Judge Napolitano on Govt. that wants to take away our freedom
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
Tommygunn
Member
Too bad Napolitano is FOS.
Here is a recent discussion about Napolitano from another forum where his BS is exposed:
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/1510001502
If you want to listen to his drivel fine, but at least learn the truth and realize that what he says about the Constitution and the law is often completely false.
Here is a recent discussion about Napolitano from another forum where his BS is exposed:
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320601935/m/1510001502
If you want to listen to his drivel fine, but at least learn the truth and realize that what he says about the Constitution and the law is often completely false.
Tommygunn
Member
Well, that was certainly interesting, atleast. I see you must be "DMF Armed and Gregarious" over there. The issue of those unsigned warrants has come up before ... and to my knowledge, the debate goes on and on and on and on .....
True, you can't "prove a negative" but that's all in how you characterize your argument.
I will require more research on this topic before I decide what to believe about it re: Judge Napalitano.
There is BS and then there's being wrong.
If Napalitano is BSing the people, he's awfully good at it. But .... I suppose it could explain some things.
True, you can't "prove a negative" but that's all in how you characterize your argument.
I will require more research on this topic before I decide what to believe about it re: Judge Napalitano.
There is BS and then there's being wrong.
If Napalitano is BSing the people, he's awfully good at it. But .... I suppose it could explain some things.
If he is willing to lie and mislead about something as simple and easy to check as an OED entry, then why should I believe anything else he has to say?
The first entry for the verb "regulate" in the OED is:
a) To control, govern, or direct, esp. by means of regulations or restrictions.
the first usage is in 1425.
and
c) To correct through regulation
first usage 1680
The definition he cites as if it is some original meaning:
To make regular or even in form
didn't appear until 1652 and was obsolete by the 19th century.
The first entry for the verb "regulate" in the OED is:
a) To control, govern, or direct, esp. by means of regulations or restrictions.
the first usage is in 1425.
and
c) To correct through regulation
first usage 1680
The definition he cites as if it is some original meaning:
To make regular or even in form
didn't appear until 1652 and was obsolete by the 19th century.
There were alot of Soviets that were perfectly normal people corrupted by a corrupt system, the same for the Nazies and Maoists, Pol Pot, et al. They were all following the LAW, trying to make UTOPIA a reality. It was not thier fault that other people broke (or MIGHT break) the LAW and prevent the Worker's Paradise from comming about. They were all honest, well intentioned people, from honest hard working families, trying to make a better world. by killing the ill intentioned. the ill informed, the ill shapen and the millions of others that did not fit the mold of the NEW MAN.
Tommygunn, did you notice the offer I made? I can tell you there are a couple members over there who dislike me, including one of the participants of that thread, and would love have me not post for 6 months.
If in fact there was anything in the US Code that would back up Napolitano's claims it should be easy to find. In fact I provided a link where anyone can research all of the US Code.
So why is it no one can provide any reference from the US Code that backs up Napolitano's claims that the FBI can write/serve search warrants without review/signature by a judge, and the person being served the warrant is legally prohibited from telling anyone about that warrant including an attorney? Napolitano says it's part of the USA PATRIOT Act, which is part of the US Code. So I eagerly await the citation that backs up Napolitano.
I won't hold my breath waiting though, since Napolitano is FOS on that topic.
As I said over there, Napolitano has spent years promoting himself as an expert on the law. Do you really believe an expert on the law can't read 12USC3414, and is therefore merely misinformed? Do you really believe an expert doesn't understand the difference between administrative subpoenas and National Security Letters and an actual search warrant, and is simply misinformed?
If he's so misinformed why is he running around promoting himself as an expert on these topics?
If he's merely misinformed he's been untruthful about his expertise. If he's been truthful about his claimed expertise then he's not being truthful about this topic.
It really is that simple.
"So why is it no one can provide any reference from the US Code that backs up Napolitano's claims that the FBI can write/serve search warrants without review/signature by a judge, and the person being served the warrant is legally prohibited from telling anyone about that warrant including an attorney?"
This seems to me to be the only legal matter which has been raised, since there's no text concerning the video in the OP. Post-and-run is Bad News.
So, either provide the reference or don't post. IOW, narrow focus on this, from now on in this thread.
This seems to me to be the only legal matter which has been raised, since there's no text concerning the video in the OP. Post-and-run is Bad News.
So, either provide the reference or don't post. IOW, narrow focus on this, from now on in this thread.
Tommygunn, this is not a question of opinions, it's matter of fact regarding what is in the US Code. Napolitano, starting at approximately 1:59 seconds on the linked video, states that the USA PATRIOT Act gives the FBI the authority to write/serve search warrants without review/signature by a judge, and the person being served the warrant is legally prohibited from telling anyone about that warrant including an attorney. So again, if it's there where is the citation from the US Code that proves it?
I'm certainly not the only one calling Napolitano out on his BS:
http://old.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200504070805.asp
"It is hard to quantify how galactically inane this is. To begin with, federal agents absolutely, positively are not permitted by the Patriot Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, or any other federal law unilaterally to write a search warrant that allows them to enter a subject's home. Only judges are empowered to issue search warrants. Absent a few firmly established contingencies (such as "exigent circumstances") expressly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, agents may not enter a person's home to conduct a search without a warrant from a judge. Period."
"Contrary to Napolitano's bluster, a national-security letter (NSL) is not a search warrant and has utterly nothing to do with searches conducted in the home. To be sure, there is spirited dispute about NSLs for other reasons. But Napolitano's hallucination that they are being used as search warrants is not any part of the current debate, much less "the principal objection to the PATRIOT Act" — at least among those who have a clue. . . .
. . . But one thing can be said with certainty: An NSL is nothing like "self-written warrant." Not even close. It is the height of irresponsibility for a TV judge to say otherwise to millions of viewers in the middle of an important national debate about public safety."
Again, this isn't a matter of opinions. Either the US Code (including the USA PATRIOT Act) says what Napolitano claims, or it does not. If it does, you, or anyone else, should be able to provide a citation from the US Code that shows Napolitano is telling the truth.
Here's the problem. Those of us that know our way around the US Code know it's not there, and Napolitano's claims are complete and utter BS.
However, as I said before, I eagerly await a citation that backs up Napolitano's claims. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath while I wait.
I'm certainly not the only one calling Napolitano out on his BS:
http://old.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200504070805.asp
"It is hard to quantify how galactically inane this is. To begin with, federal agents absolutely, positively are not permitted by the Patriot Act, the Electronic Privacy Act, or any other federal law unilaterally to write a search warrant that allows them to enter a subject's home. Only judges are empowered to issue search warrants. Absent a few firmly established contingencies (such as "exigent circumstances") expressly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, agents may not enter a person's home to conduct a search without a warrant from a judge. Period."
"Contrary to Napolitano's bluster, a national-security letter (NSL) is not a search warrant and has utterly nothing to do with searches conducted in the home. To be sure, there is spirited dispute about NSLs for other reasons. But Napolitano's hallucination that they are being used as search warrants is not any part of the current debate, much less "the principal objection to the PATRIOT Act" — at least among those who have a clue. . . .
. . . But one thing can be said with certainty: An NSL is nothing like "self-written warrant." Not even close. It is the height of irresponsibility for a TV judge to say otherwise to millions of viewers in the middle of an important national debate about public safety."
Again, this isn't a matter of opinions. Either the US Code (including the USA PATRIOT Act) says what Napolitano claims, or it does not. If it does, you, or anyone else, should be able to provide a citation from the US Code that shows Napolitano is telling the truth.
Here's the problem. Those of us that know our way around the US Code know it's not there, and Napolitano's claims are complete and utter BS.
However, as I said before, I eagerly await a citation that backs up Napolitano's claims. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath while I wait.
Last edited:
i believe those links quote the appropriate legislation and quote it as well as link to the gov page
and they don't support "the judge"
and they don't support "the judge"
Last edited:
Just What does {FOS, OED, IOW} mean? I was able to figure out BS tho.
My God this texting is destroying the English language. What happens when we start to use acronyms in Spanish?
My God this texting is destroying the English language. What happens when we start to use acronyms in Spanish?
Tommygunn
Member
DMF said:
At some point everything becomes opinion. Napalitano is not the only individual who's claimed that warrants can be obtains without a judge's review.
Art Eastman said:
Yeah ... it's there or it isn't.
DMF, You still don't "get" me. I don't care one way or another about Judge Napalitano. He's either right, or wrong. He has opinions. I have mine. My opinion about reality isn't so deeply tied up with Napalitano that I will care a whit if he's discredited or not.
I do my homework when required. But I don't do everyone else's on this sight.
Last edited:
KBintheSLC
Member
Well said Kenno... the law is not always right, it is just the law. I was born in a former-Soviet-controlled Eastern-Bloc nation, and I cannot begin to tell you how many atrocities were once carried out with the full backing of the legal system.
I have no idea what you're talking about. There has been no citation of the US Code that backs up Napolitano's claims on this thread, on this site, or in any link provided on this thread, on this site.
No, not everything is opinion. Either the US Code says what Napolitano says or it does not. That is not an issue of opinion, it's a matter of objective fact.
(sic)
Oh, I get you. You keep claiming it's either there or it isn't, but also claiming it can be a matter of opinion. Those two concepts are incompatible. The issue of whether the US Code (including the USA PATRIOT Act) authorizes what Napolitano has claimed it does is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact ("it's there or it isn't). I have provided a link to access the entire US Code, and have flat out stated it's not there. That is far as I can go, because as you have agreed it's impossible to prove a negative.
If "it's there or it isn't" then it is up to someone who believes "it's there" to prove it.
Since there are some here who also don't like me, and my posts, and claim to be knowledgeable on such matters, I'll make the same offer I made on the other forum:
If someone can provide a citation from the US Code the proves what Napolitano says about the FBI writing/serving search warrants without review/signature by a judge, and the person being served the warrant being legally prohibited from telling anyone about that warrant, including an attorney, I will refrain from posting on this forum for a period of 180 days.
So bring it on. I eagerly await the citation(s) from the US Code.
Please, do us all a favor though and read that link from the other forum before wasting time with the same stuff.
Tommygunn
Member
Which neatly covers the time frame the Constitution was written. Which therefor negates the logic that Napolitano's definition is wrong. Not saying it his definition is correct, but that logic doesn't prove it one way or another.
- Status