4 ms·
If you have probable cause getting a targeted warrant is not an issue. For or against Trump has exactly ZERO baring on that. If you want records for 1.3 million
by harry8 9y ago
If you have probable cause getting a targeted warrant is not an issue. For or against Trump has exactly ZERO baring on that. If you want records for 1.3 million people you're in the realms of claiming there's a criminal conspiracy and a measurable fraction of adults in the USA are in on it.
Or you're doing dragnet on your political enemies.
It's wrong if someone working for Obama does it, it's wrong if Reagan does it, it's wrong if Hilary does it, it's wrong if _anyone_ does it. Including Trump. He's not special, he's the same whether you like him or not.
- buttcake 9y agoOk, I understand. Thank you.
- xxxdarrenxxx 9y agoThere are 530k national guards /rserved and 460k actual soldiers in America, combined making up 990k. That's 310k more "threats". Need a bigger army XD Half America crying out against Nazi's, but extracting information on certain categorized groups and being pro Nationalistic is how NAZIs (Hitler) rose to power in the first place. Some tough irony right there.
- dingo_bat 9y agoFor or against Trump is an issue. He is the president. You cannot threaten the president and expect no action from the FBI and secret service.
- brewdad 9y agoAre you saying 1.3 million people directly threatened the president? Really? This is a dragnet plain and simple. Will they find a few threats? Probably. My guess is 1.299 million Americans will needlessly be harmed by this action.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dingo_bat 9y agoHow will they be harmed? What do you suggest FBI should do to protect American interests? Will Google and other hosts block this website just like they are doing with neo Nazi domains? If yes, then probably FBI can rest. Otherwise they have to take measures that ensure the safety of America's elected president.
- charonn0 9y agoThe actions of privately-owned registrars are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
- dingo_bat 9y agoIt's not irrelevant. What Google and go daddy did is tantamount to censorship. And that actually does prevent somebody from exercising free speech.
- sixstringtheory 9y agoPrivate corporations and government are different, legally and philosophically. You won't be able to apply a law written specifically restricting the government to private citizens or corporations without a constitutional amendment. What Google and GoDaddy did was the private citizen equivalent of hearing someone else state their opinion, allowing the words to enter their brain, think about them, and then decide they do not espouse those opinions, so they will not go around stating them to other people as fact. That is not censorship, it's just good sense.
- charonn0 9y agoWhether or not Google and Godaddy's actions are appropriate is a separate discussion from whether or not the government can compel political websites to disclose their visitor logs.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y agoWho threatened him? Nobody has been accused of threatening - the people who were arrested in the case at issue are charged with rioting. And even if one of the rioters had also made threats, how is getting 1.3 million ip addresses of visitors to the site that organized the protest possibly salient to that investigation? It's not a forum, there isn't going to be any further incriminating evidence on it. If the threatener visited the site, the went to the protest and made the threat, what exactly does the government gain by proving that he visited it?