that he might some sort of financial irregularities. they didn t have any arrest warrant. it was informal what happened. you know the idea about i m going to ask the foreign minister, who i ve got on my program in less than an hour from now, what happened and how can you ensure that this doesn t happen again and why did it happen. you know, the other thing, too, and for american audience, too, what we ve got in libya is really a series of fiefdoms around the country run by militias, disparate groups who didn t like each other before ka government gadhafi. how do you bring that together? it s really difficult. he was telling me, the prime minister zeidan, they re trying to step by step to create a central security apparatus, to create a central army to try to bring in some of the officials to respond in a national way and not in a tribal way. but as you say, this is
of excessive searches and seizures and to be stopped. and of course, for an officer to do this properly, he must do it within the confines of the law. and for all agencies, every agency from the police academy on up is aware and continuously aware of the fact that all laws must be vfollowed properly in order to successfully either take an individual off the street and prosecute him. well, given that, chief parker, and that the judge essentially did believe that the nypd went too far, what did you think of the judge s ruling. well, i think if you consider the fact that this has been a long-standing issue with law enforcement, particularly there in new york, i think it goes back to the 60s, the issue of disparate or search and seizure or stop and frisk, with nypd and the thought that it occurred more frequently in minority neighborhoods than others. and when you take a 10, 15-year
invasion of privacy and hopes to get customers or telephone companies and internet service providers to rally together and get in a class action suit to sue the government to knock it up a. the hope is to create political and economic pressure to change, and the government must and rand paul is going to take a position that will distinguish himself. thank you. let s bring in amy, just got back from a lurch where i was hoping she might learn a few things about what congressmen are going to learn what and who is going to know what about this once top secret program called prism. the interesting thing is there s a lot of disparate about who knew what, and i spoke to house members who never heard a word, and we heard from other members of the chamber and house who said, yes, we have known all
13% of the class and firemen and if not, discrimination can be shown on that basis alone. you don t have to prove it in an individual case. right, if the policy in place, however race neutral it is, if it s producing disparate outcomes then it s the policy. paul: and perez was housing housing law to prosecute banks with this theory. that s right. paul: and he thought this might be illegal, why? because the disparate is used in some parts, but not in housing. it s employment. but they don t have the same language as title vii law and he was afraid at that st. paul would win this case. by the way, st. paul itself said it thought it would win, but dropping the case because it it didn t want to endanger important anti-discrimination
13% of the class and firemen that basis alone.mination can you don t have to prove it in an individual case. right, if the policy in place, however race neutral it is, if it s producing disparate outcomes then it s the policy. paul: and perez was housing housing law to prosecute banks with this theory. that s right. paul: and he thought this might be illegal, why? because the disparate is used in some parts, but not in housing. it s employment. but they don t have the same language as title vii law and he was afraid at that st. paul would win this case. by the way, st. paul itself said it thought it would win, but dropping the case because it it didn t want to endanger important anti-discrimination