There are a handful of exceptions. These consist of those who, having through no fault of their own been born in to Islam, have decided that they no longer are believers. But they are unwilling, out of fear or filial piety, to declare themselves openly to be apostates, and so signal to the outside world their disenchantment with Islam by identifying themselves as “cultural Muslims” or in some other way as “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims. They are as yet unwilling to wholeheartedly declare that disenchantment and their own falling-away from the faith.

All over the countries of Western Europe, as in the Muslim -dominated lands (Dar al-Islam), one can find the message of Islam clearly set out in the sermons of imams who are either uninhibited or perhaps, in some cases, simply unaware that they are being eavesdropped on by agents of the various Infidel governments. That message is clear: loyalty to Islam and to fellow members of the Umma comes first. And if one goes to Muslim websites (it isn't hard to do) and reads around, one discovers that the universal answer to the question "do I have to obey the laws of Infidel states if I have managed to obtain citizenship in those states" is not a resounding and unqualified "Yes" but, rather, the obvious: obey the laws of Infidel states only insofar as those laws do not contradict the principles of Islam, of the Holy Law of Islam or Shari'a. In other words, "be a good citizen" just so long as what you do does not contradict Islam.

The "loyalty" and "patriotism" that Salam Al-Marayati describes sounds fine. Anyone who knows little or nothing of Islam might be taken in. One might be if one has ignored all the evidence, in both the clearly-stated doctrines of Islam, and in what might reasonably be called the necessary developments from those doctrines -- including kitman ("mental reservation") and taqiyya. These have naturally been developed and are practiced, as we can all see, in every encounter with non-Muslims, when Muslims feel they need to conceal, in order to preserve Islam and Muslims from critical scrutiny, and to delay for as long as possible the widespread understanding of the texts and tenets of Islam.

The passage above should raise eyebrows and more than eyebrows. It is clear that Al-Marayati is determined to misrepresent Islam. It will be interesting to see what protests there are in comments, and how informed those protests are. The level of preparation of those who answer him will be important.

But all you need to do is look at Islam from the inside out -- look at the ample testimonies provided by a growing army of defectors from that other army, the army of Islam. Look at what Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells us in her Infidel about all the ways that Muslims talk about fooling the non-Muslims of the Netherlands. Look at Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina, or all the many ex-Muslims who have contributed to such websites as the latter's Look at the opinion polls, where Muslims in Western Europe support attacks within, and against, the countries and non-Muslim peoples among whom they have been allowed to settle. There they are treated by the innocent and the ignorant with great generosity, which has been repaid with a malevolent determination to relentlessly spread the power and might of Islam, and to undercut, in every way that is deemed effective, the legal and political institutions, the liberties, the social understandings, of Infidel peoples and polities.

One detects in the soft-spoken assurances of Tariq Ramadan the hiss of a slitherer. Read Caroline Fourest, or many others, on his slitherings. And then re-read carefully the excerpt from Al-Marayati above. Then go to, or, or to the books of Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or to the articles by many defectors from Islam, or the studies of Islam by the great Western scholars who wrote during the century of flourishing Western scholarship on Islam, roughly from 1870 to 1970, which is roughly when the portcullises came down, to defend the castle of Islam, and the Age of Inhibition began.

When Al-Marayati utters his sly remarks about “love of country” and the “betterment of America,” what do you think he means? What could he possibly mean, if he is a believer in Islam? If you believe in Islam, if you believe in the Message of the Last of the Prophets, then what would be best for America, what would bring about its “betterment”? Surely not more of the same, not more of the same belief that mere men should, through the ballot, decide on the political and legal institutions of this country. Men are, or should ideally be, “slaves of Allah.” And a well-ordered world, according to Muslim doctrine, is that in which the will, not of mere mortals, but of Allah himself, is obeyed. So it is not the will of the people, expressed through elections and representative government, but rather the will of Allah, as expressed in the Qur’an and glossed by the Sunnah, that should prevail. That is surely what Al-Marayati sees as the best hope for this country, the “betterment” for which he, and all of the Believers, will naturally strive. In other words, the entire basis for the American policy is flatly contradicted by the most essential understandings of Islam.

And what does Al-Marayati think of the Constitution of the United States? What, for example, does he think of the First Amendment, and the rights of free speech, and of freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by both the Free Exercise and the Establishment clause? Does Al-Marayati think that anyone in this country who wishes to leave Islam should be perfectly free to do so without any repercussions whatsoever? What does he think about the case of Rifqa Bary? What punishment does he think should properly be meted out to those Muslim men who have, on their own, killed or greatly harmed their own daughters or wives, because they thought their daughters or wives had left Islam, or behaved in a way that brought “dishonor” to the family? And if he thinks such people should be properly punished by the full force of the law, does he also think that people guilty of similar behavior in other countries, such as Jordan or Syria or Iraq or Saudi Arabia, should also be punished? Or does he merely counsel acquiescence in the American legal system because, at present, Muslims cannot change it, and it is more important to outwardly conform -- temporarily -- with the American system so as better to work, over the long term, for changes in America that will lead to what Al-Marayati and those who think and believe like Al-Marayati consider to be the “betterment” of America?

And what could be “better” for America than the onward march of Islam, and an end to all of those elements, including the Constitution of the United States, that flatly contradict the spirit and letter of Shari’a? Just look around the world, look at the vast lands that over the past 1350 years have been conquered by Islam, ordinarily, though not exclusively, through military force. And look at the wiles and guiles that have helped Muslims avoid having to declare, in their mental baggage, as they leave the Lands of Islam (where all the failures of those lands can be intelligently attributed to the teachings of Islam itself), that they are quite different from refugees from the Nazis, who hated the Nazis and Nazism, and refugees from Communism, who hated the Communists and Communism, despite in a sense being “refugees” from the Misrule, in every sense, of Islam.

No, most of those who leave the awful societies of Dar al-Islam take a bit of Dar al-Islam with them. Yet they flee its natural violence, and aggression, and corruption, and political paralysis, and economic paralysis which are natural results both of the Muslim hatred of bida (innovation), and of the Muslim encouragement of an attitude of inshallah-fatalism. They flee an intellectual wasteland, reflected in such things as openness to the world as suggested by the number of translated works, because in Islam, what is pre—Islamic, or what is non-Islamic, is part of one vast and contemptible Jahiliyya -- save in the one area that seems truly to interest Muslims, and that is the area of weapons manufacture. While they are indifferent to pure science, they seem terribly concerned to acquire the ability to rival or surpass the West in the production, or at least accumulation, of weaponry.

There’s much more, but you can elaborate on the theme -- including the moral squalor that the mistreatment of women and of all non-Muslims reveals.

Oh, yes.

What could be better?

What could be worse?
11593  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 13, 2009, 06:04:56 PM

Open Field Doctrine Law & Legal Definition

The open field doctrine is a term used in criminal law to stand for the concept that anything plainly visible to the eye, even if it’s on private property, is subject to a search since it’s not hidden. Under this doctrine, consent to inspect the location is not required in order for a law enforcement officer to observe and report on things in plain view and include observations made. An open field is not an area protected under the Fourth Amendment, and there is no expectation of a right of privacy for an open field.
11594  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: November 13, 2009, 05:56:39 PM
Hoo-boy.  rolleyes

Ok Rarick, where in the US constitution, statute or caselaw does it restrict the police from parking a police vehicle on a PUBLIC STREET for the purpose of surveilling potential criminal activity in a location that is visible from a PUBLIC STREET?

11595  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Hooray for "Mighty Mouse" ! on: November 11, 2009, 11:14:26 PM

My wife, who is 5 weeks away from graduating from a police academy, is very inspired by this story.
11596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Our Troops in Action on: November 11, 2009, 11:11:20 PM
My eyes got blurry reading that. Must be allergies or something....
11597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Wow, for a crazy guy, he sure knows lots of terrorists.... on: November 11, 2009, 09:11:40 AM

Senior Official: More Hasan Ties to People Under Investigation by FBI
Alleged Shooter Had "Unexplained Connections" to Others Besides Jihadist Cleric Awlaki
Nov. 10, 2009 —

A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki. The official declined to name the individuals but Congressional sources said their names and countries of origin were likely to emerge soon.
11598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: November 11, 2009, 08:48:23 AM
At this point in the game, getting Russia's support on Iran isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Obama selling out our allies in exchange for it is beyond stupid, but far from unexpected.
11599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: China on: November 11, 2009, 08:42:25 AM

If true, this will shake the world.
11600  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Self-Defense Law on: November 10, 2009, 10:49:12 PM

Forcible and atrocious crimes

If you argue that you acted in self-defense because you believed you were about to be killed, maimed, raped, robbed, or the victim of another California violent crime, the judge will instruct the jury that they may presume you had a reasonable belief that you were about to suffer imminent harm.16

If you acted in response to one of these "forcible and atrocious crimes", the jury will only need to consider whether you responded reasonably.

**It appears so. I am not an expert in California law. Please consult with an attorney/qualified expert just to be sure.**
Pages: 1 ... 230 231 [232] 233 234 ... 294
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!