Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Somewhat OT: Trust that laws will be applied as desired.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Brent P - 27 Mar 2008 20:09 GMT
We are told time and time again that laws will only be applied to the
bad people. For instance, against 'street racers' or 'drunk drivers'.
The idea that the laws will be applied against other people is
considered 'paranoid'. Once again, yesterday's tin foil hat becomes
today's mainstream news:

http://www.kansas.com/213/story/351592.html

"The lawyer for a man accused of being a major cocaine supplier for the
Wichita Crips gang contends that a secret search of the man's house
under the Patriot Act was illegal."

In a recent motion to suppress any evidence from the search, defense
lawyer Charles O'Hara argued that the Patriot Act was meant for "serious
matters involving national security," not drug cases like the one
involving his client, Tyrone Andrews.

<...>

In an affidavit filed in July seeking the search warrant, a federal
agent said a secret search was necessary to protect evidence and to
prevent suspects from fleeing or from intimidating witnesses.

<...>

Normally, investigators leave a copy of a search warrant and a receipt
for items taken once a house is searched. But in the Andrews case,
investigators obtained clearance to secretly search the house, which
they did July 17, and not notify him until 90 days afterward, O'Hara
said.

<...>

-------------
Ed Pirrero - 28 Mar 2008 00:30 GMT
On Mar 27, 12:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
[no driving content whatsoever]

What do you mean "somewhat OT"?  I don't see any car-related stuff in
there at all.

Maybe you just didn't quote the car-related stuff (leaving aside for a
moment that "car-related" is a pretty wide net even in r.a.*driving*.)

E.P.
gpsman - 28 Mar 2008 18:35 GMT
On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> We are told time and time again that laws will only be applied to the
> bad people.

Who told you that, time and time again?

> For instance, against 'street racers' or 'drunk drivers'.
> The idea that the laws will be applied against other people is
> considered 'paranoid'. Once again, yesterday's tin foil hat becomes
> today's mainstream news:

And today's tinfoil hat.

Are you seeking to confirm that you're an idiot?

Don't you know laws are enforced by "people", and people make
mistakes, and some people, sometimes, abuse their authority?

If you expect anything different, you need to cinch up your hat.
-----

- gpsman
Ed Pirrero - 28 Mar 2008 19:10 GMT
> On Mar 27, 3:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> If you expect anything different, you need to cinch up your hat.

Brent wasn't always like this.  He had anti-establishment leanings,
but heck - a lot of people are like that.

Then, he took some turn for the worse a few years ago, and started
believing all the conspiracy crap thrown out there by the likes of
Alex Jones - that some shadowy cabal of folks is out to control the
world, etc., etc.

The worst part about it is that he won't actually spew his dumbass
crap anywhere but r.a.d, so we have to read his O.T. drivel and smile
and nod.  Woe unto you if you disagree with his position, too.

If he aired his paranoid delusions in any newsgroup where the stupid
sh.t was actually on-topic, folks who have an interest in that stuff
would eat him alive.  Every now and again, I think about x-posting his
stuff to one of those groups.

And then I don't, because it's a total waste of bandwidth to begin
with...

E.P.
N8N - 28 Mar 2008 19:12 GMT
> Don't you know laws are enforced by "people", and people make
> mistakes, and some people, sometimes, abuse their authority?

I think instead of "sometimes" you meant "usually, unless there's some
serious oversight and accountability."  This is why laws need to be
written very specifically to address the actual problem at hand and to
not give sweeping powers without oversight.

We could be talking about traffic law, or we could be talking about
the Patriot Act, could apply to either one equally well.

nate
gpsman - 28 Mar 2008 19:35 GMT
> > Don't you know laws are enforced by "people", and people make
> > mistakes, and some people, sometimes, abuse their authority?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> We could be talking about traffic law, or we could be talking about
> the Patriot Act, could apply to either one equally well.

Heh, except traffic laws have oversight, by courts.

And you can't really expect the SC to find portions of the PA
unconstitutional, because desperate people often find desperate
measures necessary and reasonable.

The world tilts, to and fro.  Even if the jackass morons never do a
day in prison for war crimes, this is still the greatest and most free
country on earth.

Everything has a way of working itself out.  You may not live to see
it, but it will.

If in the meantime you find conditions in the US unacceptable, work to
fix them, or find a country more to your liking.  Bitching and whining
like a victim may make you feel better, but as a solution it isn't
very effective.
-----

- gpsman
N8N - 28 Mar 2008 20:24 GMT
> > > Don't you know laws are enforced by "people", and people make
> > > mistakes, and some people, sometimes, abuse their authority?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Heh, except traffic laws have oversight, by courts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*ahem*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

oh, you were serious.

This is why people don't take you seriously.

> And you can't really expect the SC to find portions of the PA
> unconstitutional, because desperate people often find desperate
> measures necessary and reasonable.

I thought it was the administration that was desperate, not the
SCOTUS.  I imagine that if a serious legal challenge is mounted to it,
certain provisions will indeed be found unconstitutional should they
get up to the SCOTUS level.

> The world tilts, to and fro.  Even if the jackass morons never do a
> day in prison for war crimes, this is still the greatest and most free
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> like a victim may make you feel better, but as a solution it isn't
> very effective.

Ah, yes, the old "love it or leave it" "argument."

Perhaps I love my country enough to point out where things are flawed,
unlike those that have nothing to offer but "patriotic" rhetoric.

nate
Matthew T. Russotto - 28 Mar 2008 21:44 GMT
>The world tilts, to and fro.  Even if the jackass morons never do a
>day in prison for war crimes, this is still the greatest and most free
>country on earth.

Even if it is, that standard is slipping every day the legislature is
in session.

>Everything has a way of working itself out.  You may not live to see
>it, but it will.

Thank you, Polyanna.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew T. Russotto - 28 Mar 2008 21:42 GMT
>> Don't you know laws are enforced by "people", and people make
>> mistakes, and some people, sometimes, abuse their authority?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>written very specifically to address the actual problem at hand and to
>not give sweeping powers without oversight.

Careful, referencing Acton's maxim might subject you to tinfoil-hatter
claims.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

N8N - 28 Mar 2008 21:53 GMT
On Mar 28, 4:42 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <6f5f73b3-fe81-44a4-b792-7c7c8edce...@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Careful, referencing Acton's maxim might subject you to tinfoil-hatter
> claims.

Acton was right up there with Murphy, in my book.

nate
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.