Live data from Hacker News

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

591–600 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.

The irony of the romanticizing of the "Lone Wolf" is that, in reality, the lone wolf dies alone. Coordinating with your neighbors and compatriots is essential from the soap box, to the ballot box, to the jury box, and to the cartridge box. And I'd like to emphasize the order of those boxes should be followed.

Last time I noted the four boxes, it was to point out the first three are all being simultaneously threatened by Trump, in a way that I (albeit as an outsider to US politics!) consider "credible".

Like pjc50, I'm British by birth, though I no longer live there. Like most Brits, the USA's 2nd Amendment isn't something we look up to, it's something we consider deeply weird. Even UK police are not routinely armed, and I've seen polls saying they don't want that to change.

And also like several commenters here, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Trump was actually fired at, albeit by an idiot, he still supports the 2nd Amendment. Either the armed forces step in on the side of the constitution, or they step in on the side of the administration, but either way the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make a difference: the guerrilla teams use AR-15s, the military can afford to respond with drone strikes.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#592
post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare this to what is happening in Iran, US citizens are docile. A "peaceful protest" is an oxymoron.

> If you compare this to what is happening in Iran, US citizens are docile. This is still moot. Even if they appear such (even if they are such) it does not diminish the validity nor righteousness of their message. > A "peaceful protest" is an oxymoron. This is false by a plain understanding of the words. A "protest" is an expression against something. "Peaceful" means nonviolent. Obviously expressions can be nonviol…

Your understanding of the word peaceful is wrong.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#593
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you compare this to what is happening in Iran, US citizens are docile. This is still moot. Even if they appear such (even if they are such) it does not diminish the validity nor righteousness of their message. > A "peaceful protest" is an oxymoron. This is false by a plain understanding of the words. A "protest" is an expression against something. "Peaceful" means nonviolent. Obviously expressions can be nonviol…

Your understanding of the word peaceful is wrong.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/peaceful

> adjective Not involving violence or employing force.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#594
post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your understanding of the word peaceful is wrong.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/peaceful > adjective Not involving violence or employing force.

It clearly encapsulates a lot more than non-violence. You can't protest without disturbance.

>Undisturbed by strife, turmoil, or disagreement

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Search is investigative; not punitive. Let's be real, it can be both. A legal, valid and justified search can be done in a manner calculated to inflict maximum pain. Raiding in the middle of the night instead of when they step out their door in the morning, ripping open walls when all they're really looking for is a laptop, flipping and trashing the place in a excessive manner, breaking things in the process, point…

What recourse would an American have against a punitive search? And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?

Well the first half of the sentence you're replying to is "a legal, valid and justified search." So if your question is "what recourse does an American have against a legal, valid and justified search" the answer is obviously and correctly "none."

You might be able to argue harassment or malicious prosecution if it's just one part of an ongoing campaign but even that is going to be hard to argue if everything is within the bounds of the law.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#596
post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?" US constitutional law prohibits the introduction of evidence obtained illegally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule ( "Exclusionary rule" ) There's no "retroactive" exception. The core point of this rule is to deter police from intentionally violating people's rights, under the expectation that what they find will, "retroactively",…

Constitutional law doesn't mean anything when the authorities don't respect it. Constitutional law won't stop you from being arrested or killed if you don't fully submit to an authoritarian government. There were laws in Germany to prevent what Hitler did. It still happened.

Depends what you mean by "the authorities." It's a demonstrable fact there are many small local PDs that don't give a shit about the first, fourth, or fifth amendments to name a few. That doesn't mean the Constitution "doesn't mean anything" in those places.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#597
post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What recourse would an American have against a punitive search? And what if something turns up which would retroactively justify it?

You can attempt to sue for damages, but the suit is likely to be dismissed because law enforcement and legal adjudication are tightly coupled and very friendly in ways that subvert the proper functioning of justice. More likely you'd just invite more harassment for daring to attempt recourse at all.

How can you sue for damages when a search is done within the bounds of the law?

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#598
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my question, given the GP's assertion that private citizens holding classified information isn't a crime, how does the law apply to Trump here? Is there another law saying that government officials need to return all classified documents that would apply to him and not to the reporter?

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-ac...

Thank you! Cost me three points, but I really wanted this information and was having trouble finding it. :)

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steps before self-ending: 1. Feed cat, ensure that friend will adopt cat. 2. Talk to any family members. 3. Uninstall Signal 4. Take too many Ambien. Or: “I’m sending this to you confidentially so please don’t respond since metadata will show I contacted you.” Reporter: responds anyway

> since metadata will show I contacted you What's the point of the reporter not responding?

The metadata was or probably still is being collected from the notifications on the phone. So while Signal itself didn’t leak data the notification popup was. The sender wouldn’t have a popup, but the receiver might. Thus sending to the reporter vs receiving from the reporter would matter.

I should have worded that part more clearly.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't understand why people protest the Gestapo as a concept. Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?"

> "Are there any countries that don't have undercover police?" In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

> In what countries do undercover police drive marked vehicles and wear insignia of their agency?

Tons of these ICE agents are in unmarked vehicles and wear no official insignia. The guy who shot Renee Good did not, on any part of his body or exposed gear, actually have ICE insignia on him.

Post reply on HN