Jump to content

Recommended Posts

No matter how big of POS one is ... everyone deserves their rights. That is what differentiates a real country where rules and rights are followed to a backwoods shit-hole with mob mentality. Otherwise we are no better than Pakistan or some other country where they just lynch you to death because you "seem" bad or were simply accused of something.

 

Selectively treating people leads to a chaos in the end.

Edited by HappYBallZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

For kicks, heres another type of "secret law". You have to pay a private company to read these types of laws, and they are not publically available. How can you be expected to follow the law, if you (i) do not know what it is or (ii) do not have free access to it?

 

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/20/1859220/liberating-the-laws-you-must-pay-to-read

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here you go, Risky!

 

http://rense.com/general79/sudrf.htm

 

... and thats just a taste.

 

You can simply search "secret laws united states" in any search engine to learn these things. I also believe the wiki leaks a few years ago also had mentions of secret laws.

 

Sure, you can google just about anything and read whatever you want but that's not exactly learning. Learning involves research, which means to dig deep and not just believe the first few things you read.

 

I'm also skeptical, especially when the article reads like this:

 

 

That said, it is interesting to note the degree of deception and secrecy they maintain even as they attempt to mold the FISA law to give the appearance of abiding by warrants. Why go to all this trouble if they already do what they want, behind the veil of secrecy? They must do so because most people in the justice department are not knowing conspirators in the surveillance process, and need to be kept in the dark about the deeper violations, and/or diverted away from searching deeper.

 

That makes zero sense....

 

Here's a different article talking about the secret TSA 'law' or 'rule' that the government claims is just a 'technique'.

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2006/11/supreme_court_a/

 

Requiring passengers to show identification isn’t a rule, the government argues. Instead, it’s a law enforcement technique "used to detect possible violations of the law, such as the prohibition on carrying a weapon or explosive onto the plane or a violation of the no-fly list."

 

The TSA has refused to make the order public on grounds of national security and for years, denied even the existence of a policy directive to the airlines.

 

 

Sounds more like a bureaucratic mess of not wanting to overturn a longstanding policy for fear of security concerns despite constitutional conflict... and from the supreme court ruling regarding the suit that follow, the big part of their decision came from this interpretation: (sorry, couldn't paste the text right)

http://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDecision.pdf

 

ruling.jpg

 

It also goes on to state that the 'order' was given by 'an appropriate government official and under proper authority as required by 46110 (a).' So... it really turns out that it's not some 'secret law', it's TSA policy that they don't want to release and the government's lawyers convinced the court that it was appropriate. Now, you can argue about the legality of that if you like, FIA requests and such... but to say that it's some 'secret law' passed in the backrooms of DC... and that its evidence of a whole secret substructure of the U.S. Code if you wanna go that far... I just don't see the evidence of that.

 

For kicks, heres another type of "secret law". You have to pay a private company to read these types of laws, and they are not publically available. How can you be expected to follow the law, if you (i) do not know what it is or (ii) do not have free access to it?

 

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/20/1859220/liberating-the-laws-you-must-pay-to-read

 

Because unless you're in the business of making bicycle helmets and the like, you'll never need to. That's all common corporate procedures and doesn't apply to anything what we're talking about.

 

You're really grabbing at straws here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last part was for fun, as was stated. And yes, I do have a right to know, as I, in the end, am required to comply.

 

The prior part requires doing research, as you've noted, but the fact is that rules such as these affect the law. Moreover, while you can pick and choose a section of any paper to say its bull, the fact is that we are subject to many laws which have secret interpretations, many regulations which effect the law in nefarious ways, and it goes on and on.

 

But, that stuff aside, with regard to secret laws, If you didn't like the first one, how about this one? http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html

 

Moreover, Mao himself stated that they were flat out breaking the law with respect to people found innocent in court but considered to be a potential threat, and that he is just making new laws. With that kind of crap, you really think secret laws are so outlandish, even if all the web pages I can cite are to your disliking?



Pounding this warrantless search stuff even further, the original article cited states that the courts consider it secret and shoudl be kept so-secret. Here's a wiki cite

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

Edited by Remek
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to read you your rights until they want your statements on record.

Since the guy couldn't talk at the time of the arrest, there would be no need.

I imagine his rights were explained to him before any real questions were asked......unless the cops fucked that up.

 

Tony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, while getting my kids bath ready, I realized I've been a bit deep in research on warrantless searches, and I might be going a little off the deep end with tin foil. I am also overtired from work and kids, lowering my ability to think. However the fact does remain that at the time, there was at the time there was a secret law. That made me find more secret law writings and helped me take their word.

 

The problem of finding the the secret law is a tough one. You cant unless its made non secret.

 

Anyway, i still dont trust any of these self serving idiots in office. Well, a few, but they are the ones considered nuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, while getting my kids bath ready, I realized I've been a bit deep in research on warrantless searches, and I might be going a little off the deep end with tin foil. I am also overtired from work and kids, lowering my ability to think. However the fact does remain that at the time, there was at the time there was a secret law. That made me find more secret law writings and helped me take their word.

 

The problem of finding the the secret law is a tough one. You cant unless its made non secret.

 

Anyway, i still dont trust any of these self serving idiots in office. Well, a few, but they are the ones considered nuts.

 

Don't worry man, we're all off the deep end around here. I still think 'secret law' is more of an argument about semantics, and that a real secret law is an oxymoron.

Anyway, I get what you're saying... there is much that is withheld from the public for all sorts of reasons, both right and wrong. I know, I held a TS/SCI clearance for about 5 years...

 

Shit! Did I just blow my cover? ohmy.png010.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, while getting my kids bath ready, I realized I've been a bit deep in research on warrantless searches, and I might be going a little off the deep end with tin foil. I am also overtired from work and kids, lowering my ability to think. However the fact does remain that at the time, there was at the time there was a secret law. That made me find more secret law writings and helped me take their word.

 

The problem of finding the the secret law is a tough one. You cant unless its made non secret.

 

Anyway, i still dont trust any of these self serving idiots in office. Well, a few, but they are the ones considered nuts.

 

Don't worry man, we're all off the deep end around here. I still think 'secret law' is more of an argument about semantics, and that a real secret law is an oxymoron.

Anyway, I get what you're saying... there is much that is withheld from the public for all sorts of reasons, both right and wrong. I know, I held a TS/SCI clearance for about 5 years...

 

Shit! Did I just blow my cover? ohmy.png010.gif

Did someone just say blow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...