Page 2 - Terrorism Statute News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Specifically identify these groups and say that their mere presence, their ideology, their values are evil. he seemed to link it to criminal activity, like we saw over the weekend. and i'm not sure that that is enough to make that kind of declaration. yes, he said the words. yes, he was more kind of full-bodied in his condemnation today. but i think there is still an absence of saying the mere existence of these groups is not in line with american values, and something that he does not support. he seemed to link it to the criminal behavior. and then more broadly, on the issue of domestic terro...

Government as violent anti-government groups. vags. and we work them in the federal government as domestic terrorism. they're armed. they want armed confrontation with the federal government. some of them want to overthrow the government. some of them want to demand all the lands back from the government. some believe the government has no authority over them. but it all boils down to violent armed clashes with the government for what they want. so they're worked under the domestic terrorism rubric. whether or not they can be charged with domestic terrorism charges, with a federal crime of ter...

Instead "the guardian" wiselily said we will destroy it beforehanding it over to you which is the principled thing to do. when it suits mr. toobin's interest, he's glad to claim first amendment interests, but at the same time he's willing to dispense with those completely when dealing with a terrorism statute, detaining a completely innocent person involved in the conduct of journalists. >> it's called drawing distinctions. different situations have different results. and i don't apologize for that in the least. you're running around the world with extremely classified information and you don'...

Different kind of government activity. >> do you agree with that? >> that's a distinction without a difference. by detaining him in a transit zone on a terrorism law, when there was no suspicion whatsoever, even asserted by the united kingdom, was purely a pretextural contention under the label of terrorism. the way i understood the incident is that the uk wanted copies of the information and instead the guardian wisely said we will destroy it before handing it over to you, which is the principled thing to do. when it suits mr. toobin's interest, he's glad to claim first amendment interests, b...

Pretextchurl contention under the label of terrorism. the way i understood the incident is that the uk wanted copies of the information and instead the guardian wisely said we will destroy it before handing it over to you, which is the principled thing to do. when it suits mr. toobin's interest, he's glad to claim first amendment interests, but at the same time he's willing to dispense with those completely when dealing with a terrorism statute, detaining an innocent person involved in the conduct of journalists. >> it's called drawing distinctions. different situations have different results....