Patriot Act Against a 16 Year Old

[Godboy]

I don't recall anyone saying you were supposed to do anything, you chose to read the thread and post in it.

You clearly didnt read the post that started this thread, because its apparent that Kevin Kennedy expected us to care. Which, by the way, is precisely the reason why he thanked you for your little smart ass comment.

Using your logic, every single thread you click on comes complete with the expectation of giving a fuck.

Perhaps message boards aren't for you, then.

I think its safe to say, generally speaking, that anyone who takes the time to respond to a thread, DOES give a fuck in one way or the other, and the person who started the thread is hoping people will respond, which i did. You shouldnt be using words like logic, because you obviously have none, troll.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, this doesnt seem to be true at all. It seems that with the patriot act, they CAN do exactly what they are doing to him, so technically his rights have not been violated, because in this situation he doesnt have those rights to begin with.

Correct.

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

Incorrect.

Congress passed the law. The President signed the law and it became law. This in itself does not mean it is a constitutionally legal law. The third part of the equation is the Supreme Court. When a case (maybe this one) finally gets to the Supreme Court and the court rules on the case, then we will know if the law is Constitutional or not. We might not even know then because they do sometimes rule on portions of the law and leave other portions untouched for future cases.

Immie

Its not unconstitutional until the supreme court rules its unconstitutional, and just as you implied, this case may never even see the supreme court.

Actually, it is the other way around, I believe. It is not deemed Constitutional until it has been ruled upon, but I may be incorrect on that.

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Wonder if they are torturing him and if that also is ok under the Patriot Act? (yes, sarcasm)

Even if the boy made bomb threats, he has the RIGHT to be charged with the crime and tried before a jury of his peers in a speedy manner.

I thought the patriot act was to spy and capture foreign terrorists and those are the people that did not have all of our rights? At least this is what was claimed at the time it was passed?

i'm pretty sure that this is probably a poor use of the PA
just like that Palm Beach DA that tried to use it against Rush(and failed)

 

[garyd]

Frankly we don't have anyone's say so but the mom's that the patriot act has anything to do with this or that even absent the patriot act this would not have happened. Various branches of the Feds have been going off half cocked for years before there was a Patriot Act. BATF Agants in particular have a long and nasty history of engaging in all manner of screwball crap that was patently unconstitutional long before anyone ever heard of the Patriot Act. And and at leasat a few sections of the patriot act have already been stricken and one suspects more will be as time moves forward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah... those teenagers could not possibly do anything... I mean.. those nice teens we ran into in Somalia... oh... wait...

Besides... what mom is not going to say "my son could NEVER do something like that"?... and because of the gag order, you are only getting 1 side of the story... and that side is being sensationalized by the typical media move

So.... yes, teens can commit atrocious things and they can hide them and it can be without the parent's knowledge... and we don't have all the details here... so I would not go instantly bashing the 'Patriot Act' or our system of law enforcement that is trying to protect us from terrorism, foreign and domestic

Nonsense. Teenaged boys in America are all sweet, cherubic angels. Just ask the Central Park Jogger and the people in Columbine.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Most Americans see President Barak Hussien Obama as a huge improvement over the prior incompetant.

The ones who can actually spell "Barack" and "Hussein" and "incompetent" really see no improvement, in fact it's just more of the same.

Interesting. I can spell all three and I think it's a vast improvement. And if it's all the same, why the constant mass hysteria from the right?

Is "the right" code for everyone who disagrees with the Messiah? The awful truth is, there is very little real "change" between this administration and the last one. That's what's got most people upset, "the right" aside.

I figure the fact that a Repub won't be able to make another judicial appointment to appease "the base" makes it worth the price of admission.

I suppose the far-left "base" getting their appointments for the next few years pleases you more? And if doubling and even tripling our deficit matches your "price of admission" then you are truly a blinded partisan moron.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...but its NOT a violation of the constitution, which is why it is in effect. If it was unconstitutional, then we wouldnt be having this discussion, because the incident wouldnt have taken place. The Partriot Act was signed by the President and passed overwhelmingly by congress.... its totally legal and it IS the law.

I'm afraid that's circular logic.

Whether or not a law is Constitutional has nothing whatsoever to do with its passage. It has to do only with whether it is struck down by the courts or not.

certainly, there's a presumption in favor of constitutionality, but that presumption is certainly rebuttable.

And exactly how LONG has this law been on the books? And yet no rebuttal and no Supreme Court case. We can assume and better assume, until the Court ever hears a case about it that it IS not only the law but Constitutional to boot. As I recall you are awful quick to remind everyone else they do not get to decide what is and is not Constitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Correct.



Incorrect.

Congress passed the law. The President signed the law and it became law. This in itself does not mean it is a constitutionally legal law. The third part of the equation is the Supreme Court. When a case (maybe this one) finally gets to the Supreme Court and the court rules on the case, then we will know if the law is Constitutional or not. We might not even know then because they do sometimes rule on portions of the law and leave other portions untouched for future cases.

Immie

Its not unconstitutional until the supreme court rules its unconstitutional, and just as you implied, this case may never even see the supreme court.

Actually, it is the other way around, I believe. It is not deemed Constitutional until it has been ruled upon, but I may be incorrect on that.

Immie

You would be wrong. The assumption is, until challenged successfully , a law is CONSTITUTIONAL.

There is no process where in the Supreme Court reviews every law, they ONLY review and rule on those that are brought before them and that they AGREE to hear.

 

[Immanuel]

Its not unconstitutional until the supreme court rules its unconstitutional, and just as you implied, this case may never even see the supreme court.

Actually, it is the other way around, I believe. It is not deemed Constitutional until it has been ruled upon, but I may be incorrect on that.

Immie

You would be wrong. The assumption is, until challenged successfully , a law is CONSTITUTIONAL.

There is no process where in the Supreme Court reviews every law, they ONLY review and rule on those that are brought before them and that they AGREE to hear.

I know there is no process where SCOTUS reviews every law.

However, I am not certain you are correct on that a law is necessarily considered constitutional until it has been challenged in court. Regardless, it does not matter whether it is considered Constitutional or not. It is law until it has been challenged and overturned.

Immie

 

[oreo]

Does anyone remember the Columbine massacre in Colorado? I do, I live here. Very normal looking & acting boys--in fact on the bowling team. Never been in trouble before in their lives & they massacred students & teachers one day--for no apparent reason.

You can't tell me that a 16 year old would be held captive by the Federal government for TWO long months without a lot of evidence. This kid was planning something BIG--regardless of what his mother is saying. "Someone "stole" his IP address--give me a "freaking" break!

 

[Father Time]

Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[DiveCon]

Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star | Threat Level | Wired.com

there was a follow up thread on this
you are a few days late LOL

 

[Father Time]

Teenage Bomb Threat Suspect Was Internet Prank-Call Star | Threat Level | Wired.com

there was a follow up thread on this
you are a few days late LOL

rats.