Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
There is a first time for everything, but that wasn't the main purpose of my post just your misrepresentation of the law.
What a delightful, defensive, and ignorant thing to say. 
When one "cuts and pastes" a relevant section of the law in question (I suppose I could have just typed it out) that clearly demonstrates that the law in question is rather broad in scope rather than narrow, as you insisted, it means just about everything.
Laughed out of court? That would lead one to surmise that the case was dismissed with prejudice by the trial judge, which didn't happen. The case against the AIPAC defendants was dropped by the prosecution because of pre-trial rulings regarding two tests required in the law, an intent of spy, and the intent to cause harm, both of which the Justice department felt was a burden of proof that they could not overcome at trial.
PS - Padcrasher, I always find it helpful to check my opinions against fact before posting, because it is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and removing all doubt. Perhaps you should do the same. |
No I'm just tired of people thinking that they can post a clause up with some ominous language and think that can be applied willy nilly to whoever they wish.
You yourself have done this on other occasions with you legal theories..
All your authoritarian arguments should just start with the opening statement.
"Although no government legal hack in has ever been able to to do this before......
Or
Although the government has never been able to defend this action before in court I alone believe......[insert radical, off the wall, authortarian nonsense].
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
