Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 02, 2012, 12:37:26 PM
-
Interesting article. It would be funny if it wasn't so true.
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=34606&content=67497023&pageNum=-1
-
Interesting article. It would be funny if it wasn't so true.
http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=34606&content=67497023&pageNum=-1
They all ought to be strung up from the nearest tree as honorless oath-breakers.
-
So it has gotten to a point where there are so much police that they are tripping over each other all the while failing adhere themselves to the Law. I think that qualifies as a Police State... or a Three Stooges episode.
-
"the judge" again?
what crime was committed by the new york cops again? surely a noted jurist like him coulda told us?
no? theres a reason
-
And the apologies begin.
-
"the judge" again?
what crime was committed by the new york cops again? surely a noted jurist like him coulda told us?
no? theres a reason
Did you read the article?
-
Did you read the article?
Apologize first. It's SOP.
-
Did you read the article?
yea i did and a few others.
what crime was committed? looking at publicly posted stuff? showing up at public events?
heres a hint
real lawyers are not as impressed with the judge as those who think because they like what he says hes a genius
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284393/andrew-napolitano-s-mistake-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349347/posts
alex jones in a black robe was a judge a short time and never made it past middle level jersey state court
-
don't we have a thread where the nypd's actions were discussed? or was it another forum?
-
a point of view
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nyc-mayor-ridiculous-for-nj-officials-to-say-nypd-surveillance-should-stop-at-border/2012/03/02/gIQATdadmR_story.html
-
Just whose lives were saved, here?
-
Just whose lives phony-baloney make-work jobs were saved, here?
HTH.
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2785297/posts
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/10-Jan-2012/fbi-arrests-american-muslim-in-a-bomb-plot
-
And this has bearing on this story how?
-
yea i did and a few others.
what crime was committed? looking at publicly posted stuff? showing up at public events?
heres a hint
real lawyers are not as impressed with the judge as those who think because they like what he says hes a genius
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284393/andrew-napolitano-s-mistake-andrew-c-mccarthy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349347/posts
alex jones in a black robe was a judge a short time and never made it past middle level jersey state court
Oh SHOCKING ... Judge Napalitano has people who disagree with him. I hear lawyers debating other lawyers all the time. Do you really think all lawyers always agree with each other?
He's not the only legal expert on Fox, O'Reilly has a couple of the pretty lady lawyers on and they hardly ever agree with each other. It does get fun, however, when they 'splain to Wild Bill why HE is wrong on some point in a discussion of a legal case. [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
yea i did and a few others.
Then you saw that he alleged some pretty serious civil rights violations, so your question doesn't make any sense.
Sorry, I don't know anything about Napolitono. He's just a name to me. I didn't know he wrote the article.
-
Then you saw that he alleged some pretty serious civil rights violations, so your question doesn't make any sense.
Sorry, I don't know anything about Napolitono. He's just a name to me. I didn't know he wrote the article.
he made his trademark broad allegations.
the question is what law does he or you allege was broken.
hes got books to sell to the fathful
-
he made his trademark broad allegations.
the question is what law does he or you allege was broken.
hes got books to sell to the fathful
Ha! When I first read that on my tiny phone screen I thought it said fitful fistful. :lol:
Edit - Stupid autocorrect. :mad:
-
fitful works too.
he says what they wanna believe so hes a genius and it must be true
-
he made his trademark broad allegations.
the question is what law does he or you allege was broken.
hes got books to sell to the fathful
Allegedly, illegal wiretapping and probably NJ stalking laws. If the CIA dude was there, there is a large number of rules and laws broken. CIA domestic surveillance is illegal, and a really really bad idea. Why any cop would be dumb enough to involve them is beyond my guess.
Could be violating NJ gun laws too. :laugh:
-
One can state laws are violated even if no court ever files charges.
-
real lawyers are not as impressed with the judge as those who think because they like what he says hes a genius
Hey, Obama is a real lawyer, I'll bet he disagrees with Napolitano as well =D
-
It tickles me pink that "see something, say something" got the FBI and CIA arrested.
-
he made his trademark broad allegations.
the question is what law does he or you allege was broken.
hes got books to sell to the fathful
Did I say I agree with him? ??? Here, I'll put the relevant portions in bold for you.
Should the FBI agents and the local cops arrest the NYPD and the CIA agent for violating the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions, both of which prohibit searches and seizures without search warrants, and for violating federal and New Jersey laws against wiretapping and surveillance?
Should the NYPD and the CIA agent arrest the FBI agents and the local cops for breaking and entering and obstructing a governmental function without a search warrant?
Did the FBI and the local cops even have a search warrant? Was the NYPD/CIA surveillance a lawful governmental function?
No one at the scene of this unique encounter was arrested. In return for not becoming a defendant, everyone agreed not to become a complainant.
The FBI and the New Brunswick police went home, and the NYPD cops and their CIA mentor went back to their surveillance -- even though everyone in that office had sworn the same oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it.
Among those laws are the state statutes that limit the authority and jurisdiction of local cops to the municipality that employs them, and the federal statutes that limit the legal ability of CIA agents to steal secrets only from foreigners outside the United States.
Stated differently, the NYPD has no authority or jurisdiction to engage in surveillance in New Jersey, and the CIA has no authority or jurisdiction to engage in surveillance in the U.S.
How much more specific do you expect him to be in a piece of mainstream opinion journalism? Any more specific, and he'd have to bill all the relevant agencies for his legal counsel. :facepalm:
-
i highlighted all the manure
On June 2, 2009, a janitor in an office building in New Brunswick, N.J., noticed what he thought was terrorist-related literature and sophisticated surveillance equipment in an office he had been assigned to clean.
He told his boss, who called the local police, who notified the FBI.
Later in the day, the FBI and the New Brunswick police broke into the office and discovered five men busily operating the equipment. Four of the men were officers from the New York City Police Department, and the fifth was a CIA agent.
The conundrum faced by all of these public servants soon became apparent. Who should arrest whom?
Should the FBI agents and the local cops arrest the NYPD and the CIA agent for violating the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions, both of which prohibit searches and seizures without search warrants, and for violating federal and New Jersey laws against wiretapping and surveillance?
Should the NYPD and the CIA agent arrest the FBI agents and the local cops for breaking and entering and obstructing a governmental function without a search warrant?
Did the FBI and the local cops even have a search warrant? Was the NYPD/CIA surveillance a lawful governmental function?
No one at the scene of this unique encounter was arrested. In return for not becoming a defendant, everyone agreed not to become a complainant.
The FBI and the New Brunswick police went home, and the NYPD cops and their CIA mentor went back to their surveillance -- even though everyone in that office had sworn the same oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws written pursuant to it.
Among those laws are the state statutes that limit the authority and jurisdiction of local cops to the municipality that employs them, and the federal statutes that limit the legal ability of CIA agents to steal secrets only from foreigners outside the United States.
Stated differently, the NYPD has no authority or jurisdiction to engage in surveillance in New Jersey, and the CIA has no authority or jurisdiction to engage in surveillance in the U.S.
Nevertheless, we now know from the candid admissions last week of NYPD Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly that his department has been spying without search warrants on Muslim groups in New Jersey and elsewhere for 10 years.
Former New Jersey governor and current state Sen. Richard Codey recalls authorizing the NYPD -- and not the CIA -- to inspect railroads and ferries that travel back and forth between New Jersey and New York in 2005.
He says he never authorized surveillance.
No public official in New Jersey has come forward to acknowledge awareness of all this, and Mr. Kelly says the spying will continue. But he needs a search warrant.
Can the police spy on us? Only if they have probable cause to believe criminal behavior is taking place and a search warrant signed by a judge.
Short of probable cause about the very persons on whom they are spying, not about a group to which those persons belong by birth or by choice, the police may not lawfully spy, and judges will not sign search warrants without specific probable cause about specific persons.
The specificity is required by the language of the Fourth Amendment. That language also guarantees that quintessentially American right -- the right to be left alone -- by establishing articulable suspicion as the linchpin of all police pursuit of anyone for anything, and probable cause as the trigger for search warrants.
Can the police choose a target upon whom to spy based on the target's religion?
No.
The courts have been clear that under no circumstances may religion lawfully be the sole or even the principal basis for surveillance. That's how World War II got started: German police targeted Jews because they were Jews, and for no legitimate law enforcement purpose and without probable cause.
Was the New Brunswick operation criminal? Yes, it was.
It's not too late to charge the NYPD officers or the CIA agent in state or federal court for spying.
It's also not too late to charge the FBI agents and the New Brunswick cops in state or federal court for failing to obtain a search warrant (if they didn't have one), and for malfeasance in office by not arresting the spies.
The sacrifice of liberty for safety is illusory. The liberty lost does not return. The safety gained is not real.
Who in New Jersey voluntarily gave up his liberty?
Who can feel safe or free with government agents secretly and unlawfully monitoring them?
What is the reliability and vitality of constitutional guarantees if those in whose hands we repose them actively violate them?
What religious group might law enforcement target next?
How dangerous to personal freedom is a cabal of law enforcement when it looks the other way to avoid prosecuting its own?
-
What is that supposed to mean?
-
What is that supposed to mean?
I dunno.
Kinda reminded me of this:
Brain: What is Troz?
Pinky: Why it's "Zort" in the mirror!Troz!
-
the bolded parts are those where "the judge" spoke from fourth point of contact. the more so since his truncated career as a judge was in jersey and one would hope he would be up on jersey law
-
Yeah, I saw that you linked to some other articles that informed us he couldn't know anything about federal law, him being a Jersey judge. Now you give his opinion no credence on New Jersey law. I guess he can't win.
Though I'm not sure why you think he's wrong about Jersey law, since according to you he didn't say which laws were broken. How do you know whether he's right or not?
-
Though I'm not sure why you think he's wrong about Jersey law, since according to you he didn't say which laws were broken. How do you know whether he's right or not?
Because back in the day, when CSD was a callow youth penning losertarian opinion pieces, he got his metaphorical *expletive deleted*ss handed to him by some jack-booted technocrats who overstepped their authority and ability to logically and reasonably criticize such a wayward losertarian youth. But, in retrospect, they did him a favor by maligning him and raising spurious arguments and taught him some important life lessons.
-
:police:
-
Because back in the day, when CSD was a callow youth penning losertarian opinion pieces, he got his metaphorical *expletive deleted*ss handed to him by some jack-booted technocrats who overstepped their authority and ability to logically and reasonably criticize such a wayward losertarian youth. But, in retrospect, they did him a favor by maligning him and raising spurious arguments and taught him some important life lessons.
within the article the manure is apparent. he tries to claim that the jersey folks didn't know that the ny cops were there but there is a quote that proves otherwise.
the purpose of that piece is to sell the judges book using it for more takes it outa warranty
-
Was the New Brunswick operation criminal? Yes, it was.
can you or the judge show us what law was broken? in real life not some dream
-
It was entertaining last time you asked that question. Now it's just old. You've been answered.
I would think at this point you'd give us reasons why he was wrong, since most of what you've posted doesn't even address this case. But it's a free country, so do whatever you want.
-
You've been answered.
really? i looked and can't find it
-
Yes, really. Also, if you don't know what laws he's alleging were broken, why are you saying he doesn't know NJ law?
-
i know what he alleges. his problem, and yours, is he can't substantiate any, hes trying to sell a book to suckers. whats your excuse?
-
i know what he alleges.
:laugh: Can't make up your mind, can you?
Now what is this problem I'm supposed to have?
-
can the judge or you substantiate any of the allegations?
Now what is this problem I'm supposed to have?
thats ripe for a thread all its own perhaps a poll
-
Why do you expect me to substantiate allegations made by someone else? I didn't make the allegations or agree with them, so...
I'm not sure why you think I'm a fan of "the judge." I don't have cable news here, and I haven't read his books. I'm sorry if I can't get all that ramped up about him.
-
Yep, went outside and checked again. The sky is blue. Even if CS&D insists it is green.
-
FBI Launches Unprecedented Attack On NYPD Over Muslim Surveillance Tactics
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/bloomberg-wont-criticize-christies-criticism-of-nypd-surveillance-of-muslims/
oblique reference.
-
So that's why Andrew Napolitano left Fox. To take a new job as editor of the NY Times.