- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
I hate that groups like the ACLU have to defend nazi scum to protect my liberties. Better that the government not violate our rights in the first place, but in lieu of that, even nazi scum is subject to the same rights and due process as any other citizen. However, I wouldn’t mind if they got pantsed a couple of times by their lawyers.
You must log in or register to comment.
The ACLU are savvy litigators and picked a client our Supreme Court might be sympathetic to
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
Hard cases make bad law. Make sure the Nazi’s rights weren’t infringed 😬
Legal precedent is important and he’s gonna rot regardless (not an endorsement of our prisons, he’ll likely have friends in there)
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!
