this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
108 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3830 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I hate that groups like the ACLU have to defend nazi scum to protect my liberties. Better that the government not violate our rights in the first place, but in lieu of that, even nazi scum is subject to the same rights and due process as any other citizen. However, I wouldn’t mind if they got pantsed a couple of times by their lawyers.

all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months ago

The ACLU are savvy litigators and picked a client our Supreme Court might be sympathetic to

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well, on one-hand, fuck this asshole, who cares?

On the other hand, if this isn't challenged, it will happen more and more, and to anyone for any reason.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 4 months ago

Exactly. It's like the saying about how we treat prisoners. Whatever we allow to happen to those lowest in standing is what will be allowed to happen to all of us eventually.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Making sure nazis have protected liberties is part of what makes us not nazis - but it doesn't guarantee asshats like that a platform or societal tolerance.

Whatever actions are taken should be within the law.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is an odd test case. Not only is the defendant unsympathetic, the circumstances seem to be exactly what section 702 was intended for.

Whatever information was obtained through FISA (if it was), wasn't used as evidence against this guy. So they can't even prove that the Nazi was subject to a FISA search, much less that it harmed him.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That's the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to "homosexuals" (the 'in' term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it's a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

[–] pearable@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hard cases make bad law. Make sure the Nazi's rights weren't infringed 😬

[–] fathog@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Legal precedent is important and he’s gonna rot regardless (not an endorsement of our prisons, he’ll likely have friends in there)

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


In communications with a federal confidential informant, the pair allegedly planned to “coordinate to get multiple [substations] at the same time.” Clendaniel pleaded guilty to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical facilities in May of this year.

But in a court filing, the ACLU attorneys say Russell has “reason to believe” that the government “intercepted his communications” and subjected him to a warrantless “backdoor search” by querying the Section 702 databases.

And less than a month after that initial query, we disrupted that US person who, it turned out, had researched and identified critical infrastructure sites in the US and acquired the means to conduct an attack.” The defense’s motion to compel the federal government to provide notice of use of Section 702 surveillance of Russell includes both the Politico report and Wray’s speech as exhibits.

The ACLU’s response, filed this Monday, notes that the government “does not dispute that Mr. Russell was subject to warrantless surveillance under Section 702” but instead claims it has no legal obligation to turn over FISA notice in this instance.

Legislators’ attempts to rein in the controversial surveillance authority failed, and multiple amendments requiring the FBI to obtain warrants to search or access Americans’ communications under Section 702 were voted down.

“Especially as recently expanded and reauthorized by Congress, this spying authority could be further abused by a future administration against political opponents, protest movements, and civil society organizations, as well as racial and religious minorities, abortion providers, and LGBTQ people.”


The original article contains 915 words, the summary contains 246 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!