HEARSAY IS NOT EVIDENCE
Lawyer Jeremy Sear looks at the evidence -- TV news reports -- and decides an American teenager has been railroaded under the Patriot Act for nothing more sinister than having an "internet connection that someone had hacked":
Gee, all that paranoid whining from Jeremy over nothing. I blame his cat.
Update: Lawyer Jeremy is concerned that "partially nude" photos of Miss California might violate her beauty contest contract. Funny that a noted progressive so enthusiastically embraces the nebulous concept "partial nudity", which is akin to thinking someone can be "partially gay" or "partially pregnant".
UPDATE II: Jeremy updates his post but refuses to admit he got it wrong about the teenager's plight because, you know, the kids treatment by the U.S. justice system just doesn't seem right.
Is this really acceptable? Could this be enough to make Americans finally realise what it is that they lost in October 2001 when the state used the nation’s grief to withdraw its citizens’ more basic rights? Or will they still feel confident that it “couldn’t happen to them”?Kevin Poulsen at Wired claims the teenager's plight has been misreported and that the 16 year-old, far from being held without due process under the provisions of the oppressive Patriot Act, "has been formally charged, has a court-appointed attorney, and has already made appearances in front of a judge."
Gee, all that paranoid whining from Jeremy over nothing. I blame his cat.
Update: Lawyer Jeremy is concerned that "partially nude" photos of Miss California might violate her beauty contest contract. Funny that a noted progressive so enthusiastically embraces the nebulous concept "partial nudity", which is akin to thinking someone can be "partially gay" or "partially pregnant".
UPDATE II: Jeremy updates his post but refuses to admit he got it wrong about the teenager's plight because, you know, the kids treatment by the U.S. justice system just doesn't seem right.
posted by Anonymous at 4:45 PM |
1 Comments:
With the beauty contest - I love the way that Jeremy twists and turns what he said in his original post to keep up with the actual evidence that people like GavinM and Iain Hall post.
His attacks on Iain by suggesting that if he believes one thing he must be in support of slavery is just astonishing way to argue for a lawyer. It's about as logical as the "wookie defence" in South Park.
Jeremy's position boils down to, if you believe that some people have less rights than other people in law, you are a bigot. If Jeremy honestly believes that (which I doubt that he does), he must not have paid much attention in law school. At law, there are endless examples of people having more rights or fewer rights than other people (e.g. parliamentary privilege, the legal position of children or bankrupts, beneficiaries of trusts and many other examples).
Post a Comment
<< Home