The ACLU are savvy litigators and picked a client our Supreme Court might be sympathetic to
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
66 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19104 readers
4791 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, on one-hand, fuck this asshole, who cares?
On the other hand, if this isn't challenged, it will happen more and more, and to anyone for any reason.
Exactly. It's like the saying about how we treat prisoners. Whatever we allow to happen to those lowest in standing is what will be allowed to happen to all of us eventually.
Making sure nazis have protected liberties is part of what makes us not nazis - but it doesn't guarantee asshats like that a platform or societal tolerance.
Whatever actions are taken should be within the law.
No. Nazis should not have protected liberties because they reject the social contract, therefore they should not be protected by it.
They should have protection of the law. That doesnt mean they dont deserve to be car bombed by the local socialist Redneck for shits and giggles. This is to ensure sympathic fuckwads dont cry foul or turn it on far less egregious groups.
So we can class them as a specific subgroup that we're allowed to mistreat and don't have the same rights as everyone else? We could make them wear little badges.
Yeah, it's called "felons", "inmates", "incarcerated individuals". All those J6 guys who are locked up got little numbers on their shirts.
If they commit a crime then we can lock them up. If they don't then they have the same rights as you and me. And that is a GOOD THING.
Having a belief is not voiding the social contract. Acting on that belief, is.
Christians can believe that a new Crsuade against satanists and Muslims and that they should all be killed post haste. But as long as they arent doing anything illegal, the social contract remains intact.
Nazis act on their beliefs by being nazis. Their existence as a continuance of a hate filled group that instigated the holocaust is an act of violence against society.
Hate isnt voiding the social contract
This is an odd test case. Not only is the defendant unsympathetic, the circumstances seem to be exactly what section 702 was intended for.
Whatever information was obtained through FISA (if it was), wasn't used as evidence against this guy. So they can't even prove that the Nazi was subject to a FISA search, much less that it harmed him.
I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.
Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That's the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to "homosexuals" (the 'in' term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it's a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.
Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.
But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases.
And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.
The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.
Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.
“Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”
The original article contains 915 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!