Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’

Did the Patriot Act help with seizing Osama? Will the govt lay off it or implement more restrictions?

May 10th, 2011 4 comments

WASHINGTON – Freshman Republican Randy Hultgren had no problem voting against extending the Patriot Act in February. But the death of Osama bin Laden, just weeks before part of the terrorist-fighting law expires, raises new questions for the Illinois congressman.

"It hasn’t changed my mind, not yet," Hultgren said this week. "I want to see that we’re doing it in a careful way, that we’re seeing results from it."

There’s no indication that the mission to take out bin Laden relied on the Patriot Act, which was designed after the Sept. 11 attacks to find terrorists inside the U.S. But the afterglow of the operation’s success shined new light on the nature of the terrorist threat nearly a decade after the attacks bin Laden inspired.

Interviews with House and Senate experts on the law, from both parties, indicate this week’s developments may have marginalized any effort to tighten the Patriot Act’s protections and perhaps scuttled Senate plans to hold a full week of debate on the bill.

From its inception, the law’s increased surveillance powers have been criticized by both liberals and conservatives as infringements on free speech rights and protections against unwarranted searches and seizures.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Some Patriot Act opponents suggest that bin Laden’s demise should prompt Congress to reconsider the law, written when the terrorist leader was at the peak of his power. But the act’s supporters warn that al-Qaida splinter groups, scattered from Pakistan to the United States and beyond, may try to retaliate.

"Now more than ever, we need access to the crucial authorities in the Patriot Act," Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If bin Laden’s death has any impact on the law’s fate, "I hope…it’ll be in the direction of extending the current law," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "Most of us believe it’s been an effective tool in the war on terror."

The provisions that expire May 27 allow the government to use roving wiretaps on multiple electronic devices and across multiple carriers and get court-approved access to business records relevant to terrorist investigations. The third, a "lone wolf" provision that was part of a 2004 law, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-U.S. individuals without having to show a connection between the target and a specific terrorist group.

The Senate Judiciary Committee in March approved a bill that would extend the provisions until 2013, tighten its civil liberties protections and increase oversight. But there’s evidence that bin Laden’s death may have marginalized any such effort to do more than extend the law, as is. A Senate official not authorized to speak for the record said it wasn’t clear that there would be a full week of floor debate on the Patriot Act as Majority Leader Harry Reid had indicated.

The law’s fate, for now, resides in the Republican-controlled House and the odd pairing of GOP libertarians and Democratic liberals who have long viewed the Patriot Act as an oppressive overreach.

Would the govt prefer it if we were all under lock and key?

I think the patriot Act was the Big Brother movement of them all pushed on us by our fear of the perpetual media booogey man I dont like it

Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?

March 30th, 2011 3 comments

This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!

And naturally you would have the same opinion about the Ground Zero mosque, right?

If they started building and violence erupted, you would hold the mosque builders liable?

Could Terri Jones be Held Liable if He Causes Harm?

March 27th, 2011 10 comments

Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?
This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!

I would not allow him to get to that point, This would all be long over. My deputy’s would have already handled the
matter to my request, And we would be doing what we
are paid to do. Which is to continue to protect and serve.

Koran Burning — Does Obama’s Helplessness Mean that Everybody is Helpless?

March 24th, 2011 8 comments

Could Terri Jones be Held Liable if He Causes Harm?
Is the Proposed Koran Burning a Mass Tort? Could there be Liability if Harm Occurs?
This looks a lot like a slow motion disaster in the making.

Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is at the center of the Koran uproar, has so far resisted calls to cancel the bonfire.

President Obama and Eric Holder feel that there’s absolutely nothing they can do, apart from giving speeches, of course.

They have mis-interpreted the First Amendment, contrary to 230 years of US law, which is available in all law libraries. They feel that the First Amendment gives everybody an absolute right to say anything they want any time they want anywhere they want. They have decided to utterly disregard hundreds of Supreme Court cases that say that freedom of speech is limited (like every other right in the Bill of Rights).

One man’s right to free speech ends when that speech is highly likely to cause death or great bodilty harm to another person. Gen. Petraeus is on record in sworn testimony before the Congress that death or great bodily harm is the likely consequence of Terri Jones proposed speech act.

And yet the spineless, wormlike, Jellywaggle Blancmange Obamination — who has never seen any evil anywhere that he was willing to stand up to, says that he and Eric Holder’s hand are tied, there’s not a thing they can do — no injunction — no restraining order — not a thing — they are helpless.

Does that mean that every tort lawyer in the world is also helpless — and will be completely passive and inert if Terri Jones does his act and harm actually ensues.

See, then it’s not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment is about prior restraint by the Federal government, not about tort suits brought after harm has been done by private tort lawyers.

Terri Jones and his Church and possibly his congregation members who participate in his act might very well be liable in civil law for all deaths and injuries that occur as proximate results of the proposed Koran burning. If a jury is satisfied that act A caused result B, and that result B was a clearly foreseeable consequence of act A, and that harm was done, then liability can be imposed as a matter of civil law. It’s called a mass tort — where a lot of people are hurt from a single act done by a single party — Terri Jones and his Church.

I think there’s also a case for damages based on the costs of increased security precautions that had to be put in place as a proximate result of the conduct of Terri Jones. So it’s like the Balloon Boy situation. One person causes a costly mass alarm that imposes otherwise unecessary costs on officials and law enforcement and security professionals.

Between these two torts Terri Jones will be out of business.

I think there’s also a Federal law that prevents malfeasors from profiting from book deals they make based on their bad acts. There may be a Florida law as well.

The fact that the President is a Jellywaggle Blancmange does not mean that Terri Jones is completely beyond the reach of American and world justice.

If the bad act is done the bad Karma will come to Terri Jones. I speak as a former member of the American Trial Lawyers Association (now retired).

We are not helpless.

We are not spineless.

When we see evil, we do something about it.
To the many out there who simply have no idea what the First Amendment protects, I have this question:

If Terri Jones shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, when there was no fire, would his speech be protected by the First Amendment in your opinion?

Do you feel that the Supreme Court of the United States, in 100 opinions dating back 70 years, might possibly know more about the First Amendment, and what it protects, than you do based on Civics 101 that you slept through in High School?

Doh!
To Trader G.

Your characterization of my position clearly indicates that you did not read any part of it. If you had, you would know that my concern is force protection and for other Americans worldwide. Were you more circumspect and better informed, you would know that a lot of violence happened based on the Abu Gharaib photos, and the Gitmo Koran flushing. I know you will be there at Dover when the caskets come back from the extra Americans killed directly on account of the Terri Jones free speech occurance. You will explain to the families how Petraeus’ warning should properly have been ignored, and how the issuance of an injunction against Terri Jones would entail the complete and total cessation of all free speach by all Americans forever after. You will go on to explain that people always have a right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theather when there is no fire. If somebody gets hurt — too bad. That’s the price we pay for an absolutist version of the First Amendment. Think!

The whole thing is blown out of proportion..
This man is only using his right to free speech, or do you want it like the E.U. ??
A hate speech crime to speak out against Islam. When that day happens you can get your burquas ready ladies or face being stoned.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/September/Austrian-Faces-Charges-for-Criticizing-the-Koran/

P

Attorney General Eric Holder indicates MS 13 membership discriminates against gang member who murdered victims?

April 17th, 2010 5 comments

CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Eric Holder has directed prosecutors in a federal conspiracy and murder trial not to seek the death penalty for three El Salvadoran men who are in the United States illegally.

The three are accused of robbing and shooting Claros Luna on July 29, 2009 in Alexandria, Va., just a few miles from the Justice Department, as Luna transported a prostitute from Maryland to Virginia.

The suspects, Eris Arguera, Alcides Umana and Adolfo Amaya Portillo, admitted to being members of the MS-13 gang, court documents show. They were indicted on Nov. 24 on federal racketeering and murder charges.

A Justice Department spokeswoman told CNSNews.com that the department would not comment on Holder’s decision not to seek the death penalty in the case. She directed CNSNews to an online “resource manual” stating that the attorney general’s decision-making process and final decision on whether to seek the death penalty is confidential.

But the manual also states that no information on the process can be disclosed outside the Justice Department “without prior approval of the Attorney General.”

According to court documents, in a letter dated Feb. 3, 2010, Attorney General Holder “authorized and directed” U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Neal McBride “not to seek the death penalty against Alcides Umana, Adolfo Portillo and Eris Ramon Arguera.”

McBride filed a corresponding document – Government’s Notice of Intent Not to Seek the Death Penalty – on Feb. 16.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Virginia, told CNSNews.com that Holder, as U.S. attorney general, makes death penalty decisions in federal cases. “The decision to pursue or not pursue the death penalty in a death-eligible case resides with the Attorney General, not the U.S. Attorney,” Carr said.

Court documents indicate that the death penalty at one time was being considered in the Salvadorans’ case.

Early on, a court-appointed attorney for one of the defendants was dismissed because he did not have the proper certification for a trying a death penalty case. Also, attorneys for one of the defendants entered a motion on Feb. 18 seeking to use a questionnaire that would eliminate jurors who might discriminate against Latinos. That questionnaire alluded to the death penalty.

Another motion by defense attorneys sought to keep gang affiliation from being part of the trial because of the possibility that it might bring a death sentence.

(Other questions for potential jurors included, “Do you believe people born in Central or South America deserve a lesser standard of justice or greater scrutiny because they are probably not really supposed to be here in the first place?” and “Do you believe people born in Central or South America deserve harsher punishment if they commit a crime because they are already accustomed to being uncomfortable and deprived?”)

An FBI press release issued the day after the three men were indicted by a grand jury stated that the case was under investigation by the FBI, Alexandria Police Department, Fairfax County and Arlington County Police Departments and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

ICE spokeswoman Cori Bassett said the immigration agency filed paperwork to begin deportation proceedings in case the men are not convicted or if they are released on parole. If that happens, the Salvadorans would be remanded to ICE custody.

“We do not have any record of ICE encounters with the individuals prior to 2009,” Bassett added.

The trial is set to begin on May 10 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/63534

Will Napolitano sent them a thank you card…………w/ a personal note “welcome to Amercia, here’s how to get on the gravy train.“

Dee gangs weel keel heem.