5 ms·

edit: I never should've opened my mouth, whenever will I learn...

wutbrodo 9y ago
I literally have no idea what you're talking about and now I'm actually really curious to find out what I'm missing. The concept of the material witness process being abused is relatively new to me, and I can't think of any other "obvious" issue that it maps to easily. EDIT: Since you deleted your response claiming I should read the article more closely and quoting the section on abuse during 9/11, here's my reply: If you actually _read_ the article instead of looking for buzzwords and rushing to post a comment (first!), you'll find that most of the examples have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: the first few examples are a guy shot on a basketball court, rape and DV victims, etc. If you think that anti-terrorism is the reason behind those material witness arrests, then I'm afraid your confusion runs far too deep for a closer reading of the article to help.
- tehlike 9y ago
  your point is correct, but we have seen way too many instances where laws originating due to terrorism (patriot act comes to mind) gets abused for randomly spying on the citizens of the united states. Terrorism is also the underlying reason why some of these laws are not overruled and are still in place. When the law is in place, law enforcement is free to use it, even if the intention of the law is different. It's lawful.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    I'm not sure this law falls under that category. It's been around since the 1800s,far far far longer than the phenomenon of modern terrorism shaping US politics.
    - tehlike 9y ago
      https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/28/us-misuse-material-witness-statute https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/28/us-misuse-material-witne... I think my point is, as long as these exists there is probably less pressure to update the law?
- quirkafleeg 9y ago
  > If you actually _read_ the article instead of looking for buzzwords and rushing to post a comment (first!), I didn't see his now edited comments so can't comment on what he wrote, but since I did see your posts, why are you trying to write off as mere "buzzwords" the section of the article about a Human Rights Watch report of 70+ people being jailed, one for over a year, under material witness warrants? Why are you suggesting he read the article (a no-no here anyway) if he quoted from it? If someone wants to comment about something in the article[1] that you don't happen to be interested in there are better ways of dealing with it than attacking the poster, dismissing him as confused and accusing them of behaviour (scanning for buzzwords) and motives ("FIRST POST!") which you can't possibly support or back up. [1] A lot of the time people here just use a keyword in the subject to dredge up some hobby horse that has nothing remotely to do with the article.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- colemickens 9y ago
  That wasn't my point, but thanks! Also, thanks for implying that I rushed to comment on a story 30 minutes old.
  - dang 9y ago
    Would you please stop posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments? It provokes responses that lower the quality of the site, having much the same effect as outright trolling. You've done this repeatedly and we've asked you repeatedly not to. At some point we end up having to ban such accounts just to stave off overall decline.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    FWIW, I would assume that if you dropped the persecution complex and had actually just said what you thought, you would've been far less downvoted than whatever the hell you ended up doing here.
Retra 9y ago
Well, I don't know the answer one bit. But I suppose I can rest assured that smugly complaining about down-votes while saying absolutely nothing in a blatantly offensive way is a surefire way to turn one's own irreverence into a self-fulfilling prophecy of victimhood.

I literally have no idea what you're talking about and now I'm actually really curious to find out what I'm missing. The concept of the material witness process being abused is relatively new to me, and I can't think of any other "obvious" issue that it maps to easily. EDIT: Since you deleted your response claiming I should read the article more closely and quoting the section on abuse during 9/11, here's my reply: If you actually _read_ the article instead of looking for buzzwords and rushing to post a comment (first!), you'll find that most of the examples have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: the first few examples are a guy shot on a basketball court, rape and DV victims, etc. If you think that anti-terrorism is the reason behind those material witness arrests, then I'm afraid your confusion runs far too deep for a closer reading of the article to help.

tehlike 9y ago
your point is correct, but we have seen way too many instances where laws originating due to terrorism (patriot act comes to mind) gets abused for randomly spying on the citizens of the united states. Terrorism is also the underlying reason why some of these laws are not overruled and are still in place. When the law is in place, law enforcement is free to use it, even if the intention of the law is different. It's lawful.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  I'm not sure this law falls under that category. It's been around since the 1800s,far far far longer than the phenomenon of modern terrorism shaping US politics.
  - tehlike 9y ago
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/28/us-misuse-material-witness-statute https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/28/us-misuse-material-witne... I think my point is, as long as these exists there is probably less pressure to update the law?
quirkafleeg 9y ago
> If you actually _read_ the article instead of looking for buzzwords and rushing to post a comment (first!), I didn't see his now edited comments so can't comment on what he wrote, but since I did see your posts, why are you trying to write off as mere "buzzwords" the section of the article about a Human Rights Watch report of 70+ people being jailed, one for over a year, under material witness warrants? Why are you suggesting he read the article (a no-no here anyway) if he quoted from it? If someone wants to comment about something in the article[1] that you don't happen to be interested in there are better ways of dealing with it than attacking the poster, dismissing him as confused and accusing them of behaviour (scanning for buzzwords) and motives ("FIRST POST!") which you can't possibly support or back up. [1] A lot of the time people here just use a keyword in the subject to dredge up some hobby horse that has nothing remotely to do with the article.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
colemickens 9y ago
That wasn't my point, but thanks! Also, thanks for implying that I rushed to comment on a story 30 minutes old.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please stop posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments? It provokes responses that lower the quality of the site, having much the same effect as outright trolling. You've done this repeatedly and we've asked you repeatedly not to. At some point we end up having to ban such accounts just to stave off overall decline.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  FWIW, I would assume that if you dropped the persecution complex and had actually just said what you thought, you would've been far less downvoted than whatever the hell you ended up doing here.

Retra 9y ago

Well, I don't know the answer one bit. But I suppose I can rest assured that smugly complaining about down-votes while saying absolutely nothing in a blatantly offensive way is a surefire way to turn one's own irreverence into a self-fulfilling prophecy of victimhood.