Feds confiscate investigative reporter’s confidential files during raid
I'm more confused as to how your 2nd amendment rights can be taken away for being convicted of resisting arrest?. 
I think the TSA is doing a WONDERFUL job!
1988RedT2 wrote: I think the TSA is doing a WONDERFUL job!
Don't fondle me, please
Wow, that's seriously berkeleyed up. Further proof that our Constitution doesn't mean E36 M3 anymore.
Swank Force One wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: I think the TSA is doing a WONDERFUL job!Don't fondle me, please
Oh, admit it. you enjoy it.
Grtechguy wrote:Swank Force One wrote:Oh, admit it. you enjoy it.1988RedT2 wrote: I think the TSA is doing a WONDERFUL job!Don't fondle me, please
If i admit it, then they'll arrest me for sexual assault, i think.
In reply to Javelin: how about some cross threading?
I bit to much truth in that image for comfort 
Dead link.
the TSA got the link
The link works for me.
But she had the names of confidential sources not only unencrypted, but in plain sight on paper? 
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Written on a paper buried in your house is about a zillion times safer than on any electronic device...
GameboyRMH wrote: The link works for me. But she had the names of confidential sources not only unencrypted, but in plain sight on paper?
Not everyone took encryption 101 in grad school.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: The link works for me. But she had the names of confidential sources not only unencrypted, but in plain sight on paper?Not everyone took encryption 101 in grad school.
Not that it would mater, because the NSA has built in back doors to most commercially available encryption. NSA Revelations Leave Encryption Experts In A Quandry
Here's my WTF: this search was based on an incident from 1986? Huh?
I LOVE BIG BROTHER!
The search was based on them wanting to silence a reporter and this incident from 1986 was the best excuse they could find.
z31maniac wrote: I LOVE BIG BROTHER!
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Gee, I wonder how that could happen? Ya gets whats you vote for.
Hmmm . . . lots wrong with this. Allegedly, the warrant was to search the home for evidence her husband was illegally in possession of a firearm if I'm reading this right. I'm going to be overly generous here and assume they at least had evidence to convince a judge (to a level of "probable cause") that her husband was in possession of a firearm and/or ammunition. (If I had to guess, they were looking for a reason to investigate her and hubby put pics on his Facebook page of his trip to the shooting range). Its difficult to believe they could have convinced a judge to expand the scope of the warrant to cover paperwork unrelated to the use/possession of a firearm or ammo. So the first problem is that the paperwork seizure is almost certainly outside of the scope of the warrant. Second, at least in Michigan, officers executing a search warrant are required to leave behind a list of everything seized. A copy is to be left at the location searched and a copy returned to the Court that issued the warrant. Not sure this is universal. In MI, however, you'd better list everything you seize. Taking something that is not on the tabulation is a big no-no. Either of those is likely to land you a show cause/contempt hearing in front of the judge who issued the warrant and its unlikely you'll ever get that judge to sign off on a warrant again. There is also the potential for a civil rights suit. The biggest problem I see is (assuming everything she says is true), she didn't discover the missing information for a while, which gives the gov't some "plausible deniability" (although its difficult to think of anyone other than the government who would have wanted that information).
All that said, I love the TSA. Clearly they were only acting in the public good. Clearly the public needs to be protected from rabble-rousers who would object to BCS's on grandmothers and toddlers. Shame on all of you for questioning them. 
What does seem clear about it is the guy certainly didn't think he was a prohibited person, and if I'd been convicted of resisting arrest I wouldn't expect to be one either.
What isn't clear is why a guy who is an ordinance officer in the uscg can do that job while being a prohibited person, and how he is somehow more dangerous as a convicted resisting arrester/prohibited person with guns or with the responsibility given to him by uscg.
Just a note here: The TSA did not initiate this. Federal Air Marshals are under Homeland Security as is the TSA. Let's blame the right people.
In reply to Don49:
This is Homeland's deal all the way; it's part of the jihad against leakers, whistleblowers and investigative journalists.
The big problem is determining if the issue is "national security" related or an attempt to eliminate embarrassing exposure of corruption and incompetence within an administration.
In reply to Strizzo:
Yeah that's the one that's throwing me. There's no way to be an ordinance officer in the USCG and not have that right.
Strizzo wrote: What does seem clear about it is the guy certainly didn't think he was a prohibited person, and if I'd been convicted of resisting arrest I wouldn't expect to be one either. What isn't clear is why a guy who is an ordinance officer in the uscg can do that job while being a prohibited person, and how he is somehow more dangerous as a convicted resisting arrester/prohibited person with guns or with the responsibility given to him by uscg.
I've seen that a few times......my question is, was his resisting arrest a felony or misdemeanor level? I also know after so many years you can petition courts to exponge lesser felonies and regain your rights to own firearms.
You'll need to log in to post.
