Criminalizing Everyone

[Revmitchell]

"You don't need to know. You can't know." That's what Kathy Norris, a 60-year-old grandmother of eight, was told when she tried to ask court officials why, the day before, federal agents had subjected her home to a furious search.

The agents who spent half a day ransacking Mrs. Norris' longtime home in Spring, Texas, answered no questions while they emptied file cabinets, pulled books off shelves, rifled through drawers and closets, and threw the contents on the floor.

The six agents, wearing SWAT gear and carrying weapons, were with - get this- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kathy and George Norris lived under the specter of a covert government investigation for almost six months before the government unsealed a secret indictment and revealed why the Fish and Wildlife Service had treated their family home as if it were a training base for suspected terrorists. Orchids.

That's right. Orchids.

More Here

 

[windcatcher]

This is awlful and more so considering the time of life and the time out of life which government has taken from these elderly people. After their house was ransacked.... I doubt that either of them had help in putting it back together...... and no recompense for the time of life and cost of defending themselves and time of imprisonment. Wonder, too, where do they get the juries to convict these people from unjust exercise of law?

I'm not surprised that the article mentioned 'partisan'. Sounds like 'Joe the plumber' fish hunts continue.

This is evil!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Thank Bush. It is legal under the Homeland Security Bill. It is very draconian. Under the secret courts set up under this act there are no juries.

 

[windcatcher]

Former U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh's testimony captured the essence of the problems that worry so many criminal-law experts. "Those of us concerned about this subject," he testified, "share a common goal - to have criminal statutes that punish actual criminal acts and [that] do not seek to criminalize conduct that is better dealt with by the seeking of regulatory and civil remedies."

Unfortunately, many of these so called 'regulatory agencies' act unlawfully in a similar fashion: They make up the rules regarding what is necessary paperwork and procedure..... and can change it or alter the scope as long is limitations upon them aren't prescribed by law.... and then charge whomever they choose and set fines or confiscation of property.

In my estimation..... all exercise of federal law should require the authority of the county sheriff..... unless it involves that department, in which case should pass through the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the states' attorney general. Any local law enforcement and state should also have a right to bring suit against the federal government for overstepping its boundaries or for use of intimidation or other coercions upon law enforcement to get their compliance.

Except as specified in the constitution, the federal government should have limited authority and power restricted to the 10 square miles of Washington DC and the lands deeded to it by the states permission for federal use.

 

[targus]

Thank Bush. It is legal under the Homeland Security Bill. It is very draconian. Under the secret courts set up under this act there are no juries.

What is your evidence that this has anything to do with the Homeland Security Bill and not just Federal law in general?

 

[just-want-peace]

Thank Bush. It is legal under the Homeland Security Bill. It is very draconian. Under the secret courts set up under this act there are no juries.

The fact that I disagree with fiascoes such as this is totally immaterial. The fact that the HS act as Bush's baby (assuming you are correct in the tying of this episode AND the HS act together) is responsible, is also immaterial.

If this act is as bad as you libs make it out to be, (??) why in thunder has not your anointed one (The "0" ) and total liberal control of both Houses, had it repealed????

Now for the action described in the OP, this point is also immaterial; for the fact that you want to still blame Bush, this fact is very material.

Love to see you spin this one!:sleep::laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

The fact that I disagree with fiascoes such as this is totally immaterial. The fact that the HS act as Bush's baby (assuming you are correct in the tying of this episode AND the HS act together) is responsible, is also immaterial.

If this act is as bad as you libs make it out to be, (??) why in thunder has not your anointed one (The "0" ) and total liberal control of both Houses, had it repealed????

Now for the action described in the OP, this point is also immaterial; for the fact that you want to still blame Bush, this fact is very material.

Love to see you spin this one!:sleep::laugh:

Its BDS.......

 

[Crabtownboy]

The fact that I disagree with fiascoes such as this is totally immaterial. The fact that the HS act as Bush's baby (assuming you are correct in the tying of this episode AND the HS act together) is responsible, is also immaterial.

If this act is as bad as you libs make it out to be, (??) why in thunder has not your anointed one (The "0" ) and total liberal control of both Houses, had it repealed????

Now for the action described in the OP, this point is also immaterial; for the fact that you want to still blame Bush, this fact is very material.

Love to see you spin this one!:sleep::laugh:

When was the Homeland Security Act passed?

Who was the president who signed it into law?

Also, when was the Patriot Act passed?

What president signed this into law?

 

[targus]

When was the Homeland Security Act passed?

Who was the president who signed it into law?

Also, when was the Patriot Act passed?

What president signed this into law?

You missed his question.

Why hasn't Obama and his veto proof majority undone the Homeland Security Act?

 

[sag38]

It's busisness as usual for some around here. BLAME BUSH!!!!!!!

 

[abcgrad94]

It's busisness as usual for some around here. BLAME BUSH!!!!!!!

I get tired of the "blame Bush" stuff too, but Crabby is on target with it this time. The article said this took place back in 2003--long before the big O got in the white house. So, this did happen under Bush's watch.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do not see where Bush, the patriot act, or the creation of homeland security are even mentioned in the article. Would someone like to point me to the source that links them directly?

 

[abcgrad94]

I do not see where Bush, the patriot act, or the creation of homeland security are even mentioned in the article. Would someone like to point me to the source that links them directly?

I did not see a direct link, only that this happened while Bush was in office.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why hasn't Obama and his veto proof majority undone the Homeland Security Act?

A sitting president cannot veto a law passed and signed into law by a previous president. Congress would have to act and the current president sign their later bill into laws to negate that which is currently law. Thus Obama cannot veto a bill signed into law by Bush or any other former president. Can you imagine what chaos that would bring about if a president could negate any law he/she did not like?

 

[Revmitchell]

I did not see a direct link, only that this happened while Bush was in office.

Not even good circumstantial evidence.

 

[targus]

A sitting president cannot veto a law passed and signed into law by a previous president. Congress would have to act and the current president sign their later bill into laws to negate that which is currently law. Thus Obama cannot veto a bill signed into law by Bush or any other former president. Can you imagine what chaos that would bring about if a president could negate any law he/she did not like?

Don't be obtuse.

The current congress can write a law to reverse the prior law - no problem.

It happens all the time.

Why doesn't Obama ask the congress to write a new law undoing the Homeland Security Act?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Don't be obtuse.

The current congress can write a law to reverse the prior law - no problem.

It happens all the time.

Why doesn't Obama ask the congress to write a new law undoing the Homeland Security Act?

You used the word veto. It wasn't my mistake.

Oh, and that is a silly question ... and I won't pursue such as silly line of discussion.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It's busisness as usual for some around here. BLAME BUSH!!!!!!!

So, using your logic, just because he is out of office, he cannot be responsible for things he actually did?

 

[donnA]

shouldn't that information have been in a warrant to search?
Has nothing what so ever to do with Bush, we're discussing this topic in the op, if people want to discuss another topic maybe they should start another bush bashing thread, but the topic of this thread is this family was searched and told why wasn't their business.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

A sitting president cannot veto a law passed and signed into law by a previous president. Congress would have to act and the current president sign their later bill into laws to negate that which is currently law. Thus Obama cannot veto a bill signed into law by Bush or any other former president. Can you imagine what chaos that would bring about if a president could negate any law he/she did not like?

This is pretty dishonest. You have been confronted on this before. The zero not only didn't end the Patriot Act, or rendition, he actually expanded certain aspects of it. I have given you the information already.