NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/hawkins1.htm




you know I've been saying this stuff for years....

Don't believe everything you read. I'd be more worried about corrupt politicians or their oil company masters if I were you.

maybe if you read the article instead of just seeing the headline, and going OMG conservative......i might listen to you, cause theres no way you coulda read that article in 20 secconds

I did read it.

The best known case involves popular talk show host Sean Hannity. While interviewing volunteers of the Minuteman Project last April in Arizona, Hannity inadvertently crossed the US/Mexico border for a few minutes then immediately returned. Apparently upset at Hannity’s drawing interest to the good work of the Minutemen, Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, under the auspices of the ACLU, demanded Hannity’s arrest.



Did he, or did he not, in fact, break the law?

maybe if you read the article instead of just seeing the headline, and going OMG conservative......i might listen to you, cause theres no way you coulda read that article in 20 secconds

I already knew what it said. Face it pal. The ACLU can't hurt you! They're too busy looking to find a case of a possible rights abuse to think of anything else. In our antagnonistic system, they fulfill a somewhat unsavory but ultimately necsesary role. I really don't care what happened to Sean Hannity, and I think that the ACLU has gone too far in some cases, but there is no vast ACLU conspiracy to take over the world.

I lied about not caring about what happened to Sean Hannity. I wish he would have been rendered to Syria,:D but that didn't happen.

he crossed an unmarked border it was an accident,

out of control?

out of WHOSE control?

he crossed an unmarked border it was an accident,

So...he crossed the border then?

he crossed an unmarked border it was an accident,
So illegals crossing the unmarked border is also an acident and excuseable?

yes as it was stated in the Article, but an otherwise simple mistake that would normally go overlooked for anyone, they pushed the issue because incase you dont follow FOX news, he attacks them, with legitimate stuff, like every night

So...he crossed the border then?

I'm sure that if Hillary Clinton crossed the border, the ACLU wouldn't be so trigger-happy. They have a vested political agenda and are composed of Democratic liberals -- they twist a slight accident into something worthy of an arrest.

So illegals crossing the unmarked border is also an acident and excuseable?

he crossed the border realized he had unintentionally and came back, illegals dont go back.


sigh i keep forgetting, NS= spawing pool for liberals

yes as it was stated in the Article, but an otherwise simple mistake that would normally go overlooked for anyone, they pushed the issue because incase you dont follow FOX news, he attacks them, with legitimate stuff, like every night

So they're asserting the laws of the country. Their reasons for doing so are apparently deeply suspect, but that's not overly unusual.

yes as it was stated in the Article, but an otherwise simple mistake that would normally go overlooked for anyone, they pushed the issue because incase you dont follow FOX news, he attacks them, with legitimate stuff, like every night

So they're asserting the laws of the country. Their reasons for doing so are apparently deeply suspect, but that's not overly unusual.

yes as it was stated in the Article, but an otherwise simple mistake that would normally go overlooked for anyone, they pushed the issue because incase you dont follow FOX news, he attacks them, with legitimate stuff, like every night

So they're asserting the laws of the country. Their reasons for doing so are apparently deeply suspect, but that's not overly unusual.

he crossed an unmarked border it was an accident,

Ignorance is no excuse. I believe Hannity has used phrases similar to that in the past.

Just because it's called the American Cancer Society doesn't mean it's pro cancer. Just because it's called the American Civil Liberties Union...

Just because it's called the American Cancer Society doesn't mean it's pro cancer. Just because it's called the American Civil Liberties Union...

:rolleyes:

i dont suppose you know the phrase "tempest in a tea pot"?

this is from the sean hannity webpage:


Border Patrol, Minutemen Have Double Standard on Immigration


PHOENIX, AZ (April 20, 2005) - Apparently the U.S. Border Patrol believes that national TV and radio stars don't have to play by the same rules as others.

Mr. Sean Hannity, a well-paid commentator for Fox News, climbed over a barbed wire fence separating the United States from Mexico yesterday at about 3:15 p.m. A few minutes later he climbed back over the fence, breaking federal law by reentering the U.S. illegally.

Mr. Hannity's border violations were videotaped by ACLU Legal Observers. The Border Patrol was contacted, but they chose not to arrest or cite Mr. Hannity for his willful violation of federal law. Likewise, Minutemen in the vicinity of the incident did not take the opportunity to turn Mr. Hannity over to federal officials, as they have allegedly done with all other illegal immigrants apprehended on the border this month.

Federal law, specifically 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(a), requires all "individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft [to] enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and immediately report the arrivals and present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection; to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point."

According to 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(e), anyone who intentionally enters the United States at a place other than a designated border crossing can be imprisoned for up to one year and fined up to $5,000. Mr. Hannity faces neither of these penalties. Individuals apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol do.

This is the very same crime that Minutemen have traveled across the country to Arizona to stop. While some may argue that Mr. Hannity's actions were not significant, he committed the same crime that all individuals who enter the country illegally commit. In fact, ACLU observers were warned that they would be arrested if they accidentally or deliberately crossed the border and tried to reenter the U.S.

Why is U.S. Border Patrol demonstrating such an obvious double standard? If the Minutemen came to Arizona to watch the border for signs of illegal immigration, why did they fail to report Mr. Hannity?

There is only possible conclusion. The Minutemen and the Border Patrol have one set of rules for television celebrities, and another for hard-working people who cross the border in search of work.

http://www.hannity.com/index/news-app/story.65/menu./sec./home.

the site says its a document from the arizona democratic caucus. mr hannity wasnt arrested. he DID knowingly cross the border but it was no big deal. the aclu and other protestors used his publicity stunt as a stunt of their own by pointing out that he had just illegally entered the country.

big fucking deal.

they pushed the issue because incase you dont follow FOX news, he attacks them, with legitimate stuff, like every night

Don't make me laugh. Sean Hannity is a bully on his show, and constantly takes his arguments (even the few legitimate ones) beyond any rational conclusion and makes wild claims asserting his superiority. He's a talking head, and like all talking heads, whether they be liberals or conservatives, they cannot be trusted. Read both sides of the issue and think for yourself!

By the way, I don't care for Colmes, or Hillary Clinton either, so don't go flingin accusations that I would favor them. And please, don't call me a liberal. Liberals are people who watch CNN and vote for the Democratic Party. I do neither.

NS isn't a spawnign pool for left wingers. It actually has a quite diverse and rounded spectrume of thought, which is a lot more than you'll get from cable news.

Damn, and I was hoping for a story about heavily-armed ACLU shock troops forcing equality and secularism by gunpoint.

btw, did you notice the date on any of this bullshit?

he crossed an unmarked border it was an accident,
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Begoner21;11682735']I'm sure that if Hillary Clinton crossed the border, the ACLU wouldn't be so trigger-happy.
I really hate arguments based on nothing more than "I'm sure if [hypothetical situation]" to "prove" hypocrisy. As someone who claims to support human rights you should support the ACLU.

I am shocked! Shocked that a conservative who likes to read Ann Coulter would dislike the ACLU!

I just don't know what to say!

Read the first two lines and decided that it was biased trash. If the author can't bother to present his case professionally, I can't be bothered to take it seriously. Petty partisan temper-tantrums are not known for their rational discourse.

Why is the ACLU making such a big deal about this when it isn't that big of a deal?

Damn, and I was hoping for a story about heavily-armed ACLU shock troops forcing equality and secularism by gunpoint.

lol

he crossed the border realized he had unintentionally and came back, illegals dont go back.
No, apparently he deliberately climbed a fence. He broke the law on purpose. So why does the law apply to one group, but the other is it a harmless mistake?

sigh i keep forgetting, NS= spawing pool for liberals
:rolleyes:

I wish I could find that posting from Cat-Tribes that fully exposes your argument as the temper tantrum it is.
Edit: Here we go, Cat, where ever you are, thanks for giving is this:
The ACLU routinely defends the free speech, free exercise of religion, and other rights of Christians, anti-abortion groups, Republicans, and conservatives.

About having former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey as a consultant?

Conservative firebrand Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from GA and leader of the impeachment of Bill Clinton) is a consultant. clicky (http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15989&c=101) and clicky (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11449&c=39).

The ACLU has currently defending Rush Limbaugh and formerly worked for Ollie North. The ACLU has worked closely with a number of conservative groups over the years. The ACLU has cooperated frequently with the NRA.

In most of the separation of Church and State cases, major religions organizations -- including major Christian denominations -- have sided with the ACLU.

The ACLU has stood up for the rights of religious groups, including Christians on numerous occasions. They have repeatedly defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

There are scores upon scores of other actions in which the ACLU has defended or cooperated with Conservatives and Christian groups. Here are just a very small sample:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159) (note many other examples of defending Christians given in the artice)
Speech by James Ziglar, conservative and Bush's INS Commissioner, to the Membership Meeting of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/Conference/Conference.cfm?ID=12896&c=256)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU backs students on Confederate shirts (http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/09/confederate.shirts.ap/)
West Virginia School Officials Violated Student’s Rights By Punishing Him Over a T-Shirt, Court Rules (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18399&c=42)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16138&c=142)

Here is additional evidence:
ACLU Defends California Artist After Los Angeles Orders Removal of “God Bless America” Mural (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10248&c=42)
ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run "Anti-Santa" Ads in Boston Subways (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=10206&c=42)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17457&c=42)
ACLU Sues to Protect Free Speech Rights of Anti-Abortion Church Group in Indiana (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16125&c=86)
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142)
ACLU Hails Plans to Sign Religious Freedom Bill into Law (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=8122&c=142)
ACLU of Ohio Will Defend GOP Chairman in Political Yard Sign Case (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16843&c=42)
Connecticut Veteran Sues For Right to Commemorate Fallen War Hero on his Property (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7356&c=42)
Nevada Officials Drop Plan to License and Fingerprint Clergy (http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=7777&c=130)
ACLU of Nebraska Defends Presbyterian Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142)
ACLU and 18 Texas Families Sue to Stop 'Prove Your Religion' School Uniform Policy (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=7876&c=139)
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Religious Liberty in Prisons (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18363&c=286)
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15897&c=141)
ACLU of Georgia Sues City Over Arrest of Political Activist During Fourth of July Celebrations (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=15870&c=86)
ACLU of Nevada Asks Court to End Ban of Book Critical of the IRS (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=12525&c=83)
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17237&c=29)
ACLU of Pennsylvania Supports Congregation's Fight for Religious Freedom (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=9298&c=141)
Iowa Civil Liberties Union Defends Right of Students to Wear Anti-Abortion T-Shirts (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=18159&c=159)
ACLU Says Texas Police Violated Art Gallery Owner’s Freedom of Expression - Police Forced Artist to Cover Classical Image of Nude ‘Eve’ (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=17297&c=83)
After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159)
Last-Minute ACLU Appeal Allows Exiled Cubane Activist To Take His Anti-Castro Message to the Skies (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=7143&c=86)
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules: Amish Can Stick With Reflective Tape on Buggies (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14162&c=29)

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE CANARD THAT THE ACLU IS JUST LEFTIST OR ANTI-CHRISTIAN!!!! :headbang:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9714318&postcount=1

as a non american who doesnt know the personalities involved am i right in this:

a right wing 'hang em and flog em' commentator was with a bunch of vigilanties when he crossed the border and then back. when pressed the fuzz decided not to prosecute him and the ACLU are bringing a case to discredit the vigilianties and pressure the border cops to do their job?

if this guy is going to preach law and order, he has to be very careful to obey the law himself, because the one thing worse than professional whiners are professional hypocrites.

Is there any actual evidence of this ever having happened? Was Mr. Hannity arrested? Was it actually called for by the ACLU? If he was arrested, did he break the law?

These are very basic questions.

The article was biased as all shit. Sorry, I'm not trusting a word of it, seeing as it opens with "For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda in terms of what the Constitution “really says,” and what freedom “really means” through judicial extortion.". Sorry, no. Try again. Actually, don't.

ETA: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11682766&postcount=19
Thank you Ashmoria
http://www.hannity.com/index/news-ap...enu./sec./home

it would seem that the most basic "fact" set forth by the article is false. A+ for fact checking!

The ACLU is one of the most positive institutions in this country.

As someone who claims to support human rights you should support the ACLU.

I do not support the rights of criminals to roam free and I support the right to life (in my opinion, the most fundamental right) above all others. Thus, I do not agree with the ACLU.

Begoner21;11682843']I do not support the rights of criminals to roam free and I support the right to life (in my opinion, the most fundamental right) above all others. Thus, I do not agree with the ACLU.

what utter moronic simplicity.

Why is the ACLU making such a big deal about this when it isn't that big of a deal?

They weren't. This happened over a year ago and all that happened was that the ACLU pointed out to local authorities that Hannity had broken the law. When the local authorities refused to charge him, the ACLU didn't really press the issue further.

what utter moronic simplicity.

A philosopher once said that the simpler something is, the more accurate it is.

Begoner21;11682862']A philosopher once said that the simpler something is, the more accurate it is.

another philosopher also said that there are four elements:earth, wind, fire, and water...:rolleyes:

another philosopher also said that there are four elements:earth, wind, fire, and water...:rolleyes:

Didn't he also say that democracy was dangerous and should be avoided?;)

Begoner21;11682862']A philosopher once said that the simpler something is, the more accurate it is.

eh...not really a philosopher...but it is used in philosophy...

Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor:
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

ie...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.


And now you know!

Begoner21;11682862']A philosopher once said that the simpler something is, the more accurate it is.

another said an empty can rattles the most....

are you going to say with a straight face that the ACLU want all criminals out and everyone dead?

please elaborate....

eh...not really a philosopher...but it is used in philosophy...

Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor:
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

ie...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.


And now you know!

I see it used more often in engineering and science than in philosophy. There, it is a good principle. In philosophy, desirable, but not nescesary.

And now you know!
And knowing is half the battle!

G.I. JOE!









Sorry, couldn't help myself.

another philosopher also said that there are four elements:earth, wind, fire, and water...:rolleyes:

I used philosophers because liberals tend to be enamored with them. These quotes aren't so elemental as that:

"We find in the course of nature that though the effects be many, the principles from which they arise are commonly few and simple, and that it is the sign of an unskilled naturalist to have recourse to a different quality in order to explain every different operation" (Hume).

"When a truth is necessary, the reason for it can be found by analysis, that is, by resolving it into simpler ideas and truths until the primary ones are reached" (Leibniz).

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler" (Einstein).

Didn't he also say that democracy was dangerous and should be avoided?;)

yup, and don't even get me started on machiavelli, and theres nietzsche's "Ubermensch" theory, and heraclitus swan-diving into an active volcano because he thought he was zeus....philosophers do not make good role models....

Is there any actual evidence of this ever having happened? Was Mr. Hannity arrested? Was it actually called for by the ACLU? If he was arrested, did he break the law?

These are very basic questions.

The article was biased as all shit. Sorry, I'm not trusting a word of it, seeing as it opens with "For years the American Civil Liberties Union has pushed its agenda in terms of what the Constitution “really says,” and what freedom “really means” through judicial extortion.". Sorry, no. Try again. Actually, don't.

ETA: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11682766&postcount=19
Thank you Ashmoria
http://www.hannity.com/index/news-ap...enu./sec./home

it would seem that the most basic "fact" set forth by the article is false. A+ for fact checking!
Facts have a liberal bias.

are you going to say with a straight face that the ACLU want all criminals out and everyone dead?

No, but the ACLU has championed "prisoner's rights," making it harder for prisoners to be convicted, giving convicted pedophiles and sexual abusers more rights. It has also hindered the government's attempts to protect us against terrorism.

Begoner21;11682900']No, but the ACLU has championed "prisoner's rights," making it harder for prisoners to be convicted, giving convicted pedophiles and sexual abusers more rights. It has also hindered the government's attempts to protect us against terrorism.
It has also stood up for those who demonstrait against abortion, challenged the government time and again for the rights of Christians to practice their religion, and has gone after the government to keep them out of our private lives, including our medical files.

They're doing what they say they are doing, protecting our civil liberties from being stripped away in the name of security.

Begoner21;11682900']No, but the ACLU has championed "prisoner's rights," making it harder for prisoners to be convicted, giving convicted pedophiles and sexual abusers more rights. It has also hindered the government's attempts to protect us against terrorism.

thats not what you said earlier. not even close.

sources? maybe they just pressure the government and law enforcement to obey the law or crazy commie concepts like that....

I see it used more often in engineering and science than in philosophy. There, it is a good principle. In philosophy, desirable, but not nescesary.
Engineering is definatly true...philosophy, it can work, but not always (as with everything in philosophy)
And knowing is half the battle!

G.I. JOE!









Sorry, couldn't help myself.
thats why we get along so well.

Facts have a liberal bias.
damn them. Fucking liberals!

And knowing is half the battle!

G.I. JOE!









Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Damn, beat me to it...

Damn, beat me to it...

sok...my comment to him applies to you too.

Begoner21;11682900']No, but the ACLU has championed "prisoner's rights," making it harder for prisoners to be convicted, giving convicted pedophiles and sexual abusers more rights. It has also hindered the government's attempts to protect us against terrorism.

Do you mean that the ACLU has protected the rights of Americans to fair and unbiased trials, protected their rights to freedom from unreasonable search, and prevented the governemtn from abusing the powers it has?

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

Do you mean that the ACLU has protected the rights of Americans to fair and unbiased trials, protected their rights to freedom from unreasonable search, and prevented the governemtn from abusing the powers it has?

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

Nah--he means it his way, because your way is the pussy liberal way. Of course, your way is correct, but that never stopped him before.

Begoner21;11682843']I do not support the rights of criminals to roam free and I support the right to life (in my opinion, the most fundamental right) above all others.
So do I, but you don't if they happen to be people getting "liberated" (from Earthly existence) by US bombs.

So let me make sure i got this absolutly, 100% correct.

He broke the law, right?

OK, good, end of story.

So let me make sure i got this absolutly, 100% correct.

He broke the law, right?

OK, good, end of story.

Did it deliberately and didn't get arrested, despite what the OP says.

he crossed the border realized he had unintentionally and came back, illegals dont go back.


sigh i keep forgetting, NS= spawing pool for liberals


Ya know, climbing back and forth over a fence is not an accident. A fence is definitely not "unmarked". It's there to, like, you know, mark the border? And like, he crossed it into Mexico, then back into the US? Please, your partisanship is showing.

It was a stupid publicity stunt in which he intentionally broke the law; he got as much punishment from us as he deserves. Now if Mexico decides to take umbrage, that's another story.

eh...not really a philosopher...but it is used in philosophy...

Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor:
"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

ie...the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.


And now you know!

And knowing is half the battle!

edit:damn NERVUN beat me to it, should have figured someone would have.

The title is the thread implies the ACLU was controlled by another organization.

Nothing like posting an obviously biased and factually-bankrupt article to really tell everyone just how credible you are. Wait, yes there is...waiting to see who jumps in the handbasket with you!

Article - discredited.
Allegations of ACLU bias - discredited.

Just slink away already. Comments like Begoner's only evidence that what such people really take issue with are rights and liberties. Demonize them all you like, most people like these things, and some crazy folks would even go so far as to assert this country was founded upon them! ;)

Nothing like posting an obviously biased and factually-bankrupt article to really tell everyone just how credible you are. Wait, yes there is...waiting to see who jumps in the handbasket with you!

Article - discredited.
Allegations of ACLU bias - discredited.

Just slink away already. Comments like Begoner's only evidence that what such people really take issue with are rights and liberties. Demonize them all you like, most people like these things, and some crazy folks would even go so far as to assert this country was founded upon them! ;)

Let's not get out of control, now. :p

Ok, another source is needed aside from a random website before I can make any statement for or against this.

I did read it.
Did he, or did he not, in fact, break the law?
So it's ok for the ACLU to target one person because he crossed the boarder... are they also calling for the ARREST of the other thousands of illegals that cross the boarder illegally?

I don't think so... rather selective in their fight, don't you think.

So it's ok for the ACLU to target one person because he crossed the boarder...


So in other words...he DID break the law?

OK, then arrest the fucker.

So in other words...he DID break the law?

OK, then arrest the fucker.

is the ACLU calling for the arrest of thousands of other illegal aliens in the US?



Oh, so it's a clear cut case of Discrimination!

or worse, deciding who the law applies to and who doesn't... you know... the same practice people accuse certain politicians of doing and calling them to stop.

http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/hawkins1.htm




you know I've been saying this stuff for years....

Who wrote this, and why should I care about his opinion?

Who wrote this, and why should I care about his opinion?

because it's someone's opinion. I'm sure you want people to give some weight to your opinions also.

of course, how much weight to give it is really up to you...

So it's ok for the ACLU to target one person because he crossed the boarder... are they also calling for the ARREST of the other thousands of illegals that cross the boarder illegally?

I don't think so... rather selective in their fight, don't you think.
Wouldn't that be more appropriate to the OP and the Minutemen who have no qualms with Sean Hanity doing so?

I believe the ACLU were making the very same point you are attempting to.

or worse, deciding who the law applies to and who doesn't... you know... the same practice people accuse certain politicians of doing and calling them to stop.

You're absolutly right. After all, the Minutemen have claimed anyone who enters the country illegally should be arrested.

As has he himself.

Thus I expect them them to enforce the law against him just as they, and he, have advocated it be done.

Which is exactly what the ACLU did.

Wouldn't that be more appropriate to the OP and the Minutemen who have no qualms with Sean Hanity doing so?

I believe the ACLU were making the very same point you are attempting to.

well, because of the lack of details...

it could be that the minutemen were watchin Mr Hanity as he crossed the boarder and came back. but if he came back with someone... then that can be cause for arrest. but if they did see him cross the border and come back alone. then they can also assume that he is not doing anything illegal since any law breaking would be on MEXICO's side. so if MEXICO is calling for his arrest...

also, I assume that his camera crew were with him since it was an interview/story on the Minutemen... were they arrested also?

is the ACLU calling for the arrest of thousands of other illegal aliens in the US?



Oh, so it's a clear cut case of Discrimination!

or worse, deciding who the law applies to and who doesn't... you know... the same practice people accuse certain politicians of doing and calling them to stop.

does the ACLU have expilicit video evidence of said people crossing the boarder, as they have with Mr. Hannity?

And more importantly, did Mr. Hannity break the law? If the answer to that is yes, then he should be punished as such, regardless of any other agendas.

You're absolutly right. After all, the Minutemen have claimed anyone who enters the country illegally should be arrested.

As has he himself.

Thus I expect them them to enforce the law against him just as they, and he, have advocated it be done.

Which is exactly what the ACLU did.
but Mr Hanity did not ENTER the country illegally... he RETURNED to his Home Country after a very breif pause in another country. also, what is NOT mentioned is how do you know he didn't clear his crossing with border officials beforehand?

and what constitutes an illegal entry? If he did show is US ID and proof of citizenship, then he is not entering Illegally. I can enter my home via the window if I want. All I have to prove to the police is that I am the resident of the domicile I entered!

does the ACLU have expilicit video evidence of said people crossing the boarder, as they have with Mr. Hannity?

And more importantly, did Mr. Hannity break the law? If the answer to that is yes, then he should be punished as such, regardless of any other agendas.

yes. various citizens in the country without work permits, id, or even passports or visa's of any sort. things one needs to enter this (or any) country legally.

as a non american who doesnt know the personalities involved am i right in this:

a right wing 'hang em and flog em' commentator was with a bunch of vigilanties when he crossed the border and then back. when pressed the fuzz decided not to prosecute him and the ACLU are bringing a case to discredit the vigilianties and pressure the border cops to do their job?

if this guy is going to preach law and order, he has to be very careful to obey the law himself, because the one thing worse than professional whiners are professional hypocrites.

There are a bunch of "professional hypocrites" in our society. They are better known as Hollywood actors and celebrities. They are professional hypocrites; they make their living through hypocrisy, i.e., ACTING, pretending to be somebody or something they are not.

because it's someone's opinion. I'm sure you want people to give some weight to your opinions also.

of course, how much weight to give it is really up to you...

Touche'.

What I was annoyed at was the OP's linking to this as if it were some sort of factual piece of information. I go there and I get some blurb from some guy I don't know who goes off on the ACLU for slights both real and imagined without any kind of back-up to support his opinions. I overreacted. I actually had to edit some profanity out of my post. :p

The original poster was a troll and I fell for it. I usually am the first to mock these people. I must be slipping in my old age. :p

then they can also assume that he is not doing anything illegal since any law breaking would be on MEXICO's side. so if MEXICO is calling for his arrest...
Federal law, specifically 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(a), requires all "individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft [to] enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and immediately report the arrivals and present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection; to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point."

I know I have to cross into the US at designated points, present my passport and customs slip for inspection (even as a US citizen), and be asked weird questions about if I have ever lived in Missouri (don't ask me why, every time I come home I get asked that). That's the law, I can't by-pass it without getting dogpiled and arrested.

So why does Mr. Hannity get to?

That was the point the ACLU was trying to make, and the fact that they did not take the complaint seriously enough to file anything beyond a complaint shows that.

Touche'.

What I was annoyed at was the OP's linking to this as if it were some sort of factual piece of information. I go there and I get some blurb from some guy I don't know who goes off on the ACLU for slights both real and imagined without any kind of back-up to support his opinions. I overreacted. I actually had to edit some profanity out of my post. :p

The original poster was a troll and I fell for it. I usually am the first to mock these people. I must be slipping in my old age. :p

nah, I count it as personal opinon.

News light so to speak... little facts lots of air... no calories. :p

nah, I count it as personal opinon.

News light so to speak... little facts lots of air... no calories. :p

Mental rice cakes! :)

nah, I count it as personal opinon.

News light so to speak... little facts lots of air... no calories. :p
Why do I get the mental image of you and LG arguing "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" over and over again now. ;):D

Federal law, specifically 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(a), requires all "individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft [to] enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and immediately report the arrivals and present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection; to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point."

I know I have to cross into the US at designated points, present my passport and customs slip for inspection (even as a US citizen), and be asked weird questions about if I have ever lived in Missouri (don't ask me why, every time I come home I get asked that). That's the law, I can't by-pass it without getting dogpiled and arrested.

So why does Mr. Hannity get to?

That was the point the ACLU was trying to make, and the fact that they did not take the complaint seriously enough to file anything beyond a complaint shows that.the fact that (again due to the lack of facts given) there is no marker drawn in the sand on where exactly the border is (untill the fence is built... that is.) his crossing into Mexico was accidental. if he was with armed Minutemen, I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't crying INVASION!

How long was Mr. Hannity's stay in Mexico? a couple of hours, a couple of minutes... days? not reported in the op. the "officials" knew Mr Hannity is a Citizen of America and also his purpose there. so any crossing for a minimal amount of time would be considered accidental. now if Mr Hannity was caught sneaking someone in.... then that's something else.

and again... I'm sure he crossed with his camera crew and others. he wouldn't be out there by his lonesome... so is the ACLU calling for all their arrests? if not, why not?

he RETURNED to his Home Country after a very breif pause in another country. also, what is NOT mentioned is how do you know he didn't clear his crossing with border officials beforehand?

and what constitutes an illegal entry? If he did show is US ID and proof of citizenship, then he is not entering Illegally. I can enter my home via the window if I want. All I have to prove to the police is that I am the resident of the domicile I entered!

Incorrect. Whenever you enter the united states from a foreign country, regardless of whether or not you are a citizen, it must be at a predesignated location with the proper paperwork to do so.

Even if he cleared it with "border officials" before hand, unless he cleared with with the secretary of the interior, and had that particular place designated a proper point of entry, and had his identification papers ready...he violated federal law. Period.

Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you can enter this country any way you want. Technically he violated federal law. Does it matter too much? Not really...but he DID do it.

Why do I get the mental image of you and LG arguing "Tastes great!" "Less filling!" over and over again now. ;):D

well... I can't speak for the Taste... but it is rather insubstantial. :D

the fact that (again due to the lack of facts given) there is no marker drawn in the sand on where exactly the border is (untill the fence is built... that is.) his crossing into Mexico was accidental. if he was with armed Minutemen, I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't crying INVASION!

How long was Mr. Hannity's stay in Mexico? a couple of hours, a couple of minutes... days? not reported in the op. the "officials" knew Mr Hannity is a Citizen of America and also his purpose there. so any crossing for a minimal amount of time would be considered accidental. now if Mr Hannity was caught sneaking someone in.... then that's something else.

and again... I'm sure he crossed with his camera crew and others. he wouldn't be out there by his lonesome... so is the ACLU calling for all their arrests? if not, why not?


Even by himself, even accidental, even for a brief second, even over an unclear border.....

It's still a violation of federal law, which still makes it an illegal act. Why is he not turning himself in since he has attacked people who enter the country illegally before?

Incorrect. Whenever you enter the united states from a foreign country, regardless of whether or not you are a citizen, it must be at a predesignated location with the proper paperwork to do so.

Even if he cleared it with "border officials" before hand, unless he cleared with with the secretary of the interior, and had that particular place designated a proper point of entry, and had his identification papers ready...he violated federal law. Period.

Just because you are a citizen doesn't mean you can enter this country any way you want. Technically he violated federal law. Does it matter too much? Not really...but he DID do it.
again, where is the cry for the rest of his crew to be arrested? where is the ACLU's massive attempt to get rid of the Illegals already in America? because they are singling out one person (according to the OP and link that is.) the ACLU is being made to look bad by hounding one person... for an accidental crossing into foriegn nations.

all this really is, is an argument to get the fence built. after all, if accidental crossings are now deemed illegal (from any side) then the only solution to stop it is to make the entire border impenetrable. perhaps another canal.

and again... where is the cry for Hannity's crew to be arrested... where is the movement by the ACLU to get the others who are here already illegally, out of the country? Can you prove that the ACLU is also holding others to their high standards or are they as guilty as the Minutemen they are saying is playing 'favorites'.

because it's someone's opinion. I'm sure you want people to give some weight to your opinions also.

of course, how much weight to give it is really up to you...

Well, you can Google for it: http://www.google.com/search?q=hannity+%2B+arrested&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

No corroborating sources for the "facts" presented...you're merely perfuming a dog turd, and I'd give it about that weight. The ACLU representatives observed a law being broken and reported it. Do you have evidence they've not reported observing others? If not, that's your opinion...actually, your unsubstantiated accusation. If so, then it may be hypocrisy on the part of the reporting agents. The farthest you'll get with that is that a person reported someone they disliked for committing a crime, which is not exactly rare. Tattling is among the first forms of retaliation we learn.

http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/hawkins1.htm




you know I've been saying this stuff for years....The ACLU got Sean Hannity arrested?! :eek:
Cool! :cool:

Even by himself, even accidental, even for a brief second, even over an unclear border.....

It's still a violation of federal law, which still makes it an illegal act. Why is he not turning himself in since he has attacked people who enter the country illegally before?

and until the ACLU is joining the fight to remove illegals, I say that the ACLU (if they are actually calling for Hannity's arrest) is just as wrong as the Minutemen that allowed Hannity to the border in the first place.

worse actually, because the ACLU prides themselves by not being Discriminatory!

So if they can and do get Hannity arrested, I say Sean Hannity can sue because he was Singled out and persecuted by the ACLU!

I can't find reliable information that the ACLU even took an interest in this case. All I can find are blogs and opinions often citing the same undefined source, some saying that the border at that point was not marked, others saying that there was a fence that Hannity climbed.

All seems to point to the fact that Hannity did cross the border illegaly, but it's not a big deal. In fact each day there are dozens of such incursions from both sides of the border, cattle goes astray, people get lost, etc. The governments don't see this as a significant breach, there was no intention to break the law and nothing came of it. No biggie as they say.

The other is that it seems that the ACLU never asked for Mr Hannity's arrest or anything like that, the ACLU doesn't even work like that. In fact, it seems that they've defended Hannity before for unlawful dismissal.

So, the OP was a bunch of lies.

and again... where is the cry for Hannity's crew to be arrested... where is the movement by the ACLU to get the others who are here already illegally, out of the country? Can you prove that the ACLU is also holding others to their high standards or are they as guilty as the Minutemen they are saying is playing 'favorites'.

Where is the cry at all (or the proof of unequal treatment)? The fact of the matter is that they reported the crossing, which would have included everyone involved. Then, when the police would not do anything, they dropped it.

Man, will those rabid bastards ever learn? :rolleyes:

the fact that (again due to the lack of facts given) there is no marker drawn in the sand on where exactly the border is (untill the fence is built... that is.) his crossing into Mexico was accidental. if he was with armed Minutemen, I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't crying INVASION!

How long was Mr. Hannity's stay in Mexico? a couple of hours, a couple of minutes... days? not reported in the op. the "officials" knew Mr Hannity is a Citizen of America and also his purpose there. so any crossing for a minimal amount of time would be considered accidental. now if Mr Hannity was caught sneaking someone in.... then that's something else.

and again... I'm sure he crossed with his camera crew and others. he wouldn't be out there by his lonesome... so is the ACLU calling for all their arrests? if not, why not?
Later on in the thread it is reveiled that he climbed over afence, so he knew where the border was (now I have no idea if the camera crew went over the fence with him, but since they don't go on national TV calling for arrests of anyone coming over the border, it doesn't make the point). He did this dilberately and unless a customs offical was there to check his id, he would STILL need to be checked back into the country, even if it was just for a moment according to the law.

But, again, this was the obvious point that the ACLU was making, it's ok for a Fox News commenter to do this, but lord forbid anyone else doing so. It's especially hummorus when said commentator is usually at the forefront screaming how people should obey the law.

well... I can't speak for the Taste... but it is rather insubstantial. :D
I'll agree with ya there. ;)

Where is the cry at all (or the proof of unequal treatment)? The fact of the matter is that they reported the crossing, which would have included everyone involved. Then, when the police would not do anything, they dropped it.

Man, will those rabid bastards ever learn? :rolleyes:

which is why I'm not really putting effort in this debate. the site that the op links to doesn't back up any of his... opinions.

So if they can and do get Hannity arrested, I say Sean Hannity can sue because he was Singled out and persecuted by the ACLU!

Please cite me a case in which the court ruled that an individual had been discriminated against because he was reported for a crime when others were not. Generally, failing to report a crime is not illegal, and they are allowed to do just that whenever they like. These are not the police.

Later on in the thread it is reveiled that he climbed over afence, so he knew where the border was (now I have no idea if the camera crew went over the fence with him, but since they don't go on national TV calling for arrests of anyone coming over the border, it doesn't make the point). He did this dilberately and unless a customs offical was there to check his id, he would STILL need to be checked back into the country, even if it was just for a moment according to the law.

But, again, this was the obvious point that the ACLU was making, it's ok for a Fox News commenter to do this, but lord forbid anyone else doing so. It's especially hummorus when said commentator is usually at the forefront screaming how people should obey the law.and was he doing this to prove a point on how easy it was to enter the country? if so, then how do you know he did or didn't clear it with some official? we don't know. was the minutemen there watching? if so, then they knew that the crossing was not "illegal" but under supervision. was he filmed crossing into mexico then coming back? I would certainly be happy to see the ACLU use their legal might to get Hannity convicted! The look on the Judge's face when he sees the "evidence" and the look on their faces when he tosses the case out. and the look on everyone's faces when the ACLU tries to take it to the Supreme court...

and can you show me anyother time a news reporter/commentator did the same thing and they got arrested?

Out of control ACLU whacko assholes!

Don't them crazy evil sumbitches know Uhmurkas constituion is the BIBEL!

Please cite me a case in which the court ruled that an individual had been discriminated against because he was reported for a crime when others were not. Generally, failing to report a crime is not illegal, and they are allowed to do just that whenever they like. These are not the police.
Please cite me cases where the ACLU is fighting to get thousands of Illegal Aliens arrested because they too crossed the borders illegally. Are they fighting for their arrest?

I'll agree with ya there. ;)

this rather fun. since I really don't care if I win or lose this one... :p

and was he doing this to prove a point on how easy it was to enter the country? if so, then how do you know he did or didn't clear it with some official? we don't know. was the minutemen there watching? if so, then they knew that the crossing was not "illegal" but under supervision. was he filmed crossing into mexico then coming back? I would certainly be happy to see the ACLU use their legal might to get Hannity convicted! The look on the Judge's face when he sees the "evidence" and the look on their faces when he tosses the case out. and the look on everyone's faces when the ACLU tries to take it to the Supreme court...

and can you show me anyother time a news reporter/commentator did the same thing and they got arrested?

SHOW A SOURCE THAT SAYS THIS ONE DID!

This source is two years old, this is not pending, so quite talking like there's a big lawsuit coming down the tubes - it makes you look uninformed. Firstly, how do we know he didn't clear it? Because an article as biased as this in his favor surely would have cited that in his defense. Secondly, the Minutemen are civilians, and not licensed to observe any such thing. For f-cks sake man, I know you're not putting much effort in but at least take the time to educate yourself on the story!

So if they can and do get Hannity arrested, I say Sean Hannity can sue because he was Singled out and persecuted by the ACLU!

You make is sound like this is a bad thing.

He did a publicity stunt and got what he deserved.

Please cite me cases where the ACLU is fighting to get thousands of Illegal Aliens arrested because they too crossed the borders illegally. Are they fighting for their arrest?

You are just all over the map here to rationalize this.

1) Nice dodge, now try to answer my relevant challenge while I tell you why yours is not.

2) The ACLU is not represented here as an agency. The people who reported this did not bring it before the ACLU, they made a personal decision to report it. Guess what? That does not constitute organizational policy!

3) It's perfectly legal for them to operate with prejudice - they are a civilian nonprofit organization. You're blowing a lot of hot air on this one.

4) Once again, do you have any proof that their agents have failed to observe others committing this crime? For all you know, they report incidents that they see because it's their policy to report crimes, though they are ideologically opposed to the laws. This article does not say, but just because you can fill in the blanks doesn't make it true. Where is your proof?

SHOW A SOURCE THAT SAYS THIS ONE DID!

This source is two years old, this is not pending, so quite talking like there's a big lawsuit coming down the tubes - it makes you look uninformed. Firstly, how do we know he didn't clear it? Because an article as biased as this in his favor surely would have cited that in his defense. Secondly, the Minutemen are civilians, and not licensed to observe any such thing. For f-cks sake man, I know you're not putting much effort in but at least take the time to educate yourself on the story!
we don't. we don't know if he did clear it for a "Demonstration" of any sort. We don't know if officials did talk to Hannity after it was aired. We don't know if there was an investigation, and since the writer of that article, probably doesn't have access to the same sources and respected news sources do, just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

and while the Minutemen are civilians, the are also WITNESSES, thus they can, under oath swear in court that they did see Mr Hannity cross into Mexico and back.

and I never said there was a Big Lawsuit in the works. from everything people call the ACLU, not one of them is "stupid".

and was he doing this to prove a point on how easy it was to enter the country? if so, then how do you know he did or didn't clear it with some official? we don't know.
Unless the Sec of State issued him a diplomatic passport, there's no way to avoid checking with customs officals upon return to the US.

Now, it IS possible he's got one, but you'd think that he'd be screaming it from the roof tops if he did have one.

was the minutemen there watching? if so, then they knew that the crossing was not "illegal" but under supervision.
Um... the Minutemen do not constitute federal border or customs officals. They aren't even deputised. It doesn't matter if they were there or not as they are private citizens and NOT the athorities deleigated by the Congress and the Secs of State and Homeland Security.

was he filmed crossing into mexico then coming back?
Evidently. The ACLU group that was keeping an eye on the Minutemen filmed him.

I would certainly be happy to see the ACLU use their legal might to get Hannity convicted! The look on the Judge's face when he sees the "evidence" and the look on their faces when he tosses the case out. and the look on everyone's faces when the ACLU tries to take it to the Supreme court...
Considering they rendered a complaint to the local DA and the Border Patrol and THEY didn't act upon it, it doesn't look like a court case is coming up any time soon (The ACLU being a civil court group as opposed to criminal where this sort of thing would belong).

and can you show me anyother time a news reporter/commentator did the same thing and they got arrested?
Don't know, can you show me any other time a journalist tried to hop the border without stopping at customs and was filmed doing it?

this rather fun. since I really don't care if I win or lose this one... :p
You are a mean, mean person. ;)

Actually I'm not all that bothered meself. The OP has disapeared and no one else is touching this so...

That and it's Friday afternoon here and I'm bored silly because my kids are off painting for the day and since I have NO artistic tallent, I'm stuck in the staff room.

we don't. we don't know if he did clear it for a "Demonstration" of any sort. We don't know if officials did talk to Hannity after it was aired. We don't know if there was an investigation, and since the writer of that article, probably doesn't have access to the same sources and respected news sources do, just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

and while the Minutemen are civilians, the are also WITNESSES, thus they can, under oath swear in court that they did see Mr Hannity cross into Mexico and back.

and I never said there was a Big Lawsuit in the works. from everything people call the ACLU, not one of them is "stupid".

Right, they're going to deviously wait two years (or more, no dates on these events, just their publication) to gain...what? A political celebrity arrested by the report of his enemies...this is the internet, if something happened to a celebrity and it is not mentioned here, there is a DAMNED GOOD chance it didn't happen. Tow years later...we're not exactly still waiting for someone to break the story.

The second account posted makes a lot more sense given the allegations. If Hannity HAD been prosecuted, charged, let alone arrested due to the ACLU, it would practically receive daily mention. He's be a martyr for his own cause!

"was the minutemen there watching? if so, then they knew that the crossing was not 'illegal' but under supervision."

You used the Minutemen to support a defense that he was being observed by agents who could legally do so making the act not illegal - there is no rewording that now! That's just intellectual dishonesty; and if you don't care, why bother with it? I think you're saying you don't care because you got worked up and got your -ss handed to you.

The ACLU group that was keeping an eye on the Minutemen filmed him.

By the way, this rules out the idea that these particular agents had been observing but not reporting crossings. They were with the Minutemen. Somehow, I think the latter would have taken care of reporting anything the ACLU might have seen. So, it is not reasonable to suggest that any crossings in their vicitinity would not have been reported.

You are just all over the map here to rationalize this.

1) Nice dodge, now try to answer my relevant challenge while I tell you why yours is not.

2) The ACLU is not represented here as an agency. The people who reported this did not bring it before the ACLU, they made a personal decision to report it. Guess what? That does not constitute organizational policy!
Mr. Hannity's border violations were videotaped by ACLU Legal Observers. The Border Patrol was contacted, but they chose not to arrest or cite Mr. Hannity for his willful violation of federal law. Likewise, Minutemen in the vicinity of the incident did not take the opportunity to turn Mr. Hannity over to federal officials, as they have allegedly done with all other illegal immigrants apprehended on the border this month.
guess what... they were.
3) It's perfectly legal for them to operate with prejudice - they are a civilian nonprofit organization. You're blowing a lot of hot air on this one.they cannot operate with Prejudice. no one can. while they can do certain things they are open to civil suites. however, legal wise, if their lawyers are worth their fees, the lawers can't.
4) Once again, do you have any proof that their agents have failed to observe others committing this crime? For all you know, they report incidents that they see because it's their policy to report crimes, though they are ideologically opposed to the laws. This article does not say, but just because you can fill in the blanks doesn't make it true. Where is your proof?but this one does. it points out the fault is with the Minutemen. not with the ACLU nor with Mr Hannity. something that the OP's link doesn't try to clear. thus showing it's true bias.
This is the very same crime that Minutemen have traveled across the country to Arizona to stop. While some may argue that Mr. Hannity's actions were not significant, he committed the same crime that all individuals who enter the country illegally commit. In fact, ACLU observers were warned that they would be arrested if they accidentally or deliberately crossed the border and tried to reenter the U.S.

does the ACLU have expilicit video evidence of said people crossing the boarder, as they have with Mr. Hannity?

And more importantly, did Mr. Hannity break the law? If the answer to that is yes, then he should be punished as such, regardless of any other agendas.

(...specifically 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(a), requires all) "individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft [to] enter the United States only at a border crossing point designated by the Secretary; and immediately report the arrivals and present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection; to the customs officer at the customs facility designated for that crossing point."

According to 19 U.S.C. Section 1459(e), anyone who intentionally enters the United States at a place other than a designated border crossing can be imprisoned for up to one year and fined up to $5,000.

So, I'm thinking yes, he did break the law.

the fact that (again due to the lack of facts given) there is no marker drawn in the sand on where exactly the border is (untill the fence is built... that is.) his crossing into Mexico was accidental. if he was with armed Minutemen, I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't crying INVASION!

How long was Mr. Hannity's stay in Mexico? a couple of hours, a couple of minutes... days? not reported in the op. the "officials" knew Mr Hannity is a Citizen of America and also his purpose there. so any crossing for a minimal amount of time would be considered accidental. now if Mr Hannity was caught sneaking someone in.... then that's something else.

and again... I'm sure he crossed with his camera crew and others. he wouldn't be out there by his lonesome... so is the ACLU calling for all their arrests? if not, why not?

Hey, genius! Read much? HE CLIMBED A FENCE. You know, one that was ALREADY THERE, marking the border. Are you so enamored with your own substitute reality that even reading the thread is beyond your grasp now?

You are a mean, mean person. ;)

Actually I'm not all that bothered meself. The OP has disapeared and no one else is touching this so...

That and it's Friday afternoon here and I'm bored silly because my kids are off painting for the day and since I have NO artistic tallent, I'm stuck in the staff room. :p
I'm bored also. so just catching up on some web comics.
Everyone has some artistic talent. you just have to find yours and cultivate it. ;)

Hey, genius! Read much? HE CLIMBED A FENCE. You know, one that was ALREADY THERE, marking the border. Are you so enamored with your own substitute reality that even reading the thread is beyond your grasp now?
Yeah, I missed that line. so point withdrawn.

See, now lookit what we all had to go through to finally get to the point where all the relevant angles were removed from the sea of horseshit the OP presented. Seven or more pages of back-and-forth on the ACLU.

Then again, why else are we here?

:p
I'm bored also. so just catching up on some web comics.
Everyone has some artistic talent. you just have to find yours and cultivate it. ;)
Nope, not me. I can't draw a straight line to save my life and my attempts at painting and other crafts have be used to torture suspects at GITMO.

Which is sad as one grandmother paints, the other teaches oil painting and sells professionally. My aunt does art for a living. My mother can craft with the best of them. And anything my sister touches will become artistic.

Of course I can operate a computer without resorting to beating it. ;)

guess what... they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_observer

"Legal observer" means they were there watching for laws to be broken, not that they were acting as officers of the law in any capacity.

they cannot operate with Prejudice. no one can. while they can do certain things they are open to civil suites.

Yes, individuals can. Private nonprofits can. Businesses and agents of the government cannot. Discriminating against a fellow citizen, while a terrible thing to do, is not illegal. If I have a black neighbor on one side and a white neighbor on the other and both are breaking noise ordinances, I am well within my rights to report the black neighbor on every occasion and the white neighbor on no occasion. I'd be a prejudiced prick, but I'd be a prejudiced prick with civil rights.

it points out the fault is with the Minutemen. not with the ACLU nor with Mr Hannity. something that the OP's link doesn't try to clear. thus showing it's true bias.

Well, actually Hannity did still break the law, while the ACLU did nothing illegal or even evidenced wrong. In fairness to the Minutemen, they work to stop illegal non-citizens from crossing, not simply illegal crossings. Hannity is obviously a citizen, and reporting his crime is not their modus operandi. Why would they bother? That would be like the Guardian Angels reporting someone for illegal parking or littering.

Right, they're going to deviously wait two years (or more, no dates on these events, just their publication) to gain...what? A political celebrity arrested by the report of his enemies...this is the internet, if something happened to a celebrity and it is not mentioned here, there is a DAMNED GOOD chance it didn't happen. Tow years later...we're not exactly still waiting for someone to break the story.
Never underestimate the deviousness of Lawyers... :p
The second account posted makes a lot more sense given the allegations. If Hannity HAD been prosecuted, charged, let alone arrested due to the ACLU, it would practically receive daily mention. He's be a martyr for his own cause!however, since the ACLU were filming it. the BP and Minutemen didn't consider that a rule breakage. now if they filmed an unknown... say an ACLU person climbing the fence... I wonder what they would do?

"was the minutemen there watching? if so, then they knew that the crossing was not 'illegal' but under supervision."

You used the Minutemen to support a defense that he was being observed by agents who could legally do so making the act not illegal - there is no rewording that now! That's just intellectual dishonesty; and if you don't care, why bother with it? I think you're saying you don't care because you got worked up and got your -ss handed to you.I've had my ass handed to me many times. I'm used to it already... nothing new. now bear this in mind. you see a film of well known news reporter climbing a fence to the mexico side. then back over. are you honestly going to follow the letter of the law and arrest him? or will you follow the spirit of the law which is to prevent illegal aliens from crossing into the country?

ever seen Dateline's To Catch a Preditor? those people acting like children to set up (yes, set up) child preditors can be considered to be breaking the law. enticement, Falsifying identities, pandering in some cases, and several others. they do not hold powers of arrest, nor are they duly deputized in most states. yet, because what they do is saving children from horrible fates, the police turn a blind eye to what they do. should they be arrested and fined?



By the way, this rules out the idea that these particular agents had been observing but not reporting crossings. They were with the Minutemen. Somehow, I think the latter would have taken care of reporting anything the ACLU might have seen. So, it is not reasonable to suggest that any crossings in their vicitinity would not have been reported.actually they were with ACLU Legal Observers. if Minutemen were there... then again... it's up to those Minutemen who are not legal officers.

would be interesting tho if one of the ALCU observers climed the fence... if he/she had been arrested, and Hannity not.... then it would be a different article and thread.

you see a film of well known news reporter climbing a fence to the mexico side. then back over. are you honestly going to follow the letter of the law and arrest him? or will you follow the spirit of the law which is to prevent illegal aliens from crossing into the country?
Technically the law that Mr. Hannity broke was to prevent smuggling. There are no laws against the movement of US citizens in and out of the country, only that they stop at a customs station and show what they may have...

Like a suitecase full of Swiss clocks for example. ;)

ever seen Dateline's To Catch a Preditor? those people acting like children to set up (yes, set up) child preditors can be considered to be breaking the law. enticement, Falsifying identities, pandering in some cases, and several others. they do not hold powers of arrest, nor are they duly deputized in most states. yet, because what they do is saving children from horrible fates, the police turn a blind eye to what they do. should they be arrested and fined?
Actually various police and prosocuters have gone on records saying that, while they appricate the help, they really wish that people wouldn't do that. It engangers the users and it may put other investigations at risk.

however, since the ACLU were filming it. the BP and Minutemen didn't consider that a rule breakage. now if they filmed an unknown... say an ACLU person climbing the fence... I wonder what they would do?

They were warned not to do so for just that reason, as mentioned.

you see a film of well known news reporter climbing a fence to the mexico side. then back over. are you honestly going to follow the letter of the law and arrest him? or will you follow the spirit of the law which is to prevent illegal aliens from crossing into the country?

I suppose you've not had time to read my Wiki link - they're legal observers, not federal agents or law enforcement.

ever seen Dateline's To Catch a Preditor? those people acting like children to set up (yes, set up) child preditors can be considered to be breaking the law. enticement, Falsifying identities, pandering in some cases, and several others. they do not hold powers of arrest, nor are they duly deputized in most states. yet, because what they do is saving children from horrible fates, the police turn a blind eye to what they do. should they be arrested and fined?

Firstly, who was enticing here? Hannity climbed a fence, which was his own plan and action. No state or federal agents were involved here, so there is no entrapment. Secondly, as far as the show, that is not illegal either.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11131562/

And since the stated intent of the house visit is to have sex with a minor, the ultimate responsibility lies with the men who come knocking on the door, no matter who initiates the meeting.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1728.html

Entrapment encourages someone to commit a crime that the individual may have had no intention of committing. Conversely, enticement lures someone toward some evidence (a honey pot, if you will) after that individual has already committed a crime. Enticement is not necessarily illegal but does raise ethical arguments and may not be admissible in court.

Technically the law that Mr. Hannity broke was to prevent smuggling. There are no laws against the movement of US citizens in and out of the country, only that they stop at a customs station and show what they may have...

Like a suitecase full of Swiss clocks for example. ;)from Mexico? I suspect they're watching out for more that just clocks... :D


Actually various police and prosocuters have gone on records saying that, while they appricate the help, they really wish that people wouldn't do that. It engangers the users and it may put other investigations at risk.yep... but they don't do anything to stop them.

from Mexico? I suspect they're watching out for more that just clocks... :D
You didn't get that? My dear JuNii, I hereby ORDER you to go rewatch Monty Python's Flying Circus until you are well enough to come back to General and understand all the references.

yep... but they don't do anything to stop them.
Kinda hard to stop someone when you don't know what they're doing until they do it. If police could do that, we wouldn't have any crime in the first place. ;)

yes. various citizens in the country without work permits, id, or even passports or visa's of any sort. things one needs to enter this (or any) country legally.

yes...and did he show them at a boarder crossing? That is the important part. I can cross the rio grande thousands of times. The fact is, I would have entered Mexico and the US illlegally, and they would have full right ot at the very least interrogate me.

ever seen Dateline's To Catch a Preditor? those people acting like children to set up (yes, set up) child preditors can be considered to be breaking the law. enticement, Falsifying identities, pandering in some cases, and several others. they do not hold powers of arrest, nor are they duly deputized in most states. yet, because what they do is saving children from horrible fates, the police turn a blind eye to what they do. should they be arrested and fined?

To expand on this, no, because they've committed no crimes. It is a crime to entice...a child. It is a crime to falsify your identity...in monetary exchanges or in dealing with police or government. Pandering? I'm not even familiar with that one, but like the others it is likely not illegal save for in specific cases (if at all).

They were warned not to do so for just that reason, as mentioned.yep. and guess what. when the film is shown, it's up to the Government Agents to persue the matter. maybe they did, and did not tell the ACLU. maybe they Didn't. we can only assume...


I suppose you've not had time to read my Wiki link - they're legal observers, not federal agents or law enforcement.
Remember this quote?
2) The ACLU is not represented here as an agency. The people who reported this did not bring it before the ACLU, they made a personal decision to report it. Guess what? That does not constitute organizational policy!They were there as ACLU LEGAL OBSERVERS... so they were representing the ACLU. I never said the ACLU nor their OBSERVERS had the powers of Arrest other than Citizen's Arrest nor were they Law Enforcement Officals.

Firstly, who was enticing here? Hannity climbed a fence, which was his own plan and action. No state or federal agents were involved here, so there is no entrapment. Secondly, as far as the show, that is not illegal either.but the group posing as teens to lure these preditors out are not anyway attached to any Law Enforcement Agency. they are posing as teens, so that is mis-representing themselves and giving false impressions... you know.. a CON.

To expand on this, no, because they've committed no crimes. It is a crime to entice...a child. It is a crime to falsify your identity...in monetary exchanges or in dealing with police or government. Pandering? I'm not even familiar with that one, but like the others it is likely not illegal save for in specific cases (if at all).and is it not wrong to entice a person into doing something illegal? you hold up drugs to someone and initiate a sale, unless you are an officer of the law, you are also wrong for selling contraband material. Pandering (used in the context of Prostitution) is illegal for both buyer and seller. Falsifying identity in any case is illegal. considering that this form of Falsifying identities is for the purpose of getting people arrested makes it wrong in the eyes of the law.

and Point. I did Not use the word Entrapment, but again, note the word Necessarily... lots of leeway with that word...

now for the Law dictionary (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=637&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C). entrapment
n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or sell narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to purchase goods believed to be stolen. The factual question is: Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not pressed by the narc?Bolding mine. that is why I didn't use the Word ENTRAPMENT. because they are not Law Enforcement Officers, the word does not apply to them. they are pandering. tempting people... Bait.

and since you don't know what Pandering (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1435&bold=||||) is...
pander
1) v. to solicit customers for a prostitute. 2) n. a pimp, who procures customers for a prostitute or lures a woman into prostitution, all for his own profit. 3) v. catering to special interests without any principles, such as a politician who says to whatever group he/she is addressing just what they want to hear to win their support, contributions or favors.

as for Perverted-Justice... I love the wording of the article you linked...
Clearly, no arms are twisted to get these men to engage in sexually explicit online chats.yep... I agree with that.
And since the stated intent of the house visit is to have sex with a minor, the ultimate responsibility lies with the men who come knocking on the door, no matter who initiates the meeting.now here is the problem. note, MEETING... not initiating talk of sex nor Invitation for Sex. Big difference in the legal courtroom.

Perverted-Justice keeps a record of every online exchange and detailed notes of each phone conversation. gee... if you replaced "Perverted-Justice" with CIA/NSA/Government... you'll have everyone screaming "Illegal Wiretaps!" and remember, Perverted-Justice isn't a Law Enforcement Group. but Volunteers.

In many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex. So in most cases, These false children... the BAIT, initiates the events to lure these people to their homes.

Enticement? Yes. Entrapment. I don't think so.Of course it's not Entrapment. Perverted-Justice isn't a Law Enforcement agency. so it's not Entrapment. yet even the author of that article doesn't know and attempts to make it "alright" by saying how much good they're doing and note, he did admit it is Enticement.

They are doing good and I believe they should be made into a law enforcement agency. but the point i'm making is that dispite the good they are doing, some of em are breaking the law. the act of arresting law breakers has always been an option of the LAW ENFORCER. granted there are some Laws that when broken, must lead to an arrest, while others can have mitigating circumstances and it's up to the officer wether or not to persue that arrest.

yes...and did he show them at a boarder crossing? That is the important part. I can cross the rio grande thousands of times. The fact is, I would have entered Mexico and the US illlegally, and they would have full right ot at the very least interrogate me.yep. but wether or not they will arrest you is up to the Offical doing the questioning.

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?

:D

however, My intent is not to troll. play devil's advocate yes, but not to troll. Unless a mod thinks I am, then I will stop.

I think its refreshing to argue another point of view from time to time.

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?
You've put your finger on the pulse that is NS General...

What surprises me is that he's being taken seriously.

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?

And it amazes me that this crew can argue about something that happened 2 or so years ago, that no one can actually verify as having really happened and even the ACLU was apparently not interested in enough to do more than file a routine complaint.

Though I guess after being here this long, I shouldn't be surprised at pretty much anything that happens around these parts.:D

This whole thing just reinforces the claim that forum denizens actually have no lives.

This whole thing just reinforces the claim that forum denizens actually have no lives.I could've told you THAT! :D


Well, in my case anyway... :(

I could've told you THAT! :D


Well, in my case anyway... :(

Heheh, nice to know I ain't alone in that.

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?

This is why I stopped arguing. Playing devil's advocate is taking viable, intelligent positions for the sake of argument. Rewording and recontextualizing your arguments to get a reaction is just trolling. For a while, I thought he was just confused...but no one is that confused (and I work with schizophrenics).

That's alright, I've not been Snubis'd in a while...

Lol go ACLU …

They used legal recourse on making a statement involving an idiot pundit and his position on immigration

BTW sense when did ignorance become an excuse to break the law which he apparently did

And it amazes me that this crew can argue about something that happened 2 or so years ago, that no one can actually verify as having really happened and even the ACLU was apparently not interested in enough to do more than file a routine complaint.

Though I guess after being here this long, I shouldn't be surprised at pretty much anything that happens around these parts.:D

This whole thing just reinforces the claim that forum denizens actually have no lives.


I thought this happened for a second time in as many years.

After reading this post I haven't seen anyone point out the fact that it was established by the border patrol that he did not actually cross the border. The fact is like a good neighbor we did not build our fence directly on the US-Mexico border rather a few feet back on the US side. So if Mr Hannity actually stepped through a hole in the fence he was actually still stepping his foot on US soil. So where is the problem here?

:D

JuNii has basically admited he is arguing for the hell of it and the argument continues?

haha...hey, he wasn't the only one who was bored.

That's alright, I've not been Snubis'd in a while...
Damn, I haven't read that name in a looooooong time.

Lol go ACLU …

They used legal recourse on making a statement involving an idiot pundit and his position on immigration

BTW sense when did ignorance become an excuse to break the law which he apparently did

How is it against the law to cross the border not do anything, not take anything, not spend any money and then come back in much less than 24 hours? Is there really a law against this?

http://www.davidstuff.com/incorrect/hawkins1.htm




you know I've been saying this stuff for years....
But they can't do it without the complicity of the courts. There are a lot of judges that are out of control, as well.

But they can't do it without the complicity of the courts. There are a lot of judges that are out of control, as well.

You probably should have read at least some of the intervening posts.

Begoner21;11682843']I do not support the rights of criminals to roam free and I support the right to life (in my opinion, the most fundamental right) above all others. Thus, I do not agree with the ACLU.

What are your feelings on innocent people being thrown into jail because they were railroaded by police or had a confession forced from them or victimized by bad lab results or simple victims of misidentification. What if in order to minimize these tragic but all too common events we have to give ALL people, criminals included a set of basic rights to minimize such horrific things from happening. Imagine that.

What are your feelings on innocent people being thrown into jail because they were railroaded by police or had a confession forced from them or victimized by bad lab results or simple victims of misidentification. What if in order to minimize these tragic but all too common events we have to give ALL people, criminals included a set of basic rights to minimize such horrific things from happening. Imagine that.

He'd call the victims of the Dallas Sheetrock Coke Scandal a bunch of dirty dopeheads who needed to be put away for life.

You probably should have read at least some of the intervening posts.
It's a Friday and life's short.

I promise to do better next time.

[edit]
I just skimmed through the last twenty or so and I can't find a coherent train of thought in any pair. Is that what you meant?

It's a Friday and life's short.

I promise to do better next time.

[edit]
I just skimmed through the last twenty or so and I can't find a coherent train of thought in any pair. Is that what you meant?

Sorry--it was back somewhere around page 4 or 5 where it was pointed out that the source the OP used was more than a little biased and, shall we say, exaggerated a bit. Hyperbolic might be a fair description.

Basically it was this--Hannity did a publicity stunt where he crossed over and came back, so the ACLU guy who was there played the same game and asked that Hannity be charged, to point out his hypocritical stance. The feds, being unusually sensible, saw it for what it was and ignored the whole thing.

Sorry--it was back somewhere around page 4 or 5 where it was pointed out that the source the OP used was more than a little biased and, shall we say, exaggerated a bit. Hyperbolic might be a fair description.

Basically it was this--Hannity did a publicity stunt where he crossed over and came back, so the ACLU guy who was there played the same game and asked that Hannity be charged, to point out his hypocritical stance. The feds, being unusually sensible, saw it for what it was and ignored the whole thing.

I believe that the OP's source itself indicated that it was biased by having something good to say about Sean Hannity.

I believe that the OP's source itself indicated that it was biased by having something good to say about Sean Hannity.

I thought that indicated that the source was retarded. ;)

I thought that indicated that the source was retarded. ;)

is there a difference?

Anti Caucasian Liberties Union ftl.

Anti Caucasian Liberties Union ftl.

Anti Caucasian Liberties Union ftl.

Anti Caucasian Liberties Union ftl.

What are you babbling on about?

I thought that indicated that the source was retarded. ;)

I see we're getting hyperbolic again.
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/1314/Hyperbolas_files/image001.gif

Damn, I haven't read that name in a looooooong time.

I have to say, he was a legendary and masterful troll. I have to give him credit for that...he had us all snowed. But, a year or two IRL is a decade or two online, and it does seem like a while ago.