Founding Fathers burned Tree

Socrtease said:
Your a fucking idiot! Many people have been acquited of a crime and then sued the agency that violated their rights and won millions of dollars because their rights were violated. God what a fucking moron you are. There have been numerous 1983 civil rights suits resulting from evidence suppression which led to acquitals. The more you open your mouth the more you prove you have NO idea of what a violation of constitutional rights are. You are the king of the Constitutitards.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it do you?

If I arrest you, toss you in jail, put you through a lengthy trial and it turns out you were innocent, then it isn't a violation of your rights if I say... 'my bad'
 
Socrtease said:
Your a fucking idiot! Many people have been acquited of a crime and then sued the agency that violated their rights and won millions of dollars because their rights were violated. God what a fucking moron you are. There have been numerous 1983 civil rights suits resulting from evidence suppression which led to acquitals. The more you open your mouth the more you prove you have NO idea of what a violation of constitutional rights are. You are the king of the Constitutitards.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about a 1983 law but this one, dummy.
 
Phoenix police, in a written report later provided to Mr. Jammal as part of his prosecution, said they had "confirmed" that he "had significant connections to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda." At some point after that -- prosecutors won't say precisely when -- authorities got a warrant to tap Mr. Jammal's phone and bug his office.

Mr. Jammal, a 36-year-old U.S. citizen born in Lebanon, was never charged with any offense related to terrorism. Yet evidence collected in the FISA eavesdropping played a role in his conviction last April on federal charges focused on fencing stolen baby formula, for which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Click to expand...

conveniently, you skip the part I just bolded. This is classic CYA by the phoenix PD in order to justify using the patriot act.

This is bullshit and you know it, but you keep on keeping on with your totalitarian ways. I repeat, YOU are not a conservative.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
conveniently, you skip the part I just bolded. This is classic CYA by the phoenix PD in order to justify using the patriot act.

This is bullshit and you know it, but you keep on keeping on with your totalitarian ways. I repeat, YOU are not a conservative.
Click to expand...

Here's the part that you skipped:

Mr. Jammal is appealing, contending that FISA evidence used against him was illegally obtained and crippled his defense. He says the charges against him were trumped up by a government determined to show progress in the war against terror. "It's baby formula of mass destruction here," he said at one pretrial hearing.
Click to expand...

Most criminals claim that they are innocent.
 
Southern Man said:
We're not talking about a 1983 law but this one, dummy.
Click to expand...
You mouth breathing knuckle dragging MORON . 42
U.S.C 1983 is the federal law you can sue under if your consitutional rights have been violated. In legal circles it is called a 1983 suit. But SF understood what I meant. He KNEW that it was not a 1983 law but a law suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. I love when a person tries to pretend that he knows what he is talking about and then his own words prove he doesn't.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so it's irrelevant that an anti-terrorism law was subverted to prosecute a domestic crime because the defendant was guilty anyway?

I repeat, you are not a conservative. You are a totalitarian of the worst kind. You should get together with the liberals on this board because you've just been outed as one.
Click to expand...
He admitted to being guilty.

Liberals would let the guy go.
 
Socrtease said:
You mouth breathing knuckle dragging MORON . 42
U.S.C 1983 is the federal law you can sue under if your consitutional rights have been violated. In legal circles it is called a 1983 suit. But SF understood what I meant. He KNEW that it was not a 1983 law but a law suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. I love when a person tries to pretend that he knows what he is talking about and then his own words prove he doesn't.
Click to expand...
I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Instead, I know right from wrong. If that bothers you then I am happier because of it. :)
 
Southern Man said:
I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Instead, I know right from wrong. If that bothers you then I am happier because of it. :)
Click to expand...
You think you know right from wrong? Well then know that you were wrong about there being no rights violation if there is no conviction. I proved not only that you are no lawyer, but you know nothing about the law at all.
 
Socrtease said:
You think you know right from wrong? Well then know that you were wrong about there being no rights violation if there is no conviction. I proved not only that you are no lawyer, but you know nothing about the law at all.
Click to expand...
Your "proof" was on a different subject matter. I've dealt with enough lawyers to know that tactic, and it is not to pursue truth, but to distort it.
 
Southern Man said:
Why do you assume that is my motivation?
Click to expand...

1) your tendency to interpret exceptions and exemptions within the constitution that affords extra powers to the government where there are none.

2) your acceptance of the government violating rights protected by the constitution in order to pursue your overreaching 'law and order' agenda.

3) your endorsement of using laws enacted to combat terrorism being used for the enforcement of domestic and civil crimes that have no trace to terrorism at all.

4) your willingness to allow government to exceed their limited constitutional powers so that you can feel more secure and safe during times of 'war'.

need me to go on? or do you require more examples of your totalitarianism?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) your tendency to interpret exceptions and exemptions within the constitution that affords extra powers to the government where there are none.

2) your acceptance of the government violating rights protected by the constitution in order to pursue your overreaching 'law and order' agenda.

3) your endorsement of using laws enacted to combat terrorism being used for the enforcement of domestic and civil crimes that have no trace to terrorism at all.

4) your willingness to allow government to exceed their limited constitutional powers so that you can feel more secure and safe during times of 'war'.

need me to go on? or do you require more examples of your totalitarianism?
Click to expand...

Actually, these powers do exist when war is involved. The Constitution isn't a death pact.

You don't know if this guy didn't have ties to terrorism. I suspect that he pleaded guilty of a lesser charge because they had evidence to support a longer punishment for it.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, these powers do exist when war is involved. The Constitution isn't a death pact.
Click to expand...
These powers do not exist in war time or any other time, except as suggested by some USSC decisions AFTER the constitution was ratified.

Southern Man said:
The Constitution isn't a death pact.
Click to expand...

A quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but was actually used in several USSC decisions by Justice Robert H. Jackson. A justice who often gave way to government power over individual rights, all in the name of public safety and ordered society. In otherwords, a totalitarian.

Southern Man said:
You don't know if this guy didn't have ties to terrorism. I suspect that he pleaded guilty of a lesser charge because they had evidence to support a longer punishment for it.
Click to expand...

irrelevant. your speculation is meaningless in the face of facts and knowledge displayed by Soc and I.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
These powers do not exist in war time or any other time, except as suggested by some USSC decisions AFTER the constitution was ratified.



A quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, but was actually used in several USSC decisions by Justice Robert H. Jackson. A justice who often gave way to government power over individual rights, all in the name of public safety and ordered society. In otherwords, a totalitarian.



irrelevant. your speculation is meaningless in the face of facts and knowledge displayed by Soc and I.
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 9, clause 2: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top