4 ms·

It sounds like the person in this case went through the normal court system whose processes resulted in his release. Probably the biggest shame in this case was

by fiter 8y ago

It sounds like the person in this case went through the normal court system whose processes resulted in his release. Probably the biggest shame in this case was not releasing him on bail. Tell me if I'm missing something!

pulisse 8y ago
Please think through the fact pattern presented in that article. The FBI raided a man's home on the basis of Facebook posts that the agency itself admitted couldn't be characterized as threats to any person or organization. They nevertheless held him without bail for five months while they attempted to find evidence to justify a charge of abetting terrorism or the like. They couldn't come up with anything. In the end they charged him with unlawful gun possession, but that charge was specious enough that it thrown out by a judge before even going to trial. In the meantime the man lost his job and his home. This wasn't the normal functioning of law enforcement. This was abuse of law enforcement to punish politically disfavored speech (which speech, I repeat, the law-enforcement agency in question conceded was non-threatening).
- fiter 8y ago
  The FBI was granted a search warrant by a judge based on evidence they presented. At the very least this is a process that involves multiple branches of the government. The decision to deny bail was based on logic that they provided in open court. I'll let you look at their logic and decide for yourself whether it makes sense. This is at least a reasonable system even if it needs some adjustments to get closer to justice. I referenced the following two URLs: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas... https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180131h16 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180131h16
  - ionised 8y ago
    > The FBI was granted a search warrant by a judge based on evidence they presented. At the very least this is a process that involves multiple branches of the government. I'm not sure why that is a justification. The Chinese security services clearly got the authority to act as they did to. It doesn't make it right.
    - fiter 8y ago
      That comment was in response to the previous poster saying the FBI raided the persons house. I wanted to put it in context: the judge agreed to let the FBI raid the persons house based on evidence. There is a system in place to prevent the FBI from arbitrarily raiding people's houses. It's a justification because they had to provide evidence to a judge who had to assess it given our laws. What better system should I expect? If it's not a system problem and so there's a particular failing in this case, please point it out. How was the authority given to the Chinese security services? This is a very important detail, because you can setup systems with checks and balances and laws or you can give carte blanche.

by fiter 8y ago

pulisse 8y ago

Please think through the fact pattern presented in that article. The FBI raided a man's home on the basis of Facebook posts that the agency itself admitted couldn't be characterized as threats to any person or organization. They nevertheless held him without bail for five months while they attempted to find evidence to justify a charge of abetting terrorism or the like. They couldn't come up with anything. In the end they charged him with unlawful gun possession, but that charge was specious enough that it thrown out by a judge before even going to trial. In the meantime the man lost his job and his home. This wasn't the normal functioning of law enforcement. This was abuse of law enforcement to punish politically disfavored speech (which speech, I repeat, the law-enforcement agency in question conceded was non-threatening).

fiter 8y ago
The FBI was granted a search warrant by a judge based on evidence they presented. At the very least this is a process that involves multiple branches of the government. The decision to deny bail was based on logic that they provided in open court. I'll let you look at their logic and decide for yourself whether it makes sense. This is at least a reasonable system even if it needs some adjustments to get closer to justice. I referenced the following two URLs: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas-the-first-prosecution-of-a-black-identity-extremist/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/30/is-a-court-case-in-texas... https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180131h16 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180131h16
- ionised 8y ago
  > The FBI was granted a search warrant by a judge based on evidence they presented. At the very least this is a process that involves multiple branches of the government. I'm not sure why that is a justification. The Chinese security services clearly got the authority to act as they did to. It doesn't make it right.
  - fiter 8y ago
    That comment was in response to the previous poster saying the FBI raided the persons house. I wanted to put it in context: the judge agreed to let the FBI raid the persons house based on evidence. There is a system in place to prevent the FBI from arbitrarily raiding people's houses. It's a justification because they had to provide evidence to a judge who had to assess it given our laws. What better system should I expect? If it's not a system problem and so there's a particular failing in this case, please point it out. How was the authority given to the Chinese security services? This is a very important detail, because you can setup systems with checks and balances and laws or you can give carte blanche.