Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Are you planning on going to law school, Cyclops? Serious question.

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you planning on going to law school, Cyclops? Serious question.

No way!

Not that I don't think I would be capable... just that it's a lot of money and work to put into something you aren't sure you want to do.

I do work at a Law school (Boalt Hall) and see the size of the books these kids carry around every day. No thanks.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Are you planning on going to law school, Cyclops? Serious question.

No way!

Not that I don't think I would be capable... just that it's a lot of money and work to put into something you aren't sure you want to do.

I do work at a Law school (Boalt Hall) and see the size of the books these kids carry around every day. No thanks.

Cycloptichorn

I know you'd be capable. Since you work in the field, I thought you might be leaning that direction.

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

... But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.

Ah, and so Clinton is a philandering liar. A rutting monkey, perhaps?

Rutting monkey seems apt.

And yet people still quote him. Curious .... Are these people rutting monkeys?

I don't follow.

Translation: If you quote something Clinton said, are you condoning everything else Clinton said/did/is accused of?

If not, then why should those who quote Coulter be accused of approving anything other than what they quote, if that?

In terms of this national security view of the rule, a citizen is in many ways without ability to address this: the gov't can stonewall and say that for 'naitonal security' reasons they can't tell you why it was exigent; they could lock you up and not allow you access to a lawyer in court at all (see padilla, a true horror story if there ever was one). They (the gov't) may never present a case in court at all, leaving you little ability to challenge the legitimacy of what they've done.

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In terms of this national security view of the rule, a citizen is in many ways without ability to address this: the gov't can stonewall and say that for 'naitonal security' reasons they can't tell you why it was exigent; they could lock you up and not allow you access to a lawyer in court at all (see padilla, a true horror story if there ever was one). They (the gov't) may never present a case in court at all, leaving you little ability to challenge the legitimacy of what they've done.

Which national security view?

President Bush, in his signing statement, wrote:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Where in his signing statement is President Bush taking a national security view that you have a problem with?

It's the general idea that 'exigent circumstances' apply to national security issues which may or may not be of an immediate or pressing nature.

The example used is the ticking bomb, or the 'shots heard in the building'; but what if we're talking about documents which may lead to a terrorist funding source - or may be political information on dissidents here in the US, or some other info desired by the gov't which would not be approved by a judge?

After the complete bill, I wonder now, how "exigent circumstances" will arise in the context of a piece of first class mail.

I suppose, such was covered by previous bills already - or did someone have to get a warrant before taking care of such?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

After the complete bill, I wonder now, how "exigent circumstances" will arise in the context of a piece of first class mail.

Imagine a piece of first class mail that's suspiciously heavy and goes "tick tick tick tick tick...". Does the police open and defuse it, or must it ask a judge for a warrant first?

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

After the complete bill, I wonder now, how "exigent circumstances" will arise in the context of a piece of first class mail.

Imagine a piece of first class mail that's suspiciously heavy and goes "tick tick tick tick tick...". Does the police open and defuse it, or must it ask a judge for a warrant first?

Yeah, but we're not talking about the 'ticking bomb' exception - we're talking about any exception deemed to be 'foreign intelligence,' right?

And who decides whether it is foreign intelligence or not - especially since the contents of the mail would surely be classified afterwards?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

After the complete bill, I wonder now, how "exigent circumstances" will arise in the context of a piece of first class mail.

Imagine a piece of first class mail that's suspiciously heavy and goes "tick tick tick tick tick...". Does the police open and defuse it, or must it ask a judge for a warrant first?

Yeah, but we're not talking about the 'ticking bomb' exception - we're talking about any exception deemed to be 'foreign intelligence,' right?

And who decides whether it is foreign intelligence or not - especially since the contents of the mail would surely be classified afterwards?

Cycloptichorn

Probably those whose job it is to decide those things. I doubt W is going to be getting trucks of random mail dropped off in the oval office so he can snoop through everyone's mail. He probably has more pressing things to do like listen to your phone calls...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

After the complete bill, I wonder now, how "exigent circumstances" will arise in the context of a piece of first class mail.

Imagine a piece of first class mail that's suspiciously heavy and goes "tick tick tick tick tick...". Does the police open and defuse it, or must it ask a judge for a warrant first?

Yeah, but we're not talking about the 'ticking bomb' exception - we're talking about any exception deemed to be 'foreign intelligence,' right?

And who decides whether it is foreign intelligence or not - especially since the contents of the mail would surely be classified afterwards?

Cycloptichorn

Probably those whose job it is to decide those things. I doubt W is going to be getting trucks of random mail dropped off in the oval office so he can snoop through everyone's mail. He probably has more pressing things to do like listen to your phone calls...

Your failed attempt at snark aside, ...

Yeah, but we're not talking about the 'ticking bomb' exception - we're talking about any exception deemed to be 'foreign intelligence,' right?

And who decides whether it is foreign intelligence or not - especially since the contents of the mail would surely be classified afterwards?