Posted on 01/26/2004 12:00:05 PM PST by areafiftyone
However it might not be sufficient notice for "donators" to the FTO's. They could raise that in their defense- if they were just average people I wouldn't consider it sufficient for them.
Then it won't hurt if this judge outlaws a vague provision of the Patriot Act (which was hurried through Congress so fast some members never got to read the entire list of things they were voting to now make illegal.)
Actually, though, I'm wondering if it's ever been constitutional to ban political free speech, because if it has been, I can sure think of numberous exceptions. During the cold war, look at all the people who spoke up in favor of communism and the Soviet Union. Right up till the moment the Berlin Wall came down you could turn on KPFK radio here in Los Angeles and listen to people calling in with heavy Russian accents to defend the Soviet Union and attack the US.
Remember the Speaker of the House who wrote the "Dear Commandante" letter to Daniel Ortega. Nothing every happened to him or to the other members of congress who went to Nicaragua to advise the Sandinistas how best to deal with the Reagan administration.
Or how about Jane Fonda who was photographed in a flak helmet sitting in an North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery. Then when she got home she said that all Americans should get down on our knees and pray that this country goes communist. She was aiding and abetting and doing everything but giving back rubs to our enemies but she was never prosecuted either.
Or what about all the anti-war protesters at Berkeley who were forever marching down Telegraph Ave carrying North Vietnamese flags and shouting their support for Ho Chi Minh? Except for the ones who started robbing banks or building bombs nothing happened to them either (many of them are on law faculties, holding comfortable government jobs or still seducing yet another generation of dewy-eyed coeds at brie and chablis parties at their bayview houses in the Berkeley hills).
Which part?
The part that lets me know that I can be prosecuted for breaking a law, even thought here is no rational way for me to know I've broken a law.
Run an insurance agency? Guy calls up, "How much for PL/PD on a '97 Chevy, for male, 27 years old, good driving history?"
You answer him, and *boom*, you're a felon.
We could go on, but you get the idea.
It's straight out of 1984. And 1939 too, for that matter.
I believe Ms. Rand (whom I'm no great fan of, but I know many here are) had a bit to say on the matter too.
Whew! Now that's a relief!
Um, you are the prosecutor in every one of those cases that might be raised, right? You must be. Otherwise you wouldn't assure us that it's something you wouldn't consider (in the context of assuring us that we shouldn't worry about the abuse potential of this anticonstitutional law).
Right. And "rarely" does an innocent man go down death row.
It's not even worth considering -- unless you're that innocent man. Or, someone concerned with the incremental march toward absolute statism.
Good conclusion.
Now tell us what that logic means when determining the quality of some of Papa Bush's appointees.
what a tangled web we weave.
That's nice, but when some hotshot prosecutor, eager to put a few notches in his belt, can throw you away and lock up the key because you said, "Fries with that, sir?" into an intercom at the McD drivethrough, something has gone terribly wrong with the lawmaking process.
There is no need to demonstrate that bad law has been abused, only that it can be abused.
This stuff has abuse written all over it.
Nice try, though. Go back to Spin School and brush up on "Debate Reframing 101" before trying again, OK?
Or keep spouting ignorance.
Not to mention the seizure of money from innocent elderly retirees, who were shaken down at the airport (ticket agent tips off the feds, and gets a percentage of the take), for the crime simple reason that they had the money.
No charge of any crime necessary -- no criminal charges filed. Just take the money, and STFU and move along now, "citizen."
Oh, if you want to "appeal" the taking of your money, you'll have to post an equal amount as bond. Nice Catch 22, eh?
Because "citizens" who live in fear of breaking unknown and unknowable laws are so much more manageable.
I recall that one example used was that a TV newsman could be prosecuted if a terrorist watching his television show found useful information about a potential target of a forthcoming terrorist attack.
Do a historical report on the White House, go to jail.
That part's easy. Don't take every deduction you know you qualify for, pay more taxes than you know you owe, and you'll be fine. Works for me.
And how is that relevant to the thread topic? But if you feel like going off on an off-topic rant, have at it.
--Boot Hill
I guess I can understand that.
Yup, so can I.
Anyone so treacherous as to advise a stranger, over the phone, "yes, sir, potatoes are on sale this week, but you'll save even more if you buy a roast at the same time" deserves to go to prison for life. Throw away the key!
Thank goodness! Now I'm once again free as an American to give my expert technical assistance to the leading practicioners of the Religion of Peace!
No, Mustapha, no! In Allah's name, you must first onnect eachof the detonator wires directly to a seperate post of the battery at the same time before setting the timer, or the device will not work....
Right.
That's because prior to this decision, they wouldn't dare, because it would be illegal!
Wow. The willingness to throw away the Constitution for an imaginary "bowl of pottage" is mind-blowing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.