Yes and no. Nalley was arrested inYou're citing a case that was prosecuted and tried prior to the Obama catastrophe. That particular case you cited was investigated and prosecuted during the Bush years. Silly you.[...]
Ah. So Obama took office exactly one week before the case closed. If you're asking me to credit them for NOT throwing the case out, like they did with the Black Panther voter intimidation case, then fine. I'm glad they didn't intervene on that case during their first week in office. Thank you, ObamaNation, for allowing justice to be served. :applauseYes and no. Nalley was arrested in
May 2008, pled guilty on
Jan. 27 2009 (according to a local newspaper; Feb. 2009 according to a DOJ press release), and was sentenced on
Nov. 13 2009 (by federal judge who is a Clinton appointee).
DOJ link posted earlier, link to local newspaper is here: In Dallas This Week, the World's Most Famous "Li'l Hacker" Phoned In a Guilty Plea - Dallas News - Unfair Park and here: The 19-Year-Old Blind "Little Hacker" Gets 135 Months in Federal Prison For "Swatting" - Dallas News - Unfair Park (which claims a Jun. 26 2009 sentencing date by the same judge).
Using the typical right wing argument, Obama/Holder had sufficient time to let him walk. They did not.
Ah. So Obama took office exactly one week before the case closed. If you're asking me to credit them for NOT throwing the case out, like they did with the Black Panther voter intimidation case, then fine. I'm glad they didn't intervene on that case during their first week in office. Thank you, ObamaNation, for allowing justice to be served. :applause
My point (actually Mycroft's point, sorry for interrupting ya man) was, did Eric Holder and ObamaNation's DoJ go after the swatters/attempted murderers in the case you cited? No, they did not. Nor are they going after the current crop of attempted murderers. Because of COURSE they aren't. The targets are Conservatives, you see.
Most of the progressive folks I've known don't particularly have a lot of affection towards the police. Pardon me if I'm projecting somewhat. Now imagine a bunch of those SWAT-team-trigger-happy-Palin-loving-bully/thugs racing to your house, locking and loading and humming the National Anthem. They're coming to your home because they think you're tripping on hallucinogenics, packing an AK semi-automatic assault weapon, and that you just murdered your wife.
Does the prospect frighten you? I have a great deal of respect and trust for our law enforcement, and the prospect terrifies me.
I think the practice of sending an armed SWAT team to someone's home because you disagree with their politics is about as reprehensible as political terrorism gets. REGARDLESS of the person targeted. The DoJ (and FBI) should be coming down on these terrorists like a ton of bricks, but they aren't. I doubt they will, either.
They will shortly after January 20, 2013, though.
There ya go... that's the party line talking point I was looking for :2razz:Ah. So Obama took office exactly one week before the case closed. If you're asking me to credit them for NOT throwing the case out, like they did with the Black Panther voter intimidation case, then fine. [...]
Um, they were already in custody when Obama took office.[...] My point (actually Mycroft's point, sorry for interrupting ya man) was, did Eric Holder and ObamaNation's DoJ go after the swatters/attempted murderers in the case you cited? No, they did not.
Well, you don't know what they're doing. Your lack of information is proof of nothing (other than your lack of information). But you've got a good conspiracy theory going, and Sen. Chambliss put out a nice chest thumping press release which I'm sure will rile up his base (always in search of victimhood), so carry on :roll:Nor are they going after the current crop of attempted murderers. Because of COURSE they aren't. The targets are Conservatives, you see.
How do you know that is why they are being harassed?I think the practice of sending an armed SWAT team to someone's home because you disagree with their politics is about as reprehensible as political terrorism gets. [...]
Libs tend to be angry bitter and immature, this does not surprise me.
It doesn't matter who is responsible, this is illegal and should be investigated.
Although I think the Senator is p*ssing in the wind if he thinks the DOJ will get involved. Maybe the local law inforcement folks will investigate and find the stooge(s) that is responsible.
But you've got a good conspiracy theory going, and Sen. Chambliss put out a nice chest thumping press release which I'm sure will rile up his base (always in search of victimhood), so carry on :roll:
“I am writing with concern regarding recent reports that several members of the community of online political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions. Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels,” Chambliss wrote in the letter.
“Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety,” Chambliss continued. “While I am certain that local law enforcement is reviewing each of these instances, I am asking you to please look into each of these cases as well to determine if any federal laws may have been violated. Future targets of SWAT-ting, whether engaged in political speech or not, may not be so fortunate as to escape physical harm.”
I still don't see why the feds need to be involved when the state's investigators have people of interest, can easily coordinate across state lines and each state can handle the SWATers in their jurisdiction.
Again state righters want to pull traditional federal duties away when they want to block the feds from doing their duty, but when it is time to grandstand before a national election why Hell's bells let us demand Federal Action. :roll:
If you stand for state's rights and the empowering of the individual states then demanding federal action on simple investigations seems a bit weak. Perfect time to show the nation the Feds are not required and downsizing is the usual right wing call.
Senator Asks DOJ to Investigate SWAT-ting Attacks on Conservative Bloggers
A number of conservative bloggers allege they have been targeted through the use of harassment tactics such as SWAT-ting (fooling 911 operators into sending emergency teams to their homes), in retaliation for posts they have written, and now Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has stepped into the matter. He has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder urging him to investigate the SWAT-ting cases to see if federal laws have been violated.
“I am writing with concern regarding recent reports that several members of the community of online political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions. Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels,” Chambliss wrote.
Senator Asks DOJ to Investigate SWAT-ting Attacks on Conservative Bloggers - ABC News
As well as other sites discussed in the article, Patterico and Red State have already been targeted, and these aren't "pizza pranks." In Patterico's case, a phone call was made from inside his home by a man claiming to have killed his wife, but nobody inside the house had phoned. Deputies arrived and helicopters hovered, and the blogger was handcuffed.
I hope that AG Holder will take an interest in this. In the Red State case, Georgia is well aware of a person of interest. In general, though, if it's a cyber-attack, it could come from anywhere, so the DOJ's active involvement makes sense.
Ah. Didn't do your homework, eh? :2razz:What press release? Do you have a link to this? The OP's article doesn't say anything about a press release. [...]
Indeed it was. But according to the Senator's press office he kicked Holder's ass. Pretty slimy if you ask me.Anyway, I thought the Senator's letter to Holder was quite reasonable and polite.
No, no, no -- according to the Senator's press office, he demanded the DOJ -- hell, he demanded Holder personally -- see if there wereThere may have been federal laws broken. Or, at least, the Senator would like the DOJ to see if there were.
Yes. Right. Correct. Exactly. The point was, is this administration doing anything about these attacks? You replied citing a case that was actually closed one week after Obama (and Holder) took office, so obviously they didn't have anything to do with the case. Did I miss something? If so, sorry.Um, they were already in custody when Obama took office.
You're right, I don't. I'm basing the assumption on the fact that the people targeted by the terrorists have been Conservatives. Do you know of any Liberals that have been targeted?How do you know that is why they are being harassed?
You're right, I don't. It could be that the FBI, DoJ, and EPA are all over these cases. Secretly. Shhhh...Don't tell Senator Chambliss.Well, you don't know what they're doing. Your lack of information is proof of nothing (other than your lack of information).
Agreed. Just as they had no business dismissing the Black Panther voter intimidation conviction.Why should the DOJ get involved? Were any Federal crimes commited? If this isn't the action of a government agency, it's not a First Amendment thing. So unless there's something else going on that we don't see, it is at best a State issue.
Agreed. Just as they had no business dismissing the Black Panther voter intimidation conviction.
Just as they had no business converging on Sanford, hoping to find evidence of racism by the eeevil white man (or white Hispanic man, whatever).
Just as they have no business ordering States to stop enforcing the law. Or ordering the States to stop asking voters for ID.
Just as they have no business ordering swimming pool owners to provide access for the disabled, for the love of God.
My feeling is, if they feel the need to weigh in on swimming pools, maybe they could also put a little effort towards catching the terrorists sending men with automatic weapons to innocent people's homes under false pretenses.
What if I do? Should I then run around bleating about right wing terrorism with absolutely no clue as to who was trying to intimidate them? If you had read the story, you'd know who the suspected culprit is, and why he is doing it. But, clearly you've got a conspiracy theory to run, so no time for pertinent information.You're right, I don't. I'm basing the assumption on the fact that the people targeted by the terrorists have been Conservatives. Do you know of any Liberals that have been targeted?
I don't care what your point is. Your argument is a major failure (those based upon extremist ideology usually are) of pure conjecture. This makes it likely that your point is similarly flawed (or simply pointless).I suppose my point is this: [...]
LOL... don't have your facts straight on that case either. Surprise!Agreed. Just as they had no business dismissing the Black Panther voter intimidation conviction. [...]
So, you're in favor of the federal nanny state then, and consider the states incompetent. Funny, I'd thought the right wing position was the exact opposite. Silly me![...] My feeling is, if they feel the need to weigh in on swimming pools, maybe they could also put a little effort towards catching the terrorists sending men with automatic weapons to innocent people's homes under false pretenses.
There ya go... that's the party line talking point I was looking for :2razz:
What if I do? Should I then run around bleating about right wing terrorism with absolutely no clue as to who was trying to intimidate them? If you had read the story, you'd know who the suspected culprit is, and why he is doing it. But, clearly you've got a conspiracy theory to run, so no time for pertinent information.
I don't care what your point is. Your argument is a major failure (those based upon extremist ideology usually are) of pure conjecture. This makes it likely that your point is similarly flawed (or simply pointless).
That's not necessarily a party line. I belong to no party and yet say that the DOJ's not handling the Philly voter intimidation was wrong. So suggested the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Skip to pages 87-91 to read about the DOJ's "inherent conflict of interest" and its "intransigence and baseless refusals to reply to our supoenas," and etc.
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/USCCR_NBPP_report.pdf
You just told me something that I already knew. Thank you for wasting our time.If you read the article I linked in the OP, you'd realize that there are several cases in several states of this. It's not just Red State/Georgia.
You just told me something that I already knew. Thank you for wasting our time.
You've got to remember that the Attorney General is a political appointment, so they come in with pretty strong biases. So it was for Bush, Clinton, Bush....****ing Thomas Jefferson probably.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?