01-08-11, 06:48 PM #541
This is a US matter and has nothing to do with her government.
As the article correctly stated, "The government has the right to get information, but that has to be done in a lawful way.", meaning the US government.
In this case the Justice department wanted the info from Twitter on her Tweets from an American company.
The Justice Dept is part of the Executive Branch, and so to get the info they couldn't just order Twitter to turn it over, they had to get a Judge from the independent Judicial Branch to sign off on their request that there was sufficient PROBABLE CAUSE that the information was needed in a criminal investigation.
The Judicial Branch did so, but apparently in this case, gave her 10 days to provide evidence to the Judicial Branch that nothing in her Tweets was worth turning over to the Justice Dept, including appealing to a higher court.
This is often done here, allowing the Judicial branch a closer look at what the Executive Branch (Police/Justice) claim is needed.
If she makes a successful appeal, the Justice dept will never see her Tweets.
Sort of a normal checks and balances in the way our Govt is structured.
Everyone is used to the Police side suspecting everybody is guilty, but the Judicial side is what upholds our rights and also presumes innocence.
01-08-11, 07:56 PM #542
What arrogance! It has nothing to do with her government? Are you suggesting that the only 'lawful way' are the US laws?
Excuse me but where do you see 'probably cause'? Where is there proof of 'probable cause'? They do not give her 10 days to show there was nothing in her tweets, they give her GOVERNMENT ten days because it is what her government grants. Otherwise they would be fucked like US citizens who just go along with any go government mandate. Like I said not everyone in the world has turned their backs on the rule of law and civil rights
Sorry but what about 'innocent before guilty'? You're supposed to have enough evidence on hand to demand what they are attempting to do here with another government.
01-08-11, 08:50 PM #543
I don't know what probable cause they had, but the Justice dept had to show to a typically skeptical (or at least impartial) Judiciary that they did have probable cause. And it is exactly because you are presumed innocent that the Justice Dept has to show of probable cause.
And apparently they had enough to get the subpoena, but apparently not so much that the Judiciary didn't just give the Justice dept the green light to get the data but instead gave her 10 days to appeal it and/or demonstrate to the Court that there wasn't anything incriminating in her Tweets, and thus not have to turn it over to the Justice dept.
And at this point, no charges have been filed and so her government really has nothing to do with this. This is simply about access to Twitter info stored on a server that is sitting in the US, and that comes totally under US Law. Her Govt would get involved if the Justice Dept found something that would support an charging her with something and trying to extradite her.
By 786 in forum World EventsLast Post: 05-02-10, 04:29 PMReplies: 295
By EndLightEnd in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 03-07-09, 11:40 PMReplies: 2
By thecollage in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 05-10-08, 09:49 AMReplies: 222
By spidergoat in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 03-10-08, 06:10 PMReplies: 2
By Syzygys in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 02-24-08, 10:08 AMReplies: 1