4 ms·

Unchanged opinion since last submitted: some obsessive person is consistently and purposefully trying to dig out defense secrets while somehow being incredule t

Unchanged opinion since last submitted: some obsessive person is consistently and purposefully trying to dig out defense secrets while somehow being incredule that anyone would have any problems with it. Doesn't inspire much sympathy. When your delusions turn you into an unbeknownst foreign intelligence assets, I guess it's a bit sad but also... tough luck?

whatshisface 3y ago
>When your delusions turn you into an unbeknownst foreign intelligence asset Could you at least wait until we're at war before you bring out the usual wartime justifications for unconstitutionally restricting civilian's freedom of speech? From the linked website, >I was never given a reason for the raid, nor have I been charged with a crime. In fact, I have not heard from the FBI since the day of the raid. I have done nothing illegal.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Questions: 1. Do you think that confiscation of property for use in an investigation is unconstitutional? 2. Do you think that prosecutors need to be able to press charges as soon as or soon after the execution of a search warrant? If so, what is a reasonable time frame? 3. Do you think that people who regularly obsess over and take pictures of secure military installations are reliable witnesses regarding their own actions? 4. What do you propose be done in this case?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    1. "Unreasonable" search and seizure includes taking stuff from people, keeping it forever, and never giving it back despite taking arbitrarily long to charge them. 2. The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. If law enforcement has a good reason to hold you or your belongings, it is in anticipation of a trial. I don't think the police have a right to hold on to your stuff forever only for the shortest reasonable time as determined by the speed of the judicial system, not "until they crack the case enough to figure out whether it was you." 3. There is a time and a place for determining who is a reliable witness of what. 4. That the FBI either give this guy his PC back or press the espionage charges you come across as believing (with no evidence) he could be found guilty of.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      > That the FBI either give this guy his PC back or press the espionage charges you come across as believing (with no evidence) he could be found guilty of. I take offense to this. Why does someone asking what you believe lead you to conclude that they are against you? Thanks for explaining your position.
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Because although it may have been unintentional, your choice of words communicated a sentiment in addition to the literal meaning of what you wrote.
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
    1. Seizures needs a complete overhaul. The "unreasonable" part of the 4th amendment has (in my opinion) lost all meaning. Civil forfeiture is a shining example.
- aa1234556 3y ago
  [dead]

whatshisface 3y ago

>When your delusions turn you into an unbeknownst foreign intelligence asset Could you at least wait until we're at war before you bring out the usual wartime justifications for unconstitutionally restricting civilian's freedom of speech? From the linked website, >I was never given a reason for the raid, nor have I been charged with a crime. In fact, I have not heard from the FBI since the day of the raid. I have done nothing illegal.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Questions: 1. Do you think that confiscation of property for use in an investigation is unconstitutional? 2. Do you think that prosecutors need to be able to press charges as soon as or soon after the execution of a search warrant? If so, what is a reasonable time frame? 3. Do you think that people who regularly obsess over and take pictures of secure military installations are reliable witnesses regarding their own actions? 4. What do you propose be done in this case?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  1. "Unreasonable" search and seizure includes taking stuff from people, keeping it forever, and never giving it back despite taking arbitrarily long to charge them. 2. The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. If law enforcement has a good reason to hold you or your belongings, it is in anticipation of a trial. I don't think the police have a right to hold on to your stuff forever only for the shortest reasonable time as determined by the speed of the judicial system, not "until they crack the case enough to figure out whether it was you." 3. There is a time and a place for determining who is a reliable witness of what. 4. That the FBI either give this guy his PC back or press the espionage charges you come across as believing (with no evidence) he could be found guilty of.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    > That the FBI either give this guy his PC back or press the espionage charges you come across as believing (with no evidence) he could be found guilty of. I take offense to this. Why does someone asking what you believe lead you to conclude that they are against you? Thanks for explaining your position.
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Because although it may have been unintentional, your choice of words communicated a sentiment in addition to the literal meaning of what you wrote.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 3y ago
  1. Seizures needs a complete overhaul. The "unreasonable" part of the 4th amendment has (in my opinion) lost all meaning. Civil forfeiture is a shining example.
aa1234556 3y ago
[dead]