White House call to 'flag' dissent loathsome

Dungheap said:
1) You're answering the wrong question. Where is the distinction between solicited and unsolicited information?

2) Bullshit. Prove it.

3) OK.

4) No, you presume your analysis is correct. You take solace in the DoJ opinion because one court in one case reached a conclusion that *might* support your position whereas every other court that addressed the question concluded that you are wrong.

I'm not inclined to continue this charade. Care to make a signature and avatar wager about it and we'll see what happens? If a court determines that the EOP does not fall within the meaning of the term "agency" under the Privacy Act I get to write your signature and pick your avatar for a month. If a court finds that the EOP is an "agency" under the Privacy Act you get to write and pick mine. Deal?
Click to expand...
1. That is the distinction, the information sent is not sent with permission when it is reported about another.
2. It simply is. If you send me a letter that you know I must keep then you give me permission to keep it. Just like when you post here you give me permission to keep it.
3. Cool.
4. And you presume that one Admin's DOJ's opinion was correct because it fits with your own analysis, even though they admit in their own analysis that some courts disagree with them on this issue.
 
Damocles said:
1. That is the distinction, the information sent is not sent with permission when it is reported about another.
2. It simply is. If you send me a letter that you know I must keep then you give me permission to keep it. Just like when you post here you give me permission to keep it.
3. Cool.
4. And you presume that one Admin's DOJ's opinion was correct because it fits with your own analysis, even though they admit in their own analysis that some courts disagree with them on this issue.
Click to expand...


I take it that you pass on the wager.
 
So to summarize, dunheap is intent on destroying a key protection against political tyranny through redefining the term 'agency'. Important work there, fuckface.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So to summarize, dunheap is intent on destroying a key protection against political tyranny through redefining the term 'agency'. Important work there, fuckface.
Click to expand...


Negative. I am simply informing others of what the term has been interpreted to mean by the courts and the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel, which sets the policy of the federal government.

If I had the powers to do what you claim I am doing I wouldn't be posting stuff on some political message board under the handle "Dungheap."
 
Dungheap said:
Negative. I am simply informing others of what the term has been interpreted to mean by the courts and the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel, which sets the policy of the federal government.

If I had the powers to do what you claim I am doing I wouldn't be posting stuff on some political message board under the handle "Dungheap."
Click to expand...

Words are defined by social concensus. Not lawyers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so waterboarding really is just an enhanced interrogation technique?
Click to expand...


No. As I said, the overwhelming weight of authority cited by the DOJ in its opinions make clear that the term "agency" as used in the Privacy Act does not include the Executive Office of the President.

Conversely, the overwhelming weight of authority disregarded by the DOJ in its opinions on torture make clear that waterboarding and various other described techniques are torture.

It's not simply that the DOJ says so. It's that the DOJ and virtually everyone else to address the question says so. With the torture memos only the DOJ (and not even everyone in the DOJ) said so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top