NY cops and burqa-clad Muslim women scuffle at amusement park on Eid

[AmberDutt]

Who is the accuser? You are. There is no evidence that prior authorization was given, as you can see from the article. You are saying that's not true. Prove it. See what I mean?

LOL.. I really hope you are playing here.. Else you are a little to dense to have a debate with

Mate, you are the one alleging illegality.. So you are the one accusing.. So you are the one with the burden of proof..

 

[JonAsad]

^^ Time out time out- its a stale mate- court is adjourned till monday- build you cases or you both will be charged for contempt-

 

[53fd]

LOL.. I really hope you are playing here.. Else you are a little to dense to have a debate with

Mate, you are the one alleging illegality.. So you are the one accusing.. So you are the one with the burden of proof..

I'm not the one alleging anything, I'm forming my judgment going by the facts stated in the article: & the article does not say authorization was given to the CIA. Again, the onus of the proof lies on you that it was. Your judgment is based on baseless speculation & no facts.

Talk to me with facts, not with your baseless assumptions & hypothetical situations.

 

[AmberDutt]

^^ Time out time out- its a stale mate- court is adjourned till monday- build you cases or you both will be charged for contempt-

heh heh...

Dont worry.. Me and Bilal are just playing a game of "who gets flustered first"

---------- Post added at 02:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------

I'm not the one alleging anything, I'm forming my judgment going by the facts stated in the article: & the article does not say authorization was given to the CIA. Again, the onus of the proof lies on you that it was. Your judgment is based on baseless speculation & no facts.

Let me lay it out for you

1. CIA Officer working with NYPD creates a program for monitoring certain communities suspected of involvement in terrorist activities
2. Constitution of USA allows for CIA to operate within USA under certain circumstances provided procedures are followed
3. You claim that this operation was illegal
4. So you have to prove that the procedures were not followed to back up your claim of illegality

 

[53fd]

heh heh...

Dont worry.. Me and Bilal are just playing a game of "who gets flustered first"

---------- Post added at 02:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 AM ----------



Let me lay it out for you

1. CIA Officer working with NYPD creates a program for monitoring certain communities suspected of involvement in terrorist activities
2. Constitution of USA allows for CIA to operate within USA under certain circumstances provided procedures are followed
3. You claim that this operation was illegal
4. So you have to prove that the procedures were not followed to back up your claim of illegality

They were not followed, because the NYPD & CIA claim such a program does not exist. Meaning there is no need to get the authorization. Simple. If taken to a court, & such a statement is proven to be false, that will show they are in the wrong. If they had prior authorization, they wouldn't have to lie in the first place, because they'd have authorization to act that way.

 

[AmberDutt]

They were not followed, because the NYPD & CIA claim such a program does not exist. Meaning there is no need to get the authorization. Simple.

An operation being covert does not automatically make it unauthorized as well. hence lack of public acknowledgement does not imply illegality.. So unless you prove the authorization wasnt obtained, no cigar!!!

 

[53fd]

An operation being covert does not automatically make it unauthorized as well. hence lack of public acknowledgement does not imply illegality.. So unless you prove the authorization wasnt obtained, no cigar!!!

Are' bhai, it is illegal for the CIA to spy on its citizens. It is only under very exceptional circumstances that they are allowed to do so. It is not my responsibility, but theirs & yours to tell me whether authorization was granted for these special circumstances, not me. Because in general, it is illegal for the CIA to spy on its citizens. In general, it is not legal for the CIA to spy on US citizens, so I am only applying the standard. I am applying the standard position that it is illegal for the CIA to spy on US citizens. It is for you to prove that this case is not the standard, & that authorization was given to this exceptional case. You are treating it as an exceptional case, I am treating it as a standard case as per the constitution/law, the onus of proof lies on you to prove this is an exceptional case, & that authorization was given for this exceptional case. Do you know what the difference between a general rule & an exception are? There is no evidence that proves this was an exception/exceptional case, so the onus of proof lies on you. The NYPD & CIA have denied that there even exists an exceptional case.

 

[AmberDutt]

Are' bhai, it is illegal for the CIA to spy on its citizens. It is only under very exceptional circumstances that they are allowed to do so. It is not my responsibility, but theirs & yours to tell me whether authorization was granted for these special circumstances, not m. Because in general, it is illegal for the CIA to spy on its citizens. In general, it is not legal for the CIA to spy on US citizens, so I am only applying the standard. I am applying the standard position that it is illegal for the CIA to spy on US citizens. It is for you to prove that this case is not the standard, & that authorization was given to this exceptional case. You are treating it as an exceptional case, I am treating it as a standard case as per the constitution/law, the onus of proof lies on you. Do you know what the difference between a general rule & an exception are?

Its not illegal if defined procedures are followed..If someone is claiming that any activity is illegal, that claimant has to prove that the activity happened in a way that violated the legal norms of that activity. In this case that being the defined authorization not sought.

And If you believe that to be true, you have to show proof for that

There is no general / exception rule here. CIA is allowed domestic operations with proper authorization. If someone feels that the proper authorization wasnt taken, then its the one alleging misconduct that has to prove this

Anyway, rest tomorrow

 

[53fd]

Its not illegal if defined procedures are followed..If someone is claiming that any activity is illegal, that claimant has to prove that the activity happened in a way that violated the legal norms of that activity. In this case that being the defined authorization not sought.

And If you believe that to be true, you have to show proof for that

There is no general / exception rule here. CIA is allowed domestic operations with proper authorization. If someone feels that the proper authorization wasnt taken, then its the one alleging misconduct that has to prove this

I'm not claiming anything, I'm only saying what the US constitution says about the CIA spying on its citizens. I'm not the court that gives the verdict. I'm giving out the facts that doesn't mention any authorization being granted, it is not up to me to determine whether authorization is given or not, I'm not the one that gives the verdict. However, in a court, the CIA/NYPD will be asked whether authorization was granted or not, & as stated by the article, the CIA/NYPD admits authorization was not given, because no such program exists. If it is proven that such a program exists, then the CIA/NYPD will be wrong. According to the facts stated in the article, no such authorization was given, & there was no exceptional case such as international terrorism or espionage that granted this kind of authorization for the CIA.

Read the US constitution, the law is that the CIA is not allowed to spy on its citizens.

There is a general & exception rule. The general rule is always mentioned before the exception, everyone knows that. An exception to a rule always have "only" or "if" statements attached to them. Let me quote you your post:

btw, interesting tit bit from CIA site FAQs

Does the CIA spy on Americans? Does it keep a file on you?


CIA’s mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the domestic activities of U.S. citizens. By direction of the President in Executive Order 12333, as amended, and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against U.S. citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA’s procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA, or similar ones, have been in effect since the 1970s.

The red has the general rule, green has the exception. See where the general rule & the exception are?

Hence, it is your responsibility to prove that this is an exception/exceptional case; that this was done because there was espionage or international terrorism; & then you have to prove to me that authorization was given for this action or not.

 

[VCheng]

.....................
Read the US constitution, the law is that the CIA is not allowed to spy on its citizens.
....................

The prohibition on the CIA is for domestic activities only. If US citizens are suspected of international illegal or terrorist activities, the CIA can have a local element in its operation on US soil, under proper safeguards of course, all legally.

By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the domestic activities of U.S. citizens. By direction of the President in Executive Order 12333, as amended, and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against U.S. citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities.

 

[53fd]

The prohibition on the CIA is for domestic activities only. If US citizens are suspected of international illegal or terrorist activities, the CIA can have a local element in its operation on US soil, under proper safeguards of course, all legally.

Again, this is where the contention lies, whether the CIA can show with adequately good reason that a person is involved (notice, it says 'is' involved in espionage/international terrorism, doesn't say 'might be involved') in espionage or international terrorism. If the circumstances only indicate that the CIA only believes an individual 'might be involved', it cannot get the required authorization. There must be no 'hunch' involved, it must be based on damning reasons/evidence.

The required authorization is followed from the direction given by the President of the US, & in accordance with procedures approved by the AG. Quite an exceptional case.

 

[VCheng]

Again, this is where the contention lies, whether the CIA can show with adequately good reason that a person is involved (notice, it says 'is' involved, doesn't say 'might be involved') in espionage or international terrorism. If the circumstances only indicate that the CIA only believes an individual 'might be involved', it cannot get the required authorization. There must be no 'hunch' involved, it must be based on damning reason/evidence.

The required authorization is followed from the direction given by the President of the US, & in accordance with procedures approved by the AG. Quite an exceptional case.

There is no contention here, since the CIA has its own legal pathway IF it were running this operation, but it was NOT; this was NYPD's operation.

Either way, there are legal pathways available to either agency to fulfill their duties.

 

[53fd]

There is no contention here, since the CIA has its own legal pathway IF it were running this operation, but it was NOT; this was NYPD's operation.

Again, that is disputable, but I won't go into that. I've repeated it multiple times, so I won't go there.

 

[VCheng]

Again, that is disputable, but I won't go into that. I've repeated it multiple times, so I won't go there.

I respect your opinion, but please keep in mind that there are suitable legal avenues for EITHER agency to have conducted this, if you choose to insist that it was not the NYPD's operation.

 

[53fd]

I respect your opinion, but please keep in mind that there are suitable legal avenues for EITHER agency to have conducted this, if you choose to insist that it was not the NYPD's operation.

I understand that, I am not the court that summons all this information, but I wanted to merely point out all the possible contentions & conflicts I could from reading the source. Seeing how the NYPD/CIA denied that such a unit even existed despite substantial evidence stating otherwise, only makes me think that the CIA is heavily involved in this, & that it did not get prior authorization to spy on its citizens, because they are randomly spying at individuals in the community, not based on any reason to believe they were involved in international terrorism or espionage. This is pre-emption on the part of the CIA if true, & this is not allowed when it comes to spying on its citizens.