National Guard helped border agents arrest 1,600 ADDITIONAL illegals...

[TCassidy]

For whatever its worth to you - among other positions held Tom Cassidy has been a Law Enforcement Officer.
Oh and a college professor with a doctorate (I believe).

Appealing to either of the above, or to my law degree, would be the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

The best authority is the truth, as I have demonstrated. Now its his job to believe the truth or reject it. I see which way that is going. So there is no further point in continuing.

 

[HankD]

Good for him, credentials don't matter much. His claims and interpretations are what are in question and are what have been shown to be either, at best, embellished, or, at worst, incorrect.

You are probably wrong.

 

[friedfriar]

Appealing to either of the above, or to my law degree, would be the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Well stated

The best authority is the truth, as I have demonstrated. Now its his job to believe the truth or reject it. I see which way that is going. So there is no further point in continuing.

And then you show your statement to be fallacious. You have done nothing more then demonstrate your version of what you think is the truth according to you, as I have done with my statements. The truth is subjective to ones interpretation, I don't agree with your interpretations and gave links and information as to why.

Again, I agree, there is no point in continuing as this is far from the original topic and should have resulted in a thread of its own.

 

[friedfriar]

You are probably wrong.

Then again, I'm probably right.

 

[HankD]

Then again, I'm probably right.

Probably wrong about that as well.

 

[friedfriar]

Probably wrong about that as well.

Maybe you could go back through this thread and point out where it is you think I was wrong.

 

[HankD]

Maybe you could go back through this thread and point out where it is you think I was wrong.

You can do that.

 

[friedfriar]

You can do that.

TCassidy first made the claim that citizens could be detained without probable cause, he claimed the CFZ was 50 miles from the border:

I agree the word "eviscerate" may be a bit strong but the Patriot Act and the language in the National Defense Authorization Act regarding detaining US citizens without probable cause, The National ID / REAL ID Act, and Constitution Free Zones with Border Patrol Checkpoints 50 miles from the border, and Warrant-less searches (secret FISA warrants) seem to me to be whittling away at our liberty.

I then asked for the sections of the Patriot Act and the NDAA that state citizens could be detained without probable cause and pointed out that the CFZ is 100 miles from the border:

The Patriot Act has 2 parts, intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.

Can you please provide the section of either the Patriot Act or the NDAA that says citizens can be detained without probable cause.

The Real ID Act did nothing more than have the states follow the federal govt guidelines in regards to the tamper ability of the states ID cards and Drivers Licenses. The Constitution Free Zone (100 miles from the surrounding US border) has been around since the 1950's, and does not impinge on a citizens rights.

Even FISA warrants require authorization from a judge, in which they are used to gather information on the specific person or entity.

Now, as to the word liberty, it is subjective and limiting.

TCassidy then proceeded to point section 412 of the Patriot Act and also NDAA allows for immigrants to be detained indefinitely (which has no bearing on his original claim) :

Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants. Google Jose Padilla.

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") which would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens (Section 1021), leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.

The House of Representatives and the Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.

The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."

The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others, United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers.

On July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens."

On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012 which permits indefinite detention without trial remains in law as of 2018.

The federal government has no authority to dictate to the states how they issue driver's licenses.


I don't care if it has been around since 1776. CBP are stopping people with no probable cause. They have no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.
Secret warrants and secret judges without any public accountability. That's called "Tyranny."

Not to me. I paid my pound of flesh (literally, I am a disabled vet with a service connected disability) to help insure that liberty.

Indefinite detention is not detainment of a citizen without probable cause as he claimed originally. He is either moving the goal posts or he doesn't comprehend his own claim he originally stated.

Now as I pointed out, Padilla was detained with a warrant issued by the state of NY.

They had evidence on Padilla. They had a warrant for him when he landed in Chicago. Padilla traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. On his return, he was arrested by U.S. Customs agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from the September 11, 2001 attacks.
José Padilla (prisoner) - Wikipedia

A month later he was charged as an enemy combatant and moved to the military brig in Charleston, SC.


Yet they all complied.


Steve Anderson is a "sovereign citizen/preamble citizen" idiot looking to cause an issue. He wasn't dragged from his car and beaten, his window was shattered, he was extracted from his vehicle and placed on the ground, and he was tazed for 18 seconds. It took 10 years to get a civil settlement for attorneys fees and damages.

The morality and ethics of both the judge and the agency are the issue, the law itself was found to be constitutional by SCOTUS.

Too you as well.

I then pointed out what I am pointing out here:

None of the sections you posted stated a person could be detained without probable cause as you claimed. In order for anybody to be detained they must have a warrant issued against them per those very Acts requirements.

Missouri and Mississippi both received waivers, which extended their compliant dates, which expire in October 2018.
Missouri gets waiver on REAL ID, so a state license will still get you on an airplane

“I am pleased DHS has recognized the state’s efforts on this issue,” said Joel Walters, director of the Missouri Department of Revenue, the state agency that oversees issuance of driver licenses. “With this extension, Missourians will not be inconvenienced while we continue our work to improve state-issued identification.”

Seems to be a state financial issue as neither of those 2 states are very budget friendly. Also appears they are in compliance with the requirement issued by the feds, acting in accordance to those very requirements.



The facts you have presented are outdated and in most instances pure embellishment by you. You don't seem to know as much as you are claiming, Anderson, as the example, did not have his rights violated and he received a settlement for damages against the Tohono O'odham Police Dept, unlike you claiming his rights were violated.

There is little reason to continue the discussion, as most of it is off topic anyway.

He then goes into Anderson and his claim that receiving $200,000 proves that his rights were violated, to which is an assumption and I challenged him on that too. I give Andersons own words that his receiving of the money was for nothing more than damages and attorneys fees against the Tohono O'dham Police officers and not against DHS/CBP.

So, tell me where is it you think I am wrong?

 

[HankD]

TCassidy first made the claim that citizens could be detained without probable cause, he claimed the CFZ was 50 miles from the border:I then asked for the sections of the Patriot Act and the NDAA that state citizens could be detained without probable cause and pointed out that the CFZ is 100 miles from the border:
TCassidy then proceeded to point section 412 of the Patriot Act and also NDAA allows for immigrants to be detained indefinitely (which has no bearing on his original claim) :
Indefinite detention is not detainment of a citizen without probable cause as he claimed originally. He is either moving the goal posts or he doesn't comprehend his own claim he originally stated.

Now as I pointed out, Padilla was detained with a warrant issued by the state of NY.
I then pointed out what I am pointing out here:
He then goes into Anderson and his claim that receiving $200,000 proves that his rights were violated, to which is an assumption and I challenged him on that too. I give Andersons own words that his receiving of the money was for nothing more than damages and attorneys fees against the Tohono O'dham Police officers and not against DHS/CBP.

So, tell me where is it you think I am wrong?

Your assessment of Tom.

 

[friedfriar]

Your assessment of Tom.

I haven't assessed him, I merely pointed out his claims were embellished or incorrect, nothing more.

 

[HankD]

I haven't assessed him, I merely pointed out his claims were embellished or incorrect, nothing more.

In your mind its not an assessment.

 

[friedfriar]

In your mind its not an assessment.

Do you believe him to be infallible?

 

[TCassidy]

In your mind its not an assessment.

Give it up, Hank. He is apparently under the impression that an accusation equals probable cause. An agent of the US government saying "I think you are a terrorist" or "I think you are an enemy combatant" is grounds for an indefinite detention. He seems unaware that probable cause is predicated on a reasonable articulable suspicion, based on evidence, that a person has just, is, or is about to commit a crime. An accusation is not a reasonable articulable suspicion nor does it constitute probable cause.

 

[HankD]

Do you believe him to be infallible?

No more than you.

 

[friedfriar]

Give it up, Hank. He is apparently under the impression that an accusation equals probable cause. An agent of the US government saying "I think you are a terrorist" or "I think you are an enemy combatant" is grounds for an indefinite detention. He seems unaware that probable cause is predicated on a reasonable articulable suspicion, based on evidence, that a person has just, is, or is about to commit a crime. An accusation is not a reasonable articulable suspicion nor does it constitute probable cause.

Do you believe the warrant used to detain Padilla doesn't constitute Probable Cause? Warrants are issued on more than simple accusations.

Again you resort to embellishment, no US agent can claim "I think you are a terrorist" or "an enemy combatant" and then detain you indefinitely.

That's right, probable cause is predicated on articulable suspicion, better known as evidence. Again correct, accusation is not reasonable articulation, and does not constitute probable cause.

So when you told me to look up Padilla, what makes you think he was arrested and detained without probable cause, since he had a warrant issued by the State of New York?

What makes you think the Patriot Act or the NDAA can detain a US Citizen without probable cause as you stated? Being held indefinatley is much different then being detained without probable cause, since you must first give probable cause to be detained.

 

[friedfriar]

No more than you.

That's right, every man is fallible, some more than others. The question now becomes, can the man admit to his incorrect claims?

 

[HankD]

That's right, every man is fallible, some more than others. The question now becomes, can the man admit to his incorrect claims?

Which man? Well, you just admitted to your non-infallibility.

I don't know about degrees of infallibility.

You are or you are not. It's a state of being.

 

[friedfriar]

Which man? Well, you just admitted to your non-infallibility.

I don't know about degrees of infallibility.

You are or you are not. It's a state of being.

I've not claimed to be infallible. No man should. I've asked you to point out my fallible comments, you have yet to do so.

Every man is fallible, even the person you are defending.

 

[TCassidy]

Do you believe the warrant used to detain Padilla doesn't constitute Probable Cause?

No. A warrant is not probable cause. I warrant is issued upon the sworn presentation of probable cause, which was not the case with Padilla.

Warrants are issued on more than simple accusations.

Except FISA warrants.

no US agent can claim "I think you are a terrorist" or "an enemy combatant" and then detain you indefinitely.

But they can as both statutes clearly state. Read the sections I provided.

articulable suspicion, better known as evidence

Suspicion is not evidence. Duh!

What makes you think the Patriot Act or the NDAA can detain a US Citizen without probable cause as you stated?

All that is necessary for indefinite detention is that you be accused of being a terrorist or enemy combatant. Read the statutes.

Being held indefinatley is much different then being detained without probable cause,

Being detained without probable cause and without trial is indefinite detention. Read the statutes.

since you must first give probable cause to be detained.

Nope. Just the accusation is enough to hold a person without trial indefinitely.

I suggest you stop reading all your fascist web pages and actually read the statutes, the Constitution, and the debates in Congress before these anti-American laws were passed.

 

[HankD]

I've not claimed to be infallible. No man should. I've asked you to point out my fallible comments, you have yet to do so.

Every man is fallible, even the person you are defending.

Thank you, you have answered your own question in post #112