MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[Nakena]

CAIR has some shady connections:

Critics of CAIR have accused it of having ties to the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organization Hamas.[7] Federal judge Jorge A. Solis said that there was evidence to show that CAIR has an association with the Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas. However, Judge Solis acknowledged that this evidence predates the official designation of these groups as terrorist organizations. On appeal, Judge Solis was rebuked for making these comments and for not paying enough attention to CAIR's rights under the Fifth Amendment.[127] CAIR acknowledges that cofounder Nihad Awad declared support for Hamas in 1994, before it was designated a Specially Designated Terrorist by the United States in January 1995,[128][129] a legal category established at that time.[130] Since then CAIR has denounced violence by Hamas, and in 2006 Nihad Awad said, "I don't support Hamas today ... we condemn suicide bombings."[128]

Six Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate[131][132][133] have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. Both cofounder Omar Ahmad and Awad were involved previously with the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP),[134][135] a group described by the FBI, in 1993, as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership.",[136] and participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, with Hamas sympathizers and officials of the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order[citation needed] and later designated in a 2008 court case, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas).[137][138] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "these participants took great pains to disguise their association with Hamas...referring to it simply as 'The Movement'."[139][140]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o ... ions#Hamas

[Fahran]

Reports on social media that Iranians, regardless of citizenship status, are being detained at length and questioned intensively at US border crossings and ports of entry. Dozens of Iranian-Americans were reportedly detained at the US/Canada border as they returned from an Iranian pop concert in Vancouver. This is CBP allegedly acting in accordance with an order from DHS.

its not likely true I work for DHS and never heard jack it could also be people trying to spread fear and distrust among the CBP and try to get the people turning against them.

A few Iranians seem to have posted that they have in fact been detained and asked their opinion of the situation in Iran and Iraq.

[Vassenor]

CAIR has some shady connections:

Critics of CAIR have accused it of having ties to the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organization Hamas.[7] Federal judge Jorge A. Solis said that there was evidence to show that CAIR has an association with the Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas. However, Judge Solis acknowledged that this evidence predates the official designation of these groups as terrorist organizations. On appeal, Judge Solis was rebuked for making these comments and for not paying enough attention to CAIR's rights under the Fifth Amendment.[127] CAIR acknowledges that cofounder Nihad Awad declared support for Hamas in 1994, before it was designated a Specially Designated Terrorist by the United States in January 1995,[128][129] a legal category established at that time.[130] Since then CAIR has denounced violence by Hamas, and in 2006 Nihad Awad said, "I don't support Hamas today ... we condemn suicide bombings."[128]

Six Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate[131][132][133] have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. Both cofounder Omar Ahmad and Awad were involved previously with the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP),[134][135] a group described by the FBI, in 1993, as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership.",[136] and participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, with Hamas sympathizers and officials of the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order[citation needed] and later designated in a 2008 court case, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas).[137][138] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "these participants took great pains to disguise their association with Hamas...referring to it simply as 'The Movement'."[139][140]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o ... ions#Hamas

So do you have actual counter-evidence to the happening or are you just going to keep leaning on the Genetic Fallacy?

[Gormwood]

Every Iranian American is suddenly a spy for the Supreme Council. Shouldn't be long before we hear an IA got assaulted or even murdered.

[Nakena]

So do you have actual counter-evidence to the happening or are you just going to keep leaning on the Genetic Fallacy?

No but I'd rather look for better sauce.

Every Iranian American is suddenly a spy for the Supreme Council. Shouldn't be long before we hear an IA got assaulted or even murdered.

Stop killing strawmans.

[Nakena]

Also if I were american iranian I wouldn want to be even remotely associated with such an group as CAIR.

[Ifreann]

CAIR has some shady connections:

Critics of CAIR have accused it of having ties to the Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist organization Hamas.[7] Federal judge Jorge A. Solis said that there was evidence to show that CAIR has an association with the Holy Land Foundation, Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas. However, Judge Solis acknowledged that this evidence predates the official designation of these groups as terrorist organizations. On appeal, Judge Solis was rebuked for making these comments and for not paying enough attention to CAIR's rights under the Fifth Amendment.[127] CAIR acknowledges that cofounder Nihad Awad declared support for Hamas in 1994, before it was designated a Specially Designated Terrorist by the United States in January 1995,[128][129] a legal category established at that time.[130] Since then CAIR has denounced violence by Hamas, and in 2006 Nihad Awad said, "I don't support Hamas today ... we condemn suicide bombings."[128]

Six Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate[131][132][133] have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. Both cofounder Omar Ahmad and Awad were involved previously with the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP),[134][135] a group described by the FBI, in 1993, as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership.",[136] and participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, with Hamas sympathizers and officials of the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order[citation needed] and later designated in a 2008 court case, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas).[137][138] Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "these participants took great pains to disguise their association with Hamas...referring to it simply as 'The Movement'."[139][140]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o ... ions#Hamas

Alleged links to Hamas, therefore...what? They're making this up? Is it remotely implausible that Donald Trump's administration might order that Iranians seeking to enter the country be detained?

[Gormwood]

CAIR has some shady connections:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_o ... ions#Hamas

Alleged links to Hamas, therefore...what? They're making this up? Is it remotely implausible that Donald Trump's administration might order that Iranians seeking to enter the country be detained?

Trump ordering members of the House of Saud detained? That would be implausible.

[Thermodolia]

You can’t use STV for a single office.

You can if you employ multiple rounds.

So IRV?

[Ifreann]

Alleged links to Hamas, therefore...what? They're making this up? Is it remotely implausible that Donald Trump's administration might order that Iranians seeking to enter the country be detained?

Trump ordering members of the House of Saud detained? That would be implausible.

The Muslim ban has an exception for Jared's friends.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

STV is a thing

You can’t use STV for a single office.

Strictly speaking, no. "Instant runoff" is quite similar, except your vote is moved to your second choice (etc) if the first count has your preferred candidate eliminated. With STV it's moved when your first choice is elected (obviously wouldn't work for a single office).

The reason I was lukewarm on it, for the Presidency, is that every other level of government is mired in two-party politics and I can't imagine someone like Perot getting elected even with transferrable votes. It would be good still, but not worth the constitutional amendment.

[Vassenor]

We've got official orders for detaining Iranian-Americans at the border.

[Ifreann]

We've got official orders for detaining Iranian-Americans at the border.

That's the same CAIR press release.

[Galloism]

Um, making better weapons is an innate, inherit, and direct byproduct of human sentience - of which guns are a part.

Much like posting on the internet is an innate, inherit, and direct byproduct of human sentience which created language, and technology that allowed us to throw it much further.

And you don't have the right to access the internet, do we?

You have a right to free speech on the internet.

As SCOTUS said in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the district court's position:

He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30

..

Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds. The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by 1999."34 This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." 929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.

...

The Government also asserts that the "knowledge" requirement of both §§ 223(a) and (d), especially when coupled with the "specific child" element found in § 223(d), saves the CDA from overbreadth. Because both sections prohibit the dissemination of indecent messages only to persons known to be under 18, the Government argues, it does not require transmitters to "refrain from communicating indecent material to adults; they need only refrain from disseminating such materials to persons they know to be under 18." Brief for Appellants 24. This argument ignores the fact that most Internet forums-including chat rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web-are open to all comers. The Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow protects the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement of § 223(d) cannot save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would-be discoursers that his 17-year-old child-a "specific person ... under 18 years of age," 47 U. S. C. §223(d)(1)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. H)-would be present.

Here's the internet, a thing that amplifies and sends your voice further than you could ever hurl it yourself, receives the highest form of protection - despite being an artificial construct

And, the UN along with several countries have argued it is a right or a necessity:

2016: UN Resolution
In Summer of 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a non-binding resolution condemning intentional disruption of internet access by governments.[11] The resolution reaffirmed that "the same rights people have offline must also be protected online".[11] Recent practice of the UN treaty-based bodies indicates growing interest in ensuring access to the Internet. In addition, Internet-related recommendations formulated under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism are as numerous as those related to the right to food and the right to water – both of which are well-established human rights.[12]

Ensuring that access is broadly available and preventing unreasonable restrictions
Several countries have adopted laws that require the state to work to ensure that Internet access is broadly available or preventing the state from unreasonably restricting an individual's access to information and the Internet:

Costa Rica: A 30 July 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court of Costa Rica stated: "Without fear of equivocation, it can be said that these technologies [information technology and communication] have impacted the way humans communicate, facilitating the connection between people and institutions worldwide and eliminating barriers of space and time. At this time, access to these technologies becomes a basic tool to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights and democratic participation (e-democracy) and citizen control, education, freedom of thought and expression, access to information and public services online, the right to communicate with government electronically and administrative transparency, among others. This includes the fundamental right of access to these technologies, in particular, the right of access to the Internet or World Wide Web."[13]
Estonia: In 2000, the parliament launched a massive program to expand access to the countryside. The Internet, the government argues, is essential for life in the 21st century.[14]
Finland: By July 2010, every person in Finland was to have access to a one-megabit per second broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and by 2015, access to a 100 Mbit/s connection.[15]
France: In June 2009, the Constitutional Council, France's highest court, declared access to the Internet to be a basic human right in a strongly-worded decision that struck down portions of the HADOPI law, a law that would have tracked abusers and without judicial review automatically cut off network access to those who continued to download illicit material after two warnings[16]
Greece: Article 5A of the Constitution of Greece states that all persons have a right to participate in the Information Society and that the state has an obligation to facilitate the production, exchange, diffusion, and access to electronically transmitted information.[17]
India: In September 2019, Kerala High Court held that the right to have access to the internet is part of the fundamental Right to Education as well as the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.[18]
Spain: Starting in 2011, Telefónica, the former state monopoly that holds the country's "universal service" contract, has to guarantee to offer "reasonably" priced broadband of at least one megabit per second throughout Spain.[19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... Resolution

Guns take something we can do naturally - hurl projectiles - and do so more efficiently. It's not unlike how the internet allows us to hurl our voice or our writings across the world more effectively.

[Gig em Aggies]

its not likely true I work for DHS and never heard jack it could also be people trying to spread fear and distrust among the CBP and try to get the people turning against them.

A few Iranians seem to have posted that they have in fact been detained and asked their opinion of the situation in Iran and Iraq.

there's most likely more then meets the eye then just being an Iranian American.

[Ifreann]

A few Iranians seem to have posted that they have in fact been detained and asked their opinion of the situation in Iran and Iraq.

there's most likely more then meets the eye then just being an Iranian American.

Very suspicious people going to a concert in Canada.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And you don't have the right to access the internet, do we?

You have a right to free speech on the internet.

As SCOTUS said in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the district court's position:

He construed our cases as requiring a "medium-specific" approach to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873, and concluded that the Internet-as "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," id., at 883-is entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion," ibid.30

..

Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can hardly be considered a "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides relatively unlimited, low-cost capacity for communication of all kinds. The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by 1999."34 This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio, video, and still images, as well as interactive, real-time dialogue. Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought." 929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.

...

The Government also asserts that the "knowledge" requirement of both §§ 223(a) and (d), especially when coupled with the "specific child" element found in § 223(d), saves the CDA from overbreadth. Because both sections prohibit the dissemination of indecent messages only to persons known to be under 18, the Government argues, it does not require transmitters to "refrain from communicating indecent material to adults; they need only refrain from disseminating such materials to persons they know to be under 18." Brief for Appellants 24. This argument ignores the fact that most Internet forums-including chat rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web-are open to all comers. The Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow protects the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement of § 223(d) cannot save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would-be discoursers that his 17-year-old child-a "specific person ... under 18 years of age," 47 U. S. C. §223(d)(1)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. H)-would be present.

Here's the internet, a thing that amplifies and sends your voice further than you could ever hurl it yourself, receives the highest form of protection - despite being an artificial construct

And, the UN along with several countries have argued it is a right or a necessity:

2016: UN Resolution
In Summer of 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council released a non-binding resolution condemning intentional disruption of internet access by governments.[11] The resolution reaffirmed that "the same rights people have offline must also be protected online".[11] Recent practice of the UN treaty-based bodies indicates growing interest in ensuring access to the Internet. In addition, Internet-related recommendations formulated under the Universal Periodic Review mechanism are as numerous as those related to the right to food and the right to water – both of which are well-established human rights.[12]

Ensuring that access is broadly available and preventing unreasonable restrictions
Several countries have adopted laws that require the state to work to ensure that Internet access is broadly available or preventing the state from unreasonably restricting an individual's access to information and the Internet:

Costa Rica: A 30 July 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court of Costa Rica stated: "Without fear of equivocation, it can be said that these technologies [information technology and communication] have impacted the way humans communicate, facilitating the connection between people and institutions worldwide and eliminating barriers of space and time. At this time, access to these technologies becomes a basic tool to facilitate the exercise of fundamental rights and democratic participation (e-democracy) and citizen control, education, freedom of thought and expression, access to information and public services online, the right to communicate with government electronically and administrative transparency, among others. This includes the fundamental right of access to these technologies, in particular, the right of access to the Internet or World Wide Web."[13]
Estonia: In 2000, the parliament launched a massive program to expand access to the countryside. The Internet, the government argues, is essential for life in the 21st century.[14]
Finland: By July 2010, every person in Finland was to have access to a one-megabit per second broadband connection, according to the Ministry of Transport and Communications, and by 2015, access to a 100 Mbit/s connection.[15]
France: In June 2009, the Constitutional Council, France's highest court, declared access to the Internet to be a basic human right in a strongly-worded decision that struck down portions of the HADOPI law, a law that would have tracked abusers and without judicial review automatically cut off network access to those who continued to download illicit material after two warnings[16]
Greece: Article 5A of the Constitution of Greece states that all persons have a right to participate in the Information Society and that the state has an obligation to facilitate the production, exchange, diffusion, and access to electronically transmitted information.[17]
India: In September 2019, Kerala High Court held that the right to have access to the internet is part of the fundamental Right to Education as well as the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.[18]
Spain: Starting in 2011, Telefónica, the former state monopoly that holds the country's "universal service" contract, has to guarantee to offer "reasonably" priced broadband of at least one megabit per second throughout Spain.[19][20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... Resolution

Guns take something we can do naturally - hurl projectiles - and do so more efficiently. It's not unlike how the internet allows us to hurl our voice or our writings across the world more effectively.

But quote me the international human rights document that says guns are a right.

You cannot equate internet acces to guns, because speech, unlike ‘hurling things’, is an accepted and important human right. Speech, unlike hurling things, is fundamental to democracy and to the protection of other rights.

We have been clubbing each other to death for half a million years and yet killing is not a human right.

[Galloism]

But quote me the international human rights document that says guns are a right.

You cannot equate internet acces to guns, because speech, unlike ‘hurling things’, is an accepted and important human right. Speech, unlike hurling things, is fundamental to democracy and to the protection of other rights.

We have been clubbing each other to death for half a million years and yet killing is not a human right.

Weapons are - and have been at least as long as speech, and arguably longer (the greeks pioneered the whole free speech thing in the 5th or 6th century, when the germanic tribes were establishing the right to armaments about the same time - free speech wouldn't come to northern europe until much later).

The right to bear arms as a right even predates England, going back to the Germanic tribes that eventually invaded migrated to England and established what we understand as England to be. They even had a custom that when a slave became a free man, the community was required to provide him a weapon, as it was his right to be armed.

And with that right, came a duty, to defend his community.

[Vassenor]

You have a right to free speech on the internet.

As SCOTUS said in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, referring to the district court's position:



Here's the internet, a thing that amplifies and sends your voice further than you could ever hurl it yourself, receives the highest form of protection - despite being an artificial construct

And, the UN along with several countries have argued it is a right or a necessity:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... Resolution

Guns take something we can do naturally - hurl projectiles - and do so more efficiently. It's not unlike how the internet allows us to hurl our voice or our writings across the world more effectively.

But quote me the international human rights document that says guns are a right.

You cannot equate internet acces to guns, because speech, unlike ‘hurling things’, is an accepted and important human right. Speech, unlike hurling things, is fundamental to democracy and to the protection of other rights.

We have been clubbing each other to death for half a million years and yet killing is not a human right.

And in fact not being killed is a human right.

[Galloism]

But quote me the international human rights document that says guns are a right.

You cannot equate internet acces to guns, because speech, unlike ‘hurling things’, is an accepted and important human right. Speech, unlike hurling things, is fundamental to democracy and to the protection of other rights.

We have been clubbing each other to death for half a million years and yet killing is not a human right.

And in fact not being killed is a human right.

Hence why weapons are a human right.

[Fartsniffage]

And in fact not being killed is a human right.

Hence why weapons are a human right.

Your argument is actually a bit compelling.

[Galloism]

Hence why weapons are a human right.

Your argument is actually a bit compelling.

It's kind of important stuff.

[Fartsniffage]

Your argument is actually a bit compelling.

It's kind of important stuff.

Eh. The need to defend the community kinda disappeared when standing armies and police forces became a thing.

But I'm kinda coming around to support having weapons under the right to education.

[Loben The 2nd]

Your argument is actually a bit compelling.

It's kind of important stuff.

very.

kinda why its the 2nd amendment.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your argument is actually a bit compelling.

It's kind of important stuff.

Only in America.
Pretty much anywhere else your easy access to guns and your appalling murder rate look inseparable, and quite unattractive.

I could defend myself with a weapon but I'm much rather not have to!