4 ms·

I get that investigations take time, but I can't see any possible justification for the FBI to be silent six months later. Even if there's still an "ongoing inv

I get that investigations take time, but I can't see any possible justification for the FBI to be silent six months later. Even if there's still an "ongoing investigation" the public has a right to know more than just the fact that the raid happened.

ajross 4y ago
> the public has a right to know Um... no it doesn't? If the government chooses not to charge a crime, that's the end of the story. You don't have a right to other people's houses, papers and effects just because a warrant was issued for it. Sometimes law enforcement makes mistakes, and when that happens the correct and just result is just to forget the whole thing. Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  > Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. Unless he's under a gag order, which wouldn't be at all surprising in a case like this. > But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him. Where did I suggest that?
  - ajross 4y ago
    OK, I see what you're trying to say. This is begging the question. You don't get to cite "the public has a right to know" as evidence that "he's under a gag order" unless you assume that he is. There's no evidence of a gag order or any other enforcement action beyond the raid itself, nor does the linked article provide any.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      You're making crazy leaps in logic. Nothing I said was meant to provide evidence that he's under a gag order. You said he has a right to speak up, I said that he may not. That's all.
      - ajross 4y ago
        Uh... no? It's not all. This started with you saying that the public had a right to know what happened at the raid. Then you brought up a hypothetical gag order. Am I really "crazy" to have assumed that you were citing the hypothetical gag order as a reason the public had a right to know about the raid? Maybe you could back out and explain this again?

ajross 4y ago

> the public has a right to know Um... no it doesn't? If the government chooses not to charge a crime, that's the end of the story. You don't have a right to other people's houses, papers and effects just because a warrant was issued for it. Sometimes law enforcement makes mistakes, and when that happens the correct and just result is just to forget the whole thing. Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him.

jaywalk 4y ago
> Obviously if Meeks has something to say, he has a first amendment right to do so. Unless he's under a gag order, which wouldn't be at all surprising in a case like this. > But you don't get to know what the FBI took from him. Where did I suggest that?
- ajross 4y ago
  OK, I see what you're trying to say. This is begging the question. You don't get to cite "the public has a right to know" as evidence that "he's under a gag order" unless you assume that he is. There's no evidence of a gag order or any other enforcement action beyond the raid itself, nor does the linked article provide any.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    You're making crazy leaps in logic. Nothing I said was meant to provide evidence that he's under a gag order. You said he has a right to speak up, I said that he may not. That's all.
    - ajross 4y ago
      Uh... no? It's not all. This started with you saying that the public had a right to know what happened at the raid. Then you brought up a hypothetical gag order. Am I really "crazy" to have assumed that you were citing the hypothetical gag order as a reason the public had a right to know about the raid? Maybe you could back out and explain this again?