quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
1. I believe you are a left winger based on the content of your political posts. By that I mean "liberal." Correct me if I'm wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're wrong, dead wrong.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
2. I reach no conclusion on this arrest because I don't know what the charges were as they pertain to Federal and State Law, and I haven't seen the Probable Cause Affidavit.
Newpaper accounts, as you should know, are NOTORIOUS for getting their facts incorrect. The arrest may or may not be lawful. I'm merely saying that I don't know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that you reached no conclusion, but I guess I read something else in your original message. If the facts are correct, I think it's terribly unlikely that it was a proper arrest, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
I point this out because in another thread, your thread title stated that proposed legislation by a conservative lawmaker would make protesting illegal. That was obviously false, but a trap a lot of us tend to fall into - of automatically believing what we read in a blog or elsewhere in the media - if it fits our ideology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter if the lawmaker is conservative or liberal, if they propose legislation that erodes the freedoms my forefathers fought and died to gain and keep, they're an idiot. This applies to democratic senators that try to pass laws against gun ownership, and it applies to Arlen Specter if he tries to make it a felony to protest in a 'restricted area'. You know that kook Cindy Sheehan? I think she's doing a lot to taint the memory of her sons sacrifice and whatnot, but I don't think it was appropriate to have her removed from the SOTU address. That was clearly a 'restricted area', btw, and under the proposed law, she would have been guilty of a felony. How's that right? But c'mon, if you want to talk about that, keep it in that thread, don't leak over to this one. - Chairboy
It occurred to me when I read your post that the agent was surveiling the subject because she was a suspect, or an associate of a suspect, in a criminal act (fire bombing, for instance)
It also occurred to me that when the subject became aware of the agent and approached to photograph his vehicle tag, it could personally identify the agent... if the tag was not a fake tag, which is usually used in surveillance. This could endanger the agent, considering some of the violent acts comitted by eco/animal rights terrorists, not to mention that there may be specific laws against an intentional act like this.
It occurred to me that there may be more to this story than published.
My original post was to point out that these things did not occur to you because you are biased... it never occurred to you that the agent may have been protecting the civil rights of American citizens who are victims. After all, when the ACLU asserts something, it must be true - right?
You stated:
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. This is getting progressively worse every day, and even the dedicated lunkheads should be starting to see this by now. - as though there is no other possible explanation for what happened. (BTW, if there was something improper here, I
will be outraged.)
I agree that we need to keep a close eye on our government. But I have the impression that you hate Bush so much that it leads you to errors in critical thought. If I'm wrong, I apologise.
