Just a Quick Question….
Read the story in here and then tell me this;
If I claim the ACLU has beem monitoring me illegally and demand they cease and desist such action and pay me 10 million dollars for the bother of taking them to court, can they possibly prove they HAVEN’T been monitoring me and avoid paying me?
How do you prove you haven’t done something if there is no evidence to prove you did it? If the government is accused of doing something in secret, and they haven’t done it, how do they prove they didn’t do it in the first place?
The fact of the matter is that the ACLU is trying to stop our government from defending this country by demanding they cease all survellience of possible enemy agents.
How can the be so traitorous and still use the words “American”, and “Liberty” with a straight face?
Email This
Posted by kender on March 1, 2006 10:24 am
» Filed Under ACLU, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
Comments
32 Responses to “Just a Quick Question….”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Kender…I think you’ve been listening to my phone calls. Send me a case of expensive beer or I’ll sue you!
No, you have been listening to MY phone calls. Send me a case of 30 year old Glenfiddich or I’ll whine!!!
Oh yeah!? Well I have it on good authority that you’ve been snooping through my trash and stealing my newspaper. Send me a lock of Elvis’ hair or I’ll pee on your lawn!!!
Once it’s on the curb it’s no longer private, and I was looking for recyclables!!!!
Elvis said you can’t have any of his hair, and please do pee on my lawn, as it’ll save on my water bill.
“If I claim the ACLU has beem monitoring me illegally and demand they cease and desist such action and pay me 10 million dollars for the bother of taking them to court, can they possibly prove they HAVEN’T been monitoring me and avoid paying me?”
You have to prove they do it. That’s what burden of proof is all about.
and just how would the ACLU, or anyone else for that matter, PROVE that the government was secretly monitoring their calls?
They can’t.
If the government did, and it is a SECRET PROGRAM, they WON’T RELEASE THE DETAILS, and if they didn’t, they can’t PROVE they didn’t whether it was secret or not.
Do you see the problem here?
How do you prove something like that? Perhaps government has a recording they play on monitored phones along the lines of “This call may be secretly monitored to assure National Security Interests for The United Stated of America are being met. If you feel you have been monitored in violation of the law, please contact the ACLU, the UN or the Communist Party of the USA”.
Don’t know about proving anything in Kender’s case, but they do spy on their members.
“and just how would the ACLU, or anyone else for that matter, PROVE that the government was secretly monitoring their calls?”
With discovery.
Kender:
When you raise children without faith in God, country, society, friends, or self then its easy to see why they might grow up to serve no higher purpose than self. Same if an adult loses his faith.
Those without a higher purpose have no restraints on their behavor except police and the threat of punishment. You think maybe that is why the ACLU is against everything good and decent? Maybe because their motives are base and selfish they hate those with higher purposes in life? Do you think their sympathy might more often lie with the criminal rather than his victims?
Would any of this help explain some of their actions?
What the heck is actus talking about?
actus is speaking of the legal term, “discovery”, wherein one side must disclose pertinent information to the case. If the information the person is looking for is “Classified” and the government says it doesn’t exist, then what?
Nothing, that’s what!!!
“If the information the person is looking for is “Classified” and the government says it doesn’t exist, then what?”
Then a judge looks at it.
And if something is deemed secret and the government says it doesn’t exist then what?
Why can’t you get this fact through your head, actus?
If something is highly classified even a Supreme Court Justice wouldn’t be reading it, if the government never brings it forward.
actus, you stole favorite red hat and I am going to sue you to get it back….give it back or I will sue.
“And if something is deemed secret and the government says it doesn’t exist then what?”
They can’t credibly claim it doesn’t exist if they’re saying its secret. If it doesn’t exist it wouldn’t need to be secret.
“If something is highly classified even a Supreme Court Justice wouldn’t be reading it, if the government never brings it forward.”
If something is highly classified the court may order it brought to the court for them to read.
“actus, you stole favorite red hat and I am going to sue you to get it back….give it back or I will sue.”
Sounds like a plan.
The point you are missing is this:
If the government claims something doesn’t exist, how can you prove it does?
If they don’t bring forward the proof, you can’t.
You cannot prove a negative that way. It is like saying the government has alien spacecraft locked away in Area 51.
People can say it all day and sue the government to show them the spacecraft, but if the government says those spacecraft aren’t there, and you can’t go in and look, how can you prove they exist?
Same goes for alleged wiretaps.
“If the government claims something doesn’t exist, how can you prove it does?”
Are they claiming it doesn’t exist or are they claiming its secret?
Let’s say, for arguments sake, they are saying that in a given secret program that the proof someone is looking for doesn’t exist.
You can’t prove it does.
Do you think the government has secret alien spaceships in Area 51?
Many people do. If they sue the government for proof of those alleged spacecraft, and the government says “They don’t exist, they aren’t there, but what IS there is inimical to National Security, so no you cannot go look around.” how can you prove otherwise?
You can’t.
“Let’s say, for arguments sake, they are saying that in a given secret program that the proof someone is looking for doesn’t exist.
You can’t prove it does.”
If the court doesn’t believe the government when it says this, it can have a look around.
And if the court, to continue with the Area 51 analogy, goes out to the desert and finds nothing because they didn’t know where to look and they say “The spacecraft don’t exist” the kooks suing will simply sue again, not believing that this alleged spacecraft is not there and alleging a government coverup.
You see actus?
It cannot be proven that the government did NOT spy on someone.
“It cannot be proven that the government did NOT spy on someone.”
Sure it can. The government can say they didn’t. Its a he said/she said credibility determination for the court. If anyone has any evidence, they present it. Evidence could be the use by the government of information obtained from wiretaps, etc…
“And if the court, to continue with the Area 51 analogy, goes out to the desert and finds nothing because they didn’t know where to look and they say “The spacecraft don’t exist” the kooks suing will simply sue again, not believing that this alleged spacecraft is not there and alleging a government coverup.”
Why would the court go where they don’t know where to look?
“Why would the court go where they don’t know where to look?”
What? Can you translate that to a question that makes sense?
“What? Can you translate that to a question that makes sense? ”
You said they wouldn’t know where to look. Why? Why not just ask whats there?
People have asked what is there already. In the area 51 case the government says “Nothing that concerns you, National Security yadayada” and nothing gets done beyond that.
It is the same with the alleged wiretapping. As long as the government says “Nope we didn’t do it, and what we did do concerns national security so no you can’t look at it” the court can go digging all they want, but if they don’t find what they are looking for the people bringing the suit will scream coverup.
There is no way to prove that the wiretapping did NOT occur, so protestations by the NSA, or anyone else, that what did happen had nothing to do with the people bringing the suit will not stop the relentless assault on our secret programs.
““Nope we didn’t do it, and what we did do concerns national security so no you can’t look at it” the court can go digging all they want, but if they don’t find what they are looking for the people bringing the suit will scream coverup.”
Oh. the govt can’t keep the court from seeing it. Not if the court wants it.
Certainly you must be correct, actus. Our goverment would never keep anything secret from us and the courts.
And no, proof of this event of the government hiding something from even the courts is not available, as that would necessitate the courts having found it.
It is the same old cop conundrum. Cops say “every criminal gets caught eventually” but that is not true, as criminals that are never caught are never known about.
See?
“Cops say “every criminal gets caught eventually” but that is not true, as criminals that are never caught are never known about.”
What cops say that?
Every cop I have ever talked to about it, and that is many. I used to run with the Apple Valley Sheriffs Posse and the Citizens On Patrol.
“Every cop I have ever talked to about it, and that is many. I used to run with the Apple Valley Sheriffs Posse and the Citizens On Patrol.”
If every criminal gets caught, why is there unsolved crime?
My point exactly.
The counter point of that is you cannot prove that something did NOT happen.
The original point of this post is if I accuse someone of doing something that they didn’t do, how can they prove they didn’t do it?
When they can’t prove they didn’t do it, I simply scream coverup and sue again.
“The original point of this post is if I accuse someone of doing something that they didn’t do, how can they prove they didn’t do it?”
Very easily. Its up to the plaintiff to show proof.
And how can the plaintiff show proof of something when they lack the access to that alleged proof?
Just because someone claims the government has spied on them illegally doesn’t mean it has happened. When the government is unable to prove they didn’t spy on these people illegally the people will scream coverup.
“Just because someone claims the government has spied on them illegally doesn’t mean it has happened.”
Of course not.
“When the government is unable to prove they didn’t spy on these people illegally the people will scream coverup.”
so?