Got nothing to hide....yada yada yada.

[1sttruck]

"Now that is what I expect from the LA times. We need Congressional investigations into what might have happened."

The LA Times observations are similar to almost all other major news sources since the memos have been released, something easy for a high school freshman in current events class to verify, but hard for someone who gets their 'news' from talk radio.


http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda

 

[oilyriser]

Interesting bizarre snippet from that website:
Due to public interest in this matter, the Department of Justice is releasing these documents in an inaccessible format.

 

[moribundman]

Sounds reasonable!

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Interesting bizarre snippet from that website:
Due to public interest in this matter, the Department of Justice is releasing these documents in an inaccessible format.



It's not the clearest statement in the world.

What it means is that they aren't in a format that is easily accessible to the vision impaired etc. The document is there in .pdf.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: 1sttruck
"Now that is what I expect from the LA times. We need Congressional investigations into what might have happened."

The LA Times observations are similar to almost all other major news sources since the memos have been released, something easy for a high school freshman in current events class to verify, but hard for someone who gets their 'news' from talk radio.


http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda


It was an OPINION. The 1st paragraph on the second page of the first link on that page states that it is no longer valid due to actions of the courts, and legislation passed by congress and SUPPORTED by the president.

The memoranda simply are stating that the current office no longer agrees with the old opinion.
Opinions change.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Interesting bizarre snippet from that website:
Due to public interest in this matter, the Department of Justice is releasing these documents in an inaccessible format.



It's not the clearest statement in the world.

What it means is that they aren't in a format that is easily accessible to the vision impaired etc. The document is there in .pdf.


Oh, I thought they were referring to the Office 2007 format.

 

[Gary Allan]

On face value I'd think it was SOP.

"Since our doctorate level composers didn't format this document at a reading level that was not understandable by the vast majority of the population, we've made it not viewable until this situation can be corrected".

 

[oilyriser]

I'd like to know how the police intend to perform a secret search of someone's house. Do they go around replacing everything with an exact replica, Steven Wright style? Or do they ransack the house, and then blame it on someone else?

 

[crinkles]

they'll do it when no -one is there, and leave no trace

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Do they go around replacing everything with an exact replica, Steven Wright style? Or do they ransack the house, and then blame it on someone else?


The former, or more accurately, a little bit o' both...

How do I know? Why, just the other night my wife had made a few dozen peanut butter cookies for school. That very night, the feds - the *man* - entered our property and confiscated everything and replaced it; *save for* several of the peanut butter cookies.

They even used some type of propaganda mind control (my wife *refuses* to wear a tin foil hat) and have convinced her that *I*, her own family, is to blame for the purloined cookies.

This is our liberty eroding.

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm sure that there's lots of dirty tricks being played out all the time. It's just that, at least for right now, none of it can be used to convict you in a court of law.

That is, redress for rights violations has to include a couple of things. One ..you know you've been violated ..and beyond that ..that the violation was used to deprive you of liberty.

I mean, we've seen lots of references to illegal wire taps. The only reason we know of them is that there was some attempt to use that evidence in a court of law. Suppose no such goal was motivating the wiretap?

 

[oilyriser]

Ah, the old court of law and rules of evidence idea. How quaint.