We seem to be junking the 4th amendment Lets see, the 2nd and 4th amendment seem to be unpopular with the powers that be, and are being discarded.
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.
Re: We seem to be junking the 4th amendment Liberals don't like guns, remember? A Team America quote seems appropriate:
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Instead Let us instead try Alexander for treason.
Re: Instead Ok, Mr. Know-it-all.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them..."
He is levying war against the people of the United States by violating their 4th amendment rights and is hence undermining the government which was formed for the purpose of protecting those rights among others.
said by Crookshanks:The ballot box doesn't work any more. The system is too far gone and no one person can fix it. It will have to be replaced at some point and probably by force.
He is simply doing what his political masters are paying him to do. If you want to attack this problem I suggest you keep it in mind the next time you go to the ballot box.
You all want Government to do everything for you but then you act surprised when it oversteps its bounds. Guess what? You can't have it both ways.
Who the hell is "you all"?
| |StuartMWWho Is John Galt?PremiumReviews:
I'm all snuggly. /sarcasm on
Keith Alexander Snuggly the Security Bear makes me feel so much safer.
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!
Totally misleading story
quote:Um, no. This is not about spying or secrecy. This is about NSA CyberSecurity recommendations, which are not secret. They are published.
NSA Wants Greater Immunity For Corporate Spy Pals
Response to Concerns About Secret Spying? More Secrecy!
The proposal says that if the government publishes CyberSecurity recommendations and they turn out to be incorrect, companies should not be able to be sued for damages for implementing them.
retroactive immunity What people or reporters keep ignoring is that retroactive immunity is a corruption of law, abuse of law, and creates a multiple tiered law system that treats each member of society as non-equal citizens.
That is very simple discrimination.
Everyone is to be equal under the law but thats not been happening for decades.
A police officer can murder without going to prison. A corporation can pollute the environment without prison punishment for their executives. The government can make certain targeted people all over the globe, disappear. If the peasants try the same thing, its prison for life.
When a company or government, or billionaire individual breaks justifiable laws, to grant them full/partial immunity afterwards is not legal. To grant them any immunity(aside from slightly lessor charges), unless it gets more people arrested, is not legal. Government wants the lowly peasants to Plea bargain your sentence to avoid the courts spending money prosecuting you or they will up the charges to punish you.
When a politician creates unlawful laws or creates martial law and calls it the 'Patriot act', they don't get punished. That is the biggest abuse of law.
Just creating a law and then signing it into law that abuses and ignore the Constitution or Charter of Rights should be life in prison for all politicians involved. But hey, their lawyers told them it was illegal in the first place, but when you can't get into the courts to challenge it, the sheep lay down and go to jail for doing absolutely nothing legally wrong.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Nietzsche
Re: retroactive immunity You are confusing criminal and civil law. The corporate immunity laws that were passed and signed are about companies who cooperate with legal requests from the government, and are then met with class action civil lawsuits.
No one is accused of "breaking the law" in these lawsuits. Instead, organizations like the ACLU and the EFF gin up some kind of tort complaint and look to extract money, time, and attention from those corporations, as well as to cause as much negative public opinion as they can.
Essentially, it's a way for groups who disagree with laws, legally passed and found Constitutional by the courts, to punish those who comply with them. They have not won a single one of these cases, yet the costs they inflict on these companies is a victory to them. My catchphrase for this is "death by 1000 lawsuits".
The Congress has moved to stop this by passing immunity laws. This proposal is just one more of these.
Think and research before you post nonsense about criminality and people going to jail. It's fine to have an opinion about what the laws should be, but don't pretend they are what they aren't.
Re: retroactive immunity Slavery? Really??? Last time I checked we are free to vote for our elected representatives and President, who then appoint Supreme Court judges. And we are free to speak our opinions, rally others to our side, and donate money to those candidates who would implement things the way we want them to be.
And, when Congress or the President is voted out, guess what? THEY LEAVE. there is no armed takeover. IT CAN WORK.
Why don't you go do that rather than throwing ill-thought-out statements out there. Next you'll be pulling out the Nazi comparison.
You really don't get my point do you? My point is, look at the situation with the correct set of facts. The proposal is not about criminal law, it is about limiting civil class action lawsuits as a tool to punish corporations who legally cooperate with the government. Sine they can't very successfully sue the government, they sue the corporations as a proxy. It's essentially a loophole that allows the minority to try to impose their will on the majority, when thy couldn't succeed at the ballot box.
Like I said before, none of these cases has ever succeeded, do its clearly a case of inflicting as much harm as possible on them via "death by 1000 lawsuits".