A Federal Crime to Tell the Truth - 5 Years

[boyntonstu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

Judge Napolitano explains how our government is operating outside the Constitution.

What would you do if you were handed a handwritten warrant by an FBI agent?

Would you tell your attorney and thereby break "The Law"?

[leftysergeant]

Nobody is going to go to jail behind this, unless the case winds up in the courtroom of an absolute idiot of a judge, like one of those the Shrub appointed. Just another reason to keep Democrats in power until a few of the idiots like Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy croak or the dirt bags, like Roberts and Alito get impeached.

And if anyone ever suggests that Napolitano be appointed to the SCOTUS, laugh in his face.

The dithering old twit needs to learn what "regulate" means.

[GreNME]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY

Judge Napolitano explains how our government is operating outside the Constitution.

What would you do if you were handed a handwritten warrant by an FBI agent?

Would you tell your attorney and thereby break "The Law"?

Where the hell have you been the last seven to ten years? What's with all of the rage about these issues now as opposed to to the last decade?

[Chaos]

Where the hell have you been the last seven to ten years? What's with all of the rage about these issues now as opposed to to the last decade?

Back then, it was honest, god-fearing conservative patriots doing it.

Now, it is a secret commie crypto-muslim imposter and his traitorous henchmen doing it.

That´s the difference.

[Ladewig]

commie crypto-muslim

I think you mean "crypto-Muslim/atheist."
That's my favorite part: when they call him a Muslim/atheist.

[GreNME]

Back then, it was honest, god-fearing conservative patriots doing it.

Now, it is a secret commie crypto-muslim imposter and his traitorous henchmen doing it.

That´s the difference.

I know this. You know this. I'm just waiting for a single person who is raising six kinds of hell about this now to admit that it's so. And I mean it in more than some token "oh we didn't like George Bush" crap, either-- I mean admit that the rate of noise is directly proportional to the partisan presence.

[corplinx]

Napolitano has always been against it. You seem to be upset that right-leaning voters are finally listening to him. "HOW DARE YOU SEE THE LIGHT FOR THE WRONG REASONS!!!"

You're funny. And sad. (but so are they, so it kinda balances out I guess)

[leftysergeant]

Napolitano has always been against it.

Stopped Clock Syndrome.

[Brainster]

Napolitano's a kook; he once introduced Alex Jones as "the great Alex Jones."

[fullflavormenthol]

They're not "seeing the light", switch the party in power and they will pull out the old "well if'in ya ain't got nothin' to hide commie liberal!" (then they slap their knee and let out a yee-haw.)

All joking aside, it is because many of the people that now suddenly see it as a bad thing do so only because they don't like the idea of it being used against them; but the minute they have the power to change it they won't.

To put it in a more simplistic way...they are not mad about it just mad about who wields it. Oh and for the past 6 years every time I would bring it up I heard the response "if you ain't got nothing to hide..."

[Tsukasa Buddha]

He was just on Beck and gave the most hilarious dead-serious argument I've seen:

Beck: What's wrong with a National ID Card? You a criminal? Do you have something to hide?

Napolitano: I am afraid of losing my dignity, of my self-respect, my rugged individualism which is at the core of Americanism.

:dl:

He practically issues libertarian kool-aid.

[Chaos]

I know this. You know this. I'm just waiting for a single person who is raising six kinds of hell about this now to admit that it's so. And I mean it in more than some token "oh we didn't like George Bush" crap, either-- I mean admit that the rate of noise is directly proportional to the partisan presence.

If you´re waiting for them, you´re taking the wrong kind of pills... or perhaps way too many of the right ones.

After all, since when was there a snowball´s chance in hell (any of the six kinds of hell you mention) that they´d actually admit to that sort of bigotry? Because, in order to admit it, they´d first have to realize that they are bigots, and realizing things that don´t agree with their view of the world wasn´t ever their strong point.

[Nova Land]

Judge Napolitano explains how our government is operating outside the Constitution.


If you have listened to what Napolitano says and think it makes sense perhaps you could explain how our government is operating outside the constitution. As it is, there is no actual content in the thread even explaining this claim, let alone supporting it.

You did post a YouTube link, which I assume contains something of interest to you. If there is anything contained in the YouTube which you think is worth sharing, please take the time to do so.

A transcript of any relevant portions would be good, but if no one has cared enough about his comments to make a transcript then a summary by you of what is in the video would probably be adequate.

[GreNME]

Napolitano has always been against it. You seem to be upset that right-leaning voters are finally listening to him. "HOW DARE YOU SEE THE LIGHT FOR THE WRONG REASONS!!!"

You're funny. And sad. (but so are they, so it kinda balances out I guess)

Confirmation bias is a helluva way to go through live, (JREF) kid.

The guy linked to in the OP is a kook, but for reasons completely outside of many of the core freaking complaints whenever anyone self-identifying as "the far right" or actually spouting Tea Party rhetoric is actually cornered and pressed to itemize some of the principles they stand for. And, the thing is, I tend to agree with quite a few of the expressed principles, either in full or in part. The parts where I agree are why I voted the way I did in 2000 (to the right), and are very pointedly why I voted the opposite party in 2004-- I see no reason to hold party loyalty to any group who operates practically the opposite of what they claim, and after 3.5 years of support for Bush I felt that his administration and the majority of the GOP were precisely that. Screw that: if money is going to be spent, I'd prefer to know ahead of time how it's going to be spent so it's not nickel-and-diming my future planning to death, and I damned well don't want a crappy tax credit in return for not knowing.

Fast forward to the next administration, and now there's a new guy in the office and a new majority party in place, and the same ideological crowd from whom "America! Love it or Leave it!" was being yelled in regular succession are now having a holy heifer when the new guys are doing more than half the things they were not four or five years prior and freaking proud of.

Feel free to call it funny and sad, dude, but the fact is that in 2004 a majority of the people who are now screaming bloody murder voted in favor of similar governance that exists now. That's what's really pathetic.

[GreNME]

If you´re waiting for them, you´re taking the wrong kind of pills... or perhaps way too many of the right ones.

After all, since when was there a snowball´s chance in hell (any of the six kinds of hell you mention) that they´d actually admit to that sort of bigotry? Because, in order to admit it, they´d first have to realize that they are bigots, and realizing things that don´t agree with their view of the world wasn´t ever their strong point.

I don't agree that it's bigotry. It's prejudice, but it's prejudice that more often has more to do with a letter indicating partisanship than it does anything else.

[Skeptic]

Without remarking on this particular case, of course telling the truth is sometimes punishable by law -- and always has been.

For example, it is illegal to tell unauthorized people military secrets, or business information that is restricted, or personal information about one's patients.

[Alt+F4]

What would you do if you were handed a handwritten warrant by an FBI agent?

Before passing judgement on this I'd like to know a little bit more about the 86-year old librarian who got one of these handwritten warrants, showed it to her assistant and then was arrested and prosecuted by the Justice Department.

How about some names, dates, copy of the indictment?

:bs:

[jayh]

Before passing judgement on this I'd like to know a little bit more about the 86-year old librarian who got one of these handwritten warrants, showed it to her assistant and then was arrested and prosecuted by the Justice Department.

How about some names, dates, copy of the indictment?

:bs:

Well here's some commentary from the ACLU. If you read the article, it reminds us that NOTHING, NOTHING was done to rein in these unconstitutional items, despite all the posturing that Democrats did when the Repubs were in power. The two major parties are really TweedleDee TweedleDum big intrusive government supporters and while they posture, statists to the core, they really support pretty much the same ends. Regardless of what one feels about Napolitano, we desparately need to cut back government power, and cut it back DRASTICALLY if we're to retain any semblance of freedom.

The NSL statue is also known for the gag order that comes with it, preventing NSL recipients from even telling anyone they got an NSL. The House and Senate bills would have required the government to meet traditional First Amendment standards by convincing a court that national security will be jeopardized if the NSL recipient who wants to speak out about the government's action is not gagged. This is key, because the ACLU has filed three lawsuits on behalf of NSL recipients, and most recently, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that the NSL statute's gag provisions violated the First Amendment.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/congress-drops-ball-upgrading-patriot-protections

[Alt+F4]

Well here's some commentary from the ACLU.

Thanks for the link but it seems that the ACLU doesn't know anything about this 86-year old librarian either. In fact, a google search shows that this story can only be tied back to Napolitano. No independent verification if this actually happened, no informtion on the judge the lawyers, the court, anything.

Napolitano said a jury had already been seated, yet no information about any of this, except coming from him.

I know some of the lawyers who post here have access to a database of federal indictments and motions. Maybe one of them could shed more light on this case. You would think an 86-year old librarian being arrested would make the news.

[Alt+F4]

Wow, a bit more research on my part and as far as I know, Napolitano either out right lied or is too dumb to get the story straight.

The librarians weren't 86 and 78 years old. They weren't served with a handwritten warrent, they weren't arrested, they weren't indicted, there was no trial scheduled, there was no jury seated and there was no judge who was ready to toss the Patriot Act.

Here's what really happened:

In 2005 four Connecticut librarians were hit with an NSL which required them to turn over library computer records, they refused to comply. Next they were hit with a gag order, which they did comply with. The ACLU sued on their behalf, and a Bridgeport court ruled that the librarians constitutional rights had been violated. The government appealed the decision to U.S. District Court in Manhattan which later dismissed the government's appeal. The gag order was lifted and the evil government lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/librarians-desc/

[Brainster]

Wow, a bit more research on my part and as far as I know, Napolitano either out right lied or is too dumb to get the story straight.

The librarians weren't 86 and 78 years old. They weren't served with a handwritten warrent, they weren't arrested, they weren't indicted, there was no trial scheduled, there was no jury seated and there was no judge who was ready to toss the Patriot Act.

But aside from that he was right?

Pretty accurate for an Alex Jones fan.:D

[Alt+F4]

But aside from that he was right?

Pretty accurate for an Alex Jones fan.:D

I guess I'm still somewhat naive because it really suprised me that a former judge would so blatantly lie.

[Chaos]

Wow, a bit more research on my part and as far as I know, Napolitano either out right lied or is too dumb to get the story straight.

The librarians weren't 86 and 78 years old. They weren't served with a handwritten warrent, they weren't arrested, they weren't indicted, there was no trial scheduled, there was no jury seated and there was no judge who was ready to toss the Patriot Act.

Here's what really happened:

In 2005 four Connecticut librarians were hit with an NSL which required them to turn over library computer records, they refused to comply. Next they were hit with a gag order, which they did comply with. The ACLU sued on their behalf, and a Bridgeport court ruled that the librarians constitutional rights had been violated. The government appealed the decision to U.S. District Court in Manhattan which later dismissed the government's appeal. The gag order was lifted and the evil government lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/librarians-desc/

So he got the essentials right: government exists, and librarians exist. The rest are just irrelevant details.