January 9, 2025 • 48 mins
More times than not, terrorists and other criminals have been known to use the “Dark Web” for recruiting and other nefarious interactions. What should law enforcement do to monitor web traffic to radical platforms or sites that incite violence, to stay on top of public safety threats? Attorney Harvey Silverglate checked in with Dan to discuss it.
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio and listen to NightSide with Dan Rea Weeknights From 8PM-12AM!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I'm WBS Costin's News Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Oh, welcome back everyone, and we want to welcome our
great friend and legal guru, attorney Harvey Silverglade. Harvey, welcome
back to Nightside. How are you.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm fine, I'm fine. It's great to be back.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
You bet you. It's always great to be somewhere, that's
for sure, Harry. A few weeks ago, of course, you
remember the New Orleans attack on New Year's Morning in
which an individual, shamsu Din Jabbar, rented a truck rammed
it into crowds as they were celebrating New Year's Eve
on Bourbon Street, killing fourteen people, injuring dozens of more,
(00:46):
dozens more. And I think it is fairly agreed upon
at this point that this guy had been radicalized by
visiting some websites, some ISIS websites on the dark Web.
And we talked about that at the Knights and took
the position that our government needs to get more aggressive
(01:07):
and find out who's frequently in these sites for what purpose.
And you know, opened up a conversation and two or
three of the calls, So what do you think, Harvey
silvergle Thanks, I said well, I don't know, but we'll
find out. So I'm just wondering. I'm sure you have
some thoughts on how how we need to treat these
(01:29):
individuals who are going through this radicalization process. And I
don't care if for somebody going to kiddie porn sites
or going to is of sites or going to ku
klux Klan sites. You know. I just I'm trying to
balance it in my mind, and I'd love to know
what your thoughts of this on this is.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Well, you know, I I always lean over toward the
privacy of the First Amendment, of course, and and this
is a hard case. The authorities have a right to
monitor public websites, that is I think clear, yes, and
(02:15):
so they can do that. They do not have the
authority to monitor a telephone calls without a warrant m hm.
So that is clear. They can do whatever they want
within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment.
(02:41):
So satisfactory answer or not?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Well, well, well that's a legal answer, which I think
I understand, and I suspect that some of the audience
might be a little bit fuddled by that. Let's let's
deal with some specifics. Let's Let's do a couple of
law class reviews here. So let's assume that they monitor
and some of these sites are on what they call
(03:05):
the dark Web. I don't think I know what the
dark web really is, but I guess some people are
able to get to these places which are not easily
accessible as I understand it. And if you know more
about it, or someone else knows more about the dark.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Web, that's definition okay, so.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
They know, you know, the the FBI, for example, or
any law enforcement agency can have somebody go look at
the dark web and all of a sudden they see
that there are people who are posting there, and maybe
they can figure out who the people are. So my
question is, okay, you see who's on there, you see
what people are beginning to regurgitate what the dark web says,
(03:49):
I mean the dark Web. I guess they have a
right to promulgate whatever theories they want. But you know,
in the case of the guy Dylan Roof down in
South Carolina who women and massacred the older black men
and women inside of a church after having prayed with them,
if if somebody goes on some site and starts to
(04:11):
spout thoughts and ideas or having been exposed to thoughts
and ideas, Is it going too far for the FBI
to say, let's let's let's do a little temperature check
on this person. Let's let's go up and knock on
the door and introduce ourselves and see if they want
to talk voluntarily and tell us what they're doing. Anything
wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Nothing wrong with that. The FBI can do that. They
can even they can go further. They can follow this
guy as long as they don't go into his house
unless he agrees to let them go into the house
in order to search it.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So even let us say this individual is somehow I
don't know, beginning to meet with other people, he decides
or she decides to to begin to move around, the
FBI if there, if they have some level of concern,
it doesn't necessarily have to be probable cause, because they're
not seeking any sort of a warrant, but they they
(05:12):
do have the ability then to follow them and say, well,
who they meeting with? Who are the other polks that
might be involved in this is what I understand you
to say, right right, Okay, at what point, obviously, what
what the concern is is, how do you get to
somebody who obviously has been radicalized, and and the FBI
(05:36):
has said in regards to this case, radicalized. That's the
the quote as a matter of fact from the specially
Deputy Assistant f BI FBI Director Christopher Ray Raya Thursday
set investigators is what. No, we're not We're not talking
(05:58):
about Chris Ray the FBI director. There's another guy whose
name is spelled r Aia so I was trying to
miss trying to pronounce that name correctly. He's a deputy
assistant FBI director. And he said there were five videos
posted on Jabbar's Facebook account before the attack. In the
first video, he said he originally planned to harm his
(06:21):
family and friends, but was concerned the news headlines would
not focus on the war between the believers and the disbelievers.
Jabbar said he had joined ISIS before this summer. Let
me be very clear at this point, this was an
act of terrorism. Raya said it was premeditated and an
evil act. Added the attack was one hundred percent inspired
by ISIS. So do they have to just wait until
(06:45):
this person does does this attack or can they As
they follow him, they find that he's gone to a
gun store and purchased a couple of AR fifteen's or
AK forty sevens.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Is well, if he's got a license to the for
the guns, and they can't do anything. But if if
it turns out that he does not have a license,
they can arrest him, Okay, that they can follow him.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Right, right, So they have to figure out. So it's
not beyond the realm of possibility. What I'm trying to
get at is, it's not beyond the realm of possibility
that this action by this guy who was somewhat public
with his statements that that this action might have been
(07:38):
intercepted before it happened, correct, okay, and it could have
been done without constitutional violations if done properly.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
To quote an old alphemism, the Constitution is not a
suicide suit right precisely, not a suicide document site. There
are limits, So is the FBI.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Do you think at this point, and this is now
we're going to get the speculative, So if you don't
want to go here, that's fine. Do you think the
FBI is actually being as aggressive as they should be
in view of the number of these sorts of and
I think about the Dylan Roofe attack, this guy who
(08:27):
clearly was off his rocker. I think about some of
the sex trafficking websites and the kitty porn websites. Do
you think the FBI, and again, obviously it's it's almost
the race ipseloqu with a situation that we see the result.
They obviously were not aggressive enough with this guy. And
(08:49):
I think there were plenty of signs with this guy Jabbar.
Had they stepped back from where they used to be
or do you think there's just so much of this
stuff going on? They drinking from a fire hose, Well.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I think the FBI could have could be more aggressive
than they have been. Whether there's they're drinking from a
fire hose, that just tells you that we need more Asians.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Well, I think I think the there's I forget the number,
but I think there's a lot of agents. I don't
know how many more we need. But let's do this,
let's let's let's take a break here and invite callers
to call. Whatever their point of view on this is.
(09:38):
I just think that so many lives were in ultimably
changed on New Year's morning, Uh yeah, three point fifteen
on Bourbon Street, and it could have had you know,
the people's lives have changed, and what signs were missed.
It just cries out to me, and I I don't
want to you know, I want to be as respectful
(10:00):
of the Constitution. I hope that they're monitoring these these
kiddie porn websites. I mean, do you think that that.
I'll ask you the speculative questions on the other side, Harvey,
my guest is Harvey Silverglade, love to hear what you think.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you have a comment or if you
(10:22):
have a question for Harvey, feel free to join this conversation.
I think we are changing administrations in Washington. There's going
to be a new FBI director at some point, whether
whether his name is Kash Patel or not, it will
be someone who might be quite different from what we've
been dealing with for the last six or seven years.
(10:46):
I just think this cries out. There's so much stuff
going on and has gone on in this country, and
most of these people, they exhibit signs, They talk to
their friends, they tell us always to see something. If
you see something, say something. And at the same time, uh,
there's a mixed signal there, because sometimes if you see
(11:07):
something and you say something, some organization might come back
and say, oh, you're profiling. So we got we got
some conflicting signals, and I want to go through these
with Harvey, but I also want to incorporate you six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We'll be right back on Nightside.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
I guess Harvey silverglad, and we are talking, uh in
the context of the attack on New Year's Morning in
New Orleans, which left fourteen Americans, fourteen people dead and
dozens of others injured. Harvey, again, I know that we're
kind of getting into the speculative here, but how does
(12:00):
it just seems to me it's an abject failure when
within our country something like this happens, When in retrospect,
they were all sorts of signs that were very that
were very clear to authorities if they either wanted to
look or pay attention. Do you share that that feeling?
(12:22):
You know and you do not? You know, You're you
will tell me the truth, But I'm just do you
do you feel that way or no, does that has that?
It struck me that they afterwards it was like, these
people are dead because someone was asleep at the switch.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Well, there's something wrong with our society that we have
produced so many of these people. That's clear, But it's
the government is not a physician, They're not a psychiatrist.
And what I think is happens is that if somebody
(13:01):
acts is reported is acting odd dangerous, the FBI can
look into them and they can even follow them. They
cannot break into the house, but they can survey. They
can do this, so they can put somebody on you know,
(13:23):
there are things you can do without violating the Fourth Amendment.
There's nothing there's no law against the gouvernt following the
FBI following somebody.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
So then okay, So then the question to me it
has to be, is the ask the FBI become so
intimidated that they are not following following uh in looking
for these leads. I just think that there, yeah, we
can say there's something wrong with our society. This guy
(13:59):
was had been in the military, that he should have
been able at some point. You would think that someone
in the military might have had a conversation with him,
and they might have said the guy needs help. I
think about, on a more neutral case, the guy up
in Maine who killed all those people a year ago
in the fall. He had been identified as a problem,
the local police had visited him. He had he had
(14:23):
a lot of weapons, high powered weapons, and he eventually
used them. And it seems to me it's almost the
equivalent of malpractice by law enforcement not to look at
someone like that and realize this is a troubled individual
and the minimum we should do is separate him from
his weapons so that he could not commit mass carnage
(14:45):
as the guy did on New Year's morning in New Orleans.
I just feel that I'm frustrated and I'm probably not
making as much sense as I should. But go ahead,
I want your reaction.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Well, you know, what can I say? I've said it
in as many ways as as I know. If there
is information that company is acting strange, they can investigate.
They can they can follow the guides. There's no law
against following somebody. They can put a stake out of
(15:21):
the guy's house, but they cannot break in without his permission.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
Okay, So, but I'm taking it one step beyond here,
and if I'm not articulating it properly, I apologize in
view of what has happened in this country so often.
I realize we're a free society, and I realize that
that we have liberties that we all value. But I
(15:48):
just wonder if specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
fallen down in terms of these these radical groups, be
they the far right or the far left. That's you know.
I cite to the guy in in Maine because they
(16:09):
saw that as local law enforcement, which it's different. He
was some sort of a lone wolf whack job who
had been screwed up for what for all sorts of
personal reasons, you wouldn't have picked him up. But I
would think that this guy they could have figured out.
I would I would think that some of the others.
(16:29):
It seems to me that maybe the the agencies need
to get a little bit more aggressive. And I don't
expect you to join me in that hope. But but
but that's but that's the that's the theory. I would
like to see our law enforcement agencies staying within the
bottles of the constitution, as you have articulated, but to
get more aggressive. And my concern is that the public
(16:52):
has been told if you see something, say something, but
this there are other singles coming from the government. Well
be careful. You know, if someone says, gee, I saw
somebody and they look suspicious to me, and if if
there wasn't really some action that, you know that let's
say it was someone who was dressed a little differently,
they might feel that I'm going to be categorized as
(17:16):
being uh anti this or anti that. I think you
understand the point I'm making.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
Yeah, I agree with the FBI is pulling down on
the job. You know. I usually I'm concerned about the
FBI being two as exactly, but right of these facts,
they're not being aggressed enough.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, I I'm glad to hear you say that.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I also would like to get a quick response to
you after the news break tonight, the Supreme Court, by
a five to four decision, has allowed the sentencing of
Donald Trump to go forward and judge one Merchan's tomorrow
morning at nine point thirty. So I want to just
ask get your thought on that as well. I don't
(18:07):
know if you've had a chance to look at it,
but it was an interesting five to four split in
which for the conservative justices who you would expect Thomas
and Kavanaugh and Gorsch basically said yeah, you know, they should,
we should take this case up. Alito, of course, was
(18:28):
in there and the majority Roberts and before female members
of god to Lena Kagan so a signia sort of
Mayor Katanji Brown Jackson and Amy Cony, Barrett said no,
So the sentence will go on. I want to ask
you about the come back, but I also want to
continue this conversation and invite people to join us talk
(18:51):
about again if law enforcement needs to get at this
point in time just a little more aggressive maintaining observations
of the rights that we all joy under the Constitution.
Back on Nightside if you'd like to join. The best
lines are six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty
or six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Back
on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Right after this, It's Night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Probably before we get some phone calls. Let me just
get a quick response if I could. I hope you've
seen the news story tonight that the US Supreme Court,
by a five to four vote, one paragraph order issued
by Chief Justice Rogers justices Sodamayra Kaigan, Cony Barrett, and
Katanji Brown Jackson. They will not interfere with the sentencing
(19:40):
that schedule for tomorrow morning, nine thirty UH, in which
one Mershon, the judge in New York, is apparently going
to essentially wrap the case up, uh, not order any
jail time or for that matter of fine, but basically
to make sure that it is on the record that
president like Trump has been sentenced. The court apparently today
(20:03):
said that the normal courses of appeal on the issues
of the case could be could be litigated over time,
but they would not interfere with the sentencing tomorrow. Now,
you have represented John Eastman, who was one of those
who were charged in relation to the twenty twenty one activity,
(20:26):
and I'm not sure if you were still counseled to him.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
That's correct, if.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
You're still counseled to him at this point. But I'm
wondering if you're comfortable in answering that question. Do you
think the Supreme Court did the right thing tonight?
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Well, first of all, the judge who announced that he
would send Trump before the inauguration but would not give
them jail time, he avoids the constitutional problem of the
jailing a head of state, the head of state before
(21:05):
his inaugulation, and I think that that would be overturned,
that he would not be allowed to do that. But
he has avoided the problem by saying he did not
give a jail sentence.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And so, and by doing that it allows Merchon to
conclude the case. And then whatever substantive issues the president's
lawyers want to bring up at some point subsequent to
the case, issues of evidence and issues of motions that were,
(21:41):
they will go through the normal course.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Yep, okay.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
And also Donald Trump will not appear in front of
Merchon tomorrow. Apparently he's going to appear in some sort
of a zoom capacity, a remote zoom zoom call. Ye,
merch On will have the the honor, if you will,
or the satisfaction of actually imposing a sentence, however light
(22:11):
it is, and it probably will have us. It will
be just simply note that the convictions will stand, that
there will be no penalty, there will be no fine,
there will be no no jail time, there will be
no probation or anything like that.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
It makes the point that even the president is not
above the war.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Yep, gotcha. Okay, let's let's get back to our discussion.
Handy going to go to Steven Braintree. Steve, we're talking
about whether or not the FBI should become a little
bit more aggressive with these sites on the dark web
where people somehow get radicalized. Your thought or your question
for Harvey silver Light.
Speaker 6 (22:54):
Yes, my question is, yeah, I understand that you want
the FBI to be more aggressive.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
Well, one of the things that as far as people
that you may say are in a mental crisis that
they have been using is red flag laws. And I
wanted to hear Hobby's opinion on those because I believe,
based on how they are written, that red flag law
(23:22):
is actually unconstitutional. I think that you have a right
to face your accuser. And here's someone Now the government's
going to come in and confiscate your belongings, and you
have no idea who or what has done.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
This to you.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Okay, So you're talking much more in the sense of
the government comes in and says we're going to take
your weapons away. I suspect that's your question. Is that right?
Speaker 6 (23:53):
Well, or the police or any entity. Basically, you're saying
that they should be more aggressive, and yes, saying that
there was information out there. Here's here's a procedure that
they are now using that is completely in the dark.
Someone goes in and and goes to a judge and says,
I think this person is dangerous. I want you to
(24:15):
confiscate this stuff. And sure enough the police come up
and they.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
I don't know how. I don't if I go to
court tomorrow and I go in front of a judge
and I say I think that Steve from Brendwa, Braintree
is dangerous. I don't know how how many judges would
would authorize some agency to go in and confiscate your
so called stuff with with nothing or some individual.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Harvey jump in here, judge. Judge does not have that power.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
Okay, well then why are red flag confiscations up in
some places? Two and sixty?
Speaker 3 (25:02):
But do you want to cite some example, Steve again,
have you been in New York? Let me ask you,
have you been involved in a similar situation in a
situation like this or are you speaking about some statistic
or study that you've seen.
Speaker 6 (25:16):
No, I am this is a specific New York has
ramped up and asked all law enforcement if you see
a person who is acting aggressively in any situation that
you then need to file a red flag law on
(25:37):
it if you know that they are in possession or
have owned firearms.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
Here.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Okay, So the observation is by the officer of aggressive
behavior is what you're saying in.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
New York or any family member, any family member period,
without any any other criteria they are implementing in UH
filing red flag wives.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Well, okay, Harvey's going to jump in here, but there's
a difference between an officer who sees someone doing something
or acting aggressively in public, UH and a family member
who says, gee, I was threatened last night by by
my spouse or my boyfriend or whatever. Harvey, go ahead,
if however you can handle this would be great.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
If somebody is doing something completely bizarre, there is a
there is a procedure for involuntarily committing them to a
mental institution and having them examined. That that is that
is a constitutional It's been around for a long time.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Yes, I understand that. But the way that these are
being if two people are yelling at one another, that
is now being conceived as aggressive behavior here. Now, nobody's
throwing a punch, nobody's been well, again, all.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Of Steve, all of those cases would be would be litigated.
A police officer would would would have to say, look,
I have a I have a belief that the the
actions of this individual, uh, you know, rose to a
certain level that that we need to find out if
someone makes threats I'm gonna shoot you that that's a
(27:26):
different story between two guys throwing a punch. I wish
you had a specific to give us, Steve. But obviously
in this case of domestic abuse, if there's.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
A case of the only reason why I'm saying this
is because you are saying that you want the FBI
to be more aggressive. Yes, you want police forces to
be more aggressive in handling these situations.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
In terms in terms of what I'm talking about is
in terms of the dark web, uh, and in terms
of individual rules who are becoming radicalized, like the guy
in New Orleans, they visit public websites. There's a way
in which that's that's different than private conversations. Harvey has
(28:14):
agreed with me, Whether you like it or not, I
think that's an entirely different scenario than someone who's a
legitimate gun owner gets into some sort of a road
rage conversation and you know, there's an argument or whatever,
and that moves on. If on the other hand, some
guys in the middle of the streets saying a guy,
(28:35):
I'm going home, I'm getting my ar fifteen and I'm
going to find you an off you. I bet you
the police have an obligation at that point to red
flag him.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Fair enough Again, I understand where you're coming from, Dan,
I'm just telling you that what is happening to gun
owners across this country, this is.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Not a Yeah, this is not a gun owner. I mean,
I know you want to go there with the gun owners,
but this is not a gun owners. I mean, you
know gun owners situations. It treat it. If you want
to talk about that some night, send me some specifics, okay,
and we can we can talk about it. I'm the
specific I'm talking about tonight is fourteen dead people in
New Orleans as a result of a guy who did
(29:20):
use apparently public websites ISIS websites and was radicalized thereon.
And fourteen people are dead and dozens of others were
badly injured. So I just don't want to go off.
I'm giving you a lot.
Speaker 6 (29:35):
I I will get you that information.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Look forward to it. Thank you very much. All Right,
we're going to take a quick break back on Night's side.
Right after this, more phone calls with Harvey Silverglade. Again, Harvey,
I just didn't I didn't want to go down a
rabbit hole. And I hope you understand that I wasn't
trying to be interruptive. Six one seven, two ten thirty
six one seven, nine thirty back of Nightside to this.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
I guess there's Attorney Harvey Silverglade. Let's keep it rolling here,
gonna go to ed in Worcester. Ed You're next on Nightside. Welcome,
you're all with Harvey Silverglade? Is Ed there or no? Okay, Okay,
why don't you figure it out if he's there or not?
And well, Harvey, I appreciate you know the conversation tonight,
(30:35):
and I honestly did not know where you would come
out on this. But I am gratified because I do
you think that twenty years ago you would have had
the same position. Yes, you do, Okay, of course, twenty
(30:57):
years ago we were not dealing with with some of
the various ancendric groups that we're dealing with at this point,
do you feel uncomfortable? You really, for the most part
in your career spent a lot of time on the
(31:17):
other side of the courtroom from police authorities. Are you
at all uncomfortable at this point acknowledging that, hey, maybe
a little bit more needs to be done.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
Well, I wouldn't say. I don't think my view of
these things have changed in fifty years. My analysis of
this case tries to pit the rights of the defendant
against the rights of the state, and these facts might change.
(31:55):
The atmosphere might change, but they constitution it doesn't change absolutely,
but you have to adapt it. And I think that
in this case, I've come.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
To a.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Point where I'm satisfied with the solution that I've come
up with.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Ye as well, I got ed from Wooster back here,
so I want to accommodate him if I can. Ed
appreciate you calling me back. I don't know what happened
we lost you Go right ahead. You're on with Harvey
silver Glader.
Speaker 5 (32:29):
Yeah, new phone that I've paid a lot of money
for that it's less reliable than the old step Why
that's what happens a couple of things about your observation.
You know, you said it's government and competence, and I
sort of agree with that, except my one comment about
that is, you know, we know that people who commit
these acts or get arrested in a sting or get arrested,
(32:51):
you know, when they're in the final stages of planning.
But we don't know how many people exhibit these same
behaviors who never do anything about it. It's like a
fraction where you know the numerator, but you don't know
the denominator.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Yeah, but in my yeah, go ahead, a lot more doing.
Speaker 5 (33:13):
This kind of stuff than you would think. There are,
like doing these making these kinds of noises online than
you would think.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, I think that's why my suggestion, and it was
made out of frustration with the loss of life and
the a lot of those people who are injured New
Orleans New Year's warning, they're gonna have they're gonna deal
with those injuries for the rest of the life. I mean,
it's it's more than you know, a pulled back muscle.
(33:43):
A lot of those people were badly injured, and I
just think that there are and I've never been to
any of these dark sites, but I think I have
a sense of what they're all about, and if average
American citizens can access the dark websites, then I would
think FBI agents or investigators of some level should be
able to access those sites, find out who's on those sites,
(34:06):
find out what people are saying on those sites, and
try to figure out the difference between people who are
there out of curiosity. Maybe some people are there because
they're they're doing research, academic research, I get that. But
there are other people down there, particularly this fellow who
acted out on New Year's Morning, who pretty clearly became radicalized.
(34:30):
I mean, ten years in the US military, everything seemed
to be pretty squared away, and this guy ends up
driving down Bourbon Street mowing people down. I'm willing to
give the authority to agencies, you know. I know that
those who give up privacy for security at the end
(34:54):
will have neither. I know all of the the aphorisms,
but I just want to I want to see. I
think we're going to see more of this over time,
and I'm hoping that more of these incidents can be prevented.
Go ahead, and I didn't mean to interrupt.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
Go ahead, Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
I'm not against your your remedy. I'm just saying I
think if we start doing that, there's a lot more
people who are going to get caught up in the
in the net than we might think. And I get
sort of on a related thing. I wanted to respond
to your last collar their Steve from what was different
Brain Trade, who was talking about you know, if they
(35:33):
come in and take your stuff. Yeah, I'm very sympathetic
to his argument. And I do think, you know, if
you read the Constitution, it's it's he's he's got the
better of that argument. Except all that was done contemplating
a world where most people exercise self restraint, and we
(35:55):
are increasingly living in a country where people don't exercise
self restraint. And you know, there's a whole I can't
count how many times you see on YouTube or wherever. Yeah,
these people who there's their fast food order is incorrect
and it on fire.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
And I just think in a world like that, you know,
I just think the authorities are going to be a
lot more aggressive in in in reaching out than I
wish they were, you know, But I think it's just
gonna happen if if we live in a world where
people are gonna and and you had a thing a
few weeks or months ago. But there was a fender
(36:37):
bender on kid Cod and didn't one guy get killed
and the other guy's now facing murder charges.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Yeah, that that was done. It's actually in Plymouth. And
the guy got out and shot and then was rendering
a life saving efforts of you know, ten seconds later literally.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
And there was one in Providence last week when there
was a fender bender. Guy took mother, grabbed her out
of her car, inverted her and like gave her the
piles I saw that, yeah, advert into the pavement.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Yeah. And and clearly that guy should should suffer the
consequences of that. I mean, the woman looked like she
weighed about one hundred and five pounds, soaking wet, and
he looked like he was two hundred and fifty pounds.
It was, you know, it was a mismatch of enormous proportions.
Let's put it like that, right.
Speaker 5 (37:29):
But well, my point is we're just living in and
I mean, I guess this would be my response to
both you and Steve. We are living in a society
that is increasingly violent, increasingly tolerant of law breaking or
just law disregarding increasingly tolerant. This is where I probably
disagree with Hardy of anti social behavior that is short
(37:51):
of law breaking, which I don't like, and just increasingly
tolerant of government incompetent incompetence. I mean, I think the
story in southern California is not so much the fires,
it's just government incompetence at every imaginable level.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
I think it was today.
Speaker 5 (38:11):
Yeah, Karen, Karen Bass said if you need, you know, assistance,
you can reach us at you r L. Obviously that
was like something somebody had put in her and they
meant to put the correct website in before I get it.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Well. Yeah, do you think that Karen Bass has ever
actually utilized a computer? I'm sure never in her life.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
People older than Karen Bass who would not make that mistake.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
No, I understand that, but I'm sure she's had staff people. Hey,
I'm so glad you called in. I appreciate it, ed,
and I get you none of the wires, So we'll
talk soon.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
I appreciate that call.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Thank you much. You give me an idea for a
couple of other shows. In the meantime, Harvey is always
thank you, sir. I look forward to seeing you in
early February. Looking forward to that that that morning. Okay,
as do I thanks, Thanks Harvey, talk to you soon.
If you're on the line, I'd like to stay there.
(39:07):
Feel free. If you've called into late, I apologize because
Harvey's is departing. We could talk about this for a
little while into the next hour if you want, and
if not. I want to talk about the Jimmy Carty
Carter funeral today, which I thought was done very well,
and I also want to talk about the interactions that
(39:28):
I had with him as a reporter, and I suspect
many of you probably had a moment up close and
personal with Jimmy Carter, and i'd like to, you know,
putting aside the politics of it and all of that,
an incredibly decent man who lived a very full life
(39:50):
and remain true to his values and was the victim
I think of circumstances much beyond his control. We'll be
back right after the Tentacle News on Nightside with Dan Ray.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
I'm telling you easy Boston News Radio.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
All right. So I want to thank Harvey Silverglad for
joining us. Harvey is as fierce a defender of personal
liberties and rights under the Constitution as anyone I know,
and we had that conversation. It was New Year's night,
actually it would have been a week ago, in which, yeah,
(40:29):
well it would we could go last night, pardon me.
And I just became very frustrated when all this evidence
poured out that this guy who had engaged in this
this slaughter on New Year's morning at about three point
fifteen by driving down Bourbon Street and having mowed people down.
(40:49):
I've been on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. I suspect
many of you have been as well, And it just
seemed to me that these websites, these dark websites, the
FBI should know about them. They should see what Americans
are visiting them, and it's open to the public that
they don't need a search warrant. And then depending upon
(41:12):
what they begin to suspect about individuals, they should be
able to use their law enforcement experience to maybe isolate
some of those who are there not just for the
kick of going to one of these websites, but who
actually seem to be in the process of getting radicalized,
and maybe maybe spare the lives of some Americans or
(41:37):
Americans to spend the rest of their lives with terrible injuries.
I mean, the FBI had interviewed the Boston bombers up
here before the bombing and everything was fine. And I
think what happens is that politically there's a lot of
pressure brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, and I
(41:57):
think that a lot of the law enforcement agencies somehow
become influence. We see that with the Boston Police Department
at this point. I'm sure you saw the stories in
the papers. The last couple of days with a number
of serious detainers were not honored by the Boston Police
and they basically have have set up a brick wall
(42:19):
between them and Ice. Well that's going to change fairly soon.
And I just think it's important to talk about this,
and you can agree or disagree. And let's see what
Jack and the Cape says. Jack's held over, so I
assume he's looking to talk about what we talked with
Harvey Silvic late about last hour. Jack next on NIGHTSAGA,
right ahead.
Speaker 7 (42:35):
Thanks Dan for carrying the conversation. The only thing I
want to interject, as far as the Louisiana and the
Las Vegas thing, both didn't both of those individuals experience
some kind of a marital loss.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
You know, I don't know. I do know that the
guy in Colorado apparently, now, yeah, he was a Green
Beret and shot himself in the head and then had
had the wherewithal to blow up the car a very
different situation than the guy down in Houston and that.
Speaker 5 (43:12):
Well.
Speaker 7 (43:13):
But but what I'm doing at here is the you know,
you take emotional frustrations that we all experience, but you know,
you really hit the red line with some of these
marital situation's girlfriend emotional situations and you you know, and
then you couple that with uh, these acts acts and terrorism.
I really think that you know, that has to be
(43:37):
examined in context.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Well, well let's take him, let's take him, let's deal
with them. Okay, the guy in Las Vegas, I don't
know that you would characterize that as an active terrorism.
I think that was an act of absolute lunacy and insanity,
and that this guy, I don't know what he went
through in the Green Beret. Apparently he was deployed a
lot of places around the world. Obviously a lot of
(44:02):
men and women have relationships that dissolved.
Speaker 7 (44:07):
I'm really referencing his immediate emotional environment. If you lose
a loved one, a love, abby, divorce, adult whatever it
traders an emotional response, and uh, I think you know what.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Wait but hold on, wait, wait a sec hold on
just for one second. Okay. First of all, there's a
mountain of evidence that the guy in Houston was radicalized
on an ISIS website, and that he's slowly but surely
I guess he was a practicing Muslim, which had nothing
(44:45):
to do with There are plenty of practicing Muslims in
this country who are not UH terrorists and who are
driving down Bourbon Street on New Year's New Year's morning
killing people. That guy went through a metamorphos from being
he was in the US military for ten years, right,
(45:05):
and so I don't think he he had a metamorphois
which was very different than what the guy in the
tesla at Las Vegas. I have no idea what the
guy in the tesla was trying to do.
Speaker 7 (45:16):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
Maybe he wanted to make a criticism of of Trump
UH and and his policies. He parked at the Trump
hotel in it in a tesla. I have no idea.
But he drove from Colorado, drove from Cold He had
a break He had a breakdown with his wife. There's
(45:36):
no nothing to suggest that the guy in Houston was
motivated by by a divorce. I guess he's had two divorces.
Speaker 7 (45:44):
Well okay, well okay, but we're we're dealing with thee
with a species, the human species, that has incredible emotional context.
And I'm not I'm not justifying oralida, but uh, you know,
we we live in an insanely uh emotionally energized So what.
Speaker 3 (46:06):
What's your solution?
Speaker 5 (46:07):
What? What?
Speaker 3 (46:08):
What is your solution? Person who goes through a divorce
or an emotional breakup, somebody breaks up a relationship, we
then have to do something with them. I'm simply I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (46:19):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (46:20):
Well, I think that there's thousands of people or who
tonight will have a split breakup and and either of
both of the parties will be crestfallen, and none of
them are going to engage in any sort of terrorist activity.
I don't think the guy in Las Vegas was engaging
in terrorist activity. He was making some sort of a
weird political statement by renting a rest a tesla, killing
(46:43):
himself and blowing the car up in the proximity of
a Trump hotel. The guy in Houston was clearly making
He left notes, he left videotapes, he was he considered
himself a soldier of isis.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (46:59):
Different situation, Jack.
Speaker 5 (47:02):
All Right, I'm going to say not trying to fight you.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
I'm just I could sit here and say, yeah, no, Jack,
you might be right, but I'm not going to insult you.
I think that they're two very different situations. They both
might have gone through some domestic discord or divorce, but
so do millions of Americans every every month, every year.
(47:25):
All Right, thanks Jack, Sorry to shoot down your theory.
All right, we'll take a break week, go back. I
want to talk about Jimmy Carter. I want to talk
about some of my close and personal experiences with him.
Very decent guy in my opinion, and a very moving
ceremony today at the National Cathedral. So, if you've ever
(47:47):
met Jimmy Carter, I'd love to get your reaction. I
met him on several occasions, and every occasion he was
easy to work with. I was a reporter, he was
a candidate, then a candidate for president, a president and
a former president.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (48:05):
And I don't want to boy you with all of
my stories. I want to be entertained. By Your Stories six, one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty Coming back on Nightside
It's Night Side with Dan Ray.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I'm WBS Costin's News Radio.
Speaker 3 (00:07):
Oh, welcome back everyone, and we want to welcome our
great friend and legal guru, attorney Harvey Silverglade. Harvey, welcome
back to Nightside. How are you.
Speaker 4 (00:19):
I'm fine, I'm fine. It's great to be back.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
You bet you. It's always great to be somewhere, that's
for sure, Harry. A few weeks ago, of course, you
remember the New Orleans attack on New Year's Morning in
which an individual, shamsu Din Jabbar, rented a truck rammed
it into crowds as they were celebrating New Year's Eve
on Bourbon Street, killing fourteen people, injuring dozens of more,
(00:46):
dozens more. And I think it is fairly agreed upon
at this point that this guy had been radicalized by
visiting some websites, some ISIS websites on the dark Web.
And we talked about that at the Knights and took
the position that our government needs to get more aggressive
(01:07):
and find out who's frequently in these sites for what purpose.
And you know, opened up a conversation and two or
three of the calls, So what do you think, Harvey
silvergle Thanks, I said well, I don't know, but we'll
find out. So I'm just wondering. I'm sure you have
some thoughts on how how we need to treat these
(01:29):
individuals who are going through this radicalization process. And I
don't care if for somebody going to kiddie porn sites
or going to is of sites or going to ku
klux Klan sites. You know. I just I'm trying to
balance it in my mind, and I'd love to know
what your thoughts of this on this is.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Well, you know, I I always lean over toward the
privacy of the First Amendment, of course, and and this
is a hard case. The authorities have a right to
monitor public websites, that is I think clear, yes, and
(02:15):
so they can do that. They do not have the
authority to monitor a telephone calls without a warrant m hm.
So that is clear. They can do whatever they want
within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment and the First Amendment.
(02:41):
So satisfactory answer or not?
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Well, well, well that's a legal answer, which I think
I understand, and I suspect that some of the audience
might be a little bit fuddled by that. Let's let's
deal with some specifics. Let's Let's do a couple of
law class reviews here. So let's assume that they monitor
and some of these sites are on what they call
(03:05):
the dark Web. I don't think I know what the
dark web really is, but I guess some people are
able to get to these places which are not easily
accessible as I understand it. And if you know more
about it, or someone else knows more about the dark.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
Web, that's definition okay, so.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
They know, you know, the the FBI, for example, or
any law enforcement agency can have somebody go look at
the dark web and all of a sudden they see
that there are people who are posting there, and maybe
they can figure out who the people are. So my
question is, okay, you see who's on there, you see
what people are beginning to regurgitate what the dark web says,
(03:49):
I mean the dark Web. I guess they have a
right to promulgate whatever theories they want. But you know,
in the case of the guy Dylan Roof down in
South Carolina who women and massacred the older black men
and women inside of a church after having prayed with them,
if if somebody goes on some site and starts to
(04:11):
spout thoughts and ideas or having been exposed to thoughts
and ideas, Is it going too far for the FBI
to say, let's let's let's do a little temperature check
on this person. Let's let's go up and knock on
the door and introduce ourselves and see if they want
to talk voluntarily and tell us what they're doing. Anything
wrong with that?
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Nothing wrong with that. The FBI can do that. They
can even they can go further. They can follow this
guy as long as they don't go into his house
unless he agrees to let them go into the house
in order to search it.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
So even let us say this individual is somehow I
don't know, beginning to meet with other people, he decides
or she decides to to begin to move around, the
FBI if there, if they have some level of concern,
it doesn't necessarily have to be probable cause, because they're
not seeking any sort of a warrant, but they they
(05:12):
do have the ability then to follow them and say, well,
who they meeting with? Who are the other polks that
might be involved in this is what I understand you
to say, right right, Okay, at what point, obviously, what
what the concern is is, how do you get to
somebody who obviously has been radicalized, and and the FBI
(05:36):
has said in regards to this case, radicalized. That's the
the quote as a matter of fact from the specially
Deputy Assistant f BI FBI Director Christopher Ray Raya Thursday
set investigators is what. No, we're not We're not talking
(05:58):
about Chris Ray the FBI director. There's another guy whose
name is spelled r Aia so I was trying to
miss trying to pronounce that name correctly. He's a deputy
assistant FBI director. And he said there were five videos
posted on Jabbar's Facebook account before the attack. In the
first video, he said he originally planned to harm his
(06:21):
family and friends, but was concerned the news headlines would
not focus on the war between the believers and the disbelievers.
Jabbar said he had joined ISIS before this summer. Let
me be very clear at this point, this was an
act of terrorism. Raya said it was premeditated and an
evil act. Added the attack was one hundred percent inspired
by ISIS. So do they have to just wait until
(06:45):
this person does does this attack or can they As
they follow him, they find that he's gone to a
gun store and purchased a couple of AR fifteen's or
AK forty sevens.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Is well, if he's got a license to the for
the guns, and they can't do anything. But if if
it turns out that he does not have a license,
they can arrest him, Okay, that they can follow him.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
Right, right, So they have to figure out. So it's
not beyond the realm of possibility. What I'm trying to
get at is, it's not beyond the realm of possibility
that this action by this guy who was somewhat public
with his statements that that this action might have been
(07:38):
intercepted before it happened, correct, okay, and it could have
been done without constitutional violations if done properly.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
To quote an old alphemism, the Constitution is not a
suicide suit right precisely, not a suicide document site. There
are limits, So is the FBI.
Speaker 3 (08:07):
Do you think at this point, and this is now
we're going to get the speculative, So if you don't
want to go here, that's fine. Do you think the
FBI is actually being as aggressive as they should be
in view of the number of these sorts of and
I think about the Dylan Roofe attack, this guy who
(08:27):
clearly was off his rocker. I think about some of
the sex trafficking websites and the kitty porn websites. Do
you think the FBI, and again, obviously it's it's almost
the race ipseloqu with a situation that we see the result.
They obviously were not aggressive enough with this guy. And
(08:49):
I think there were plenty of signs with this guy Jabbar.
Had they stepped back from where they used to be
or do you think there's just so much of this
stuff going on? They drinking from a fire hose, Well.
Speaker 4 (09:04):
I think the FBI could have could be more aggressive
than they have been. Whether there's they're drinking from a
fire hose, that just tells you that we need more Asians.
Speaker 3 (09:16):
Well, I think I think the there's I forget the number,
but I think there's a lot of agents. I don't
know how many more we need. But let's do this,
let's let's let's take a break here and invite callers
to call. Whatever their point of view on this is.
(09:38):
I just think that so many lives were in ultimably
changed on New Year's morning, Uh yeah, three point fifteen
on Bourbon Street, and it could have had you know,
the people's lives have changed, and what signs were missed.
It just cries out to me, and I I don't
want to you know, I want to be as respectful
(10:00):
of the Constitution. I hope that they're monitoring these these
kiddie porn websites. I mean, do you think that that.
I'll ask you the speculative questions on the other side, Harvey,
my guest is Harvey Silverglade, love to hear what you think.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty. If you have a comment or if you
(10:22):
have a question for Harvey, feel free to join this conversation.
I think we are changing administrations in Washington. There's going
to be a new FBI director at some point, whether
whether his name is Kash Patel or not, it will
be someone who might be quite different from what we've
been dealing with for the last six or seven years.
(10:46):
I just think this cries out. There's so much stuff
going on and has gone on in this country, and
most of these people, they exhibit signs, They talk to
their friends, they tell us always to see something. If
you see something, say something. And at the same time, uh,
there's a mixed signal there, because sometimes if you see
(11:07):
something and you say something, some organization might come back
and say, oh, you're profiling. So we got we got
some conflicting signals, and I want to go through these
with Harvey, but I also want to incorporate you six one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty.
We'll be right back on Nightside.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
Nightside Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
I guess Harvey silverglad, and we are talking, uh in
the context of the attack on New Year's Morning in
New Orleans, which left fourteen Americans, fourteen people dead and
dozens of others injured. Harvey, again, I know that we're
kind of getting into the speculative here, but how does
(12:00):
it just seems to me it's an abject failure when
within our country something like this happens, When in retrospect,
they were all sorts of signs that were very that
were very clear to authorities if they either wanted to
look or pay attention. Do you share that that feeling?
(12:22):
You know and you do not? You know, You're you
will tell me the truth, But I'm just do you
do you feel that way or no, does that has that?
It struck me that they afterwards it was like, these
people are dead because someone was asleep at the switch.
Speaker 4 (12:37):
Well, there's something wrong with our society that we have
produced so many of these people. That's clear, But it's
the government is not a physician, They're not a psychiatrist.
And what I think is happens is that if somebody
(13:01):
acts is reported is acting odd dangerous, the FBI can
look into them and they can even follow them. They
cannot break into the house, but they can survey. They
can do this, so they can put somebody on you know,
(13:23):
there are things you can do without violating the Fourth Amendment.
There's nothing there's no law against the gouvernt following the
FBI following somebody.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
So then okay, So then the question to me it
has to be, is the ask the FBI become so
intimidated that they are not following following uh in looking
for these leads. I just think that there, yeah, we
can say there's something wrong with our society. This guy
(13:59):
was had been in the military, that he should have
been able at some point. You would think that someone
in the military might have had a conversation with him,
and they might have said the guy needs help. I
think about, on a more neutral case, the guy up
in Maine who killed all those people a year ago
in the fall. He had been identified as a problem,
the local police had visited him. He had he had
(14:23):
a lot of weapons, high powered weapons, and he eventually
used them. And it seems to me it's almost the
equivalent of malpractice by law enforcement not to look at
someone like that and realize this is a troubled individual
and the minimum we should do is separate him from
his weapons so that he could not commit mass carnage
(14:45):
as the guy did on New Year's morning in New Orleans.
I just feel that I'm frustrated and I'm probably not
making as much sense as I should. But go ahead,
I want your reaction.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
Well, you know, what can I say? I've said it
in as many ways as as I know. If there
is information that company is acting strange, they can investigate.
They can they can follow the guides. There's no law
against following somebody. They can put a stake out of
(15:21):
the guy's house, but they cannot break in without his permission.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
Okay, So, but I'm taking it one step beyond here,
and if I'm not articulating it properly, I apologize in
view of what has happened in this country so often.
I realize we're a free society, and I realize that
that we have liberties that we all value. But I
(15:48):
just wonder if specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
fallen down in terms of these these radical groups, be
they the far right or the far left. That's you know.
I cite to the guy in in Maine because they
(16:09):
saw that as local law enforcement, which it's different. He
was some sort of a lone wolf whack job who
had been screwed up for what for all sorts of
personal reasons, you wouldn't have picked him up. But I
would think that this guy they could have figured out.
I would I would think that some of the others.
(16:29):
It seems to me that maybe the the agencies need
to get a little bit more aggressive. And I don't
expect you to join me in that hope. But but
but that's but that's the that's the theory. I would
like to see our law enforcement agencies staying within the
bottles of the constitution, as you have articulated, but to
get more aggressive. And my concern is that the public
(16:52):
has been told if you see something, say something, but
this there are other singles coming from the government. Well
be careful. You know, if someone says, gee, I saw
somebody and they look suspicious to me, and if if
there wasn't really some action that, you know that let's
say it was someone who was dressed a little differently,
they might feel that I'm going to be categorized as
(17:16):
being uh anti this or anti that. I think you
understand the point I'm making.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
Yeah, I agree with the FBI is pulling down on
the job. You know. I usually I'm concerned about the
FBI being two as exactly, but right of these facts,
they're not being aggressed enough.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, I I'm glad to hear you say that.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
You know.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
I also would like to get a quick response to
you after the news break tonight, the Supreme Court, by
a five to four decision, has allowed the sentencing of
Donald Trump to go forward and judge one Merchan's tomorrow
morning at nine point thirty. So I want to just
ask get your thought on that as well. I don't
(18:07):
know if you've had a chance to look at it,
but it was an interesting five to four split in
which for the conservative justices who you would expect Thomas
and Kavanaugh and Gorsch basically said yeah, you know, they should,
we should take this case up. Alito, of course, was
(18:28):
in there and the majority Roberts and before female members
of god to Lena Kagan so a signia sort of
Mayor Katanji Brown Jackson and Amy Cony, Barrett said no,
So the sentence will go on. I want to ask
you about the come back, but I also want to
continue this conversation and invite people to join us talk
(18:51):
about again if law enforcement needs to get at this
point in time just a little more aggressive maintaining observations
of the rights that we all joy under the Constitution.
Back on Nightside if you'd like to join. The best
lines are six one, seven, two, five four ten thirty
or six one seven, nine three one ten thirty. Back
on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Right after this, It's Night Side with Boston's news Radio.
Speaker 3 (19:17):
Probably before we get some phone calls. Let me just
get a quick response if I could. I hope you've
seen the news story tonight that the US Supreme Court,
by a five to four vote, one paragraph order issued
by Chief Justice Rogers justices Sodamayra Kaigan, Cony Barrett, and
Katanji Brown Jackson. They will not interfere with the sentencing
(19:40):
that schedule for tomorrow morning, nine thirty UH, in which
one Mershon, the judge in New York, is apparently going
to essentially wrap the case up, uh, not order any
jail time or for that matter of fine, but basically
to make sure that it is on the record that
president like Trump has been sentenced. The court apparently today
(20:03):
said that the normal courses of appeal on the issues
of the case could be could be litigated over time,
but they would not interfere with the sentencing tomorrow. Now,
you have represented John Eastman, who was one of those
who were charged in relation to the twenty twenty one activity,
(20:26):
and I'm not sure if you were still counseled to him.
Speaker 4 (20:28):
That's correct, if.
Speaker 3 (20:30):
You're still counseled to him at this point. But I'm
wondering if you're comfortable in answering that question. Do you
think the Supreme Court did the right thing tonight?
Speaker 4 (20:41):
Well, first of all, the judge who announced that he
would send Trump before the inauguration but would not give
them jail time, he avoids the constitutional problem of the
jailing a head of state, the head of state before
(21:05):
his inaugulation, and I think that that would be overturned,
that he would not be allowed to do that. But
he has avoided the problem by saying he did not
give a jail sentence.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
And so, and by doing that it allows Merchon to
conclude the case. And then whatever substantive issues the president's
lawyers want to bring up at some point subsequent to
the case, issues of evidence and issues of motions that were,
(21:41):
they will go through the normal course.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Yep, okay.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
And also Donald Trump will not appear in front of
Merchon tomorrow. Apparently he's going to appear in some sort
of a zoom capacity, a remote zoom zoom call. Ye,
merch On will have the the honor, if you will,
or the satisfaction of actually imposing a sentence, however light
(22:11):
it is, and it probably will have us. It will
be just simply note that the convictions will stand, that
there will be no penalty, there will be no fine,
there will be no no jail time, there will be
no probation or anything like that.
Speaker 4 (22:29):
It makes the point that even the president is not
above the war.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
Yep, gotcha. Okay, let's let's get back to our discussion.
Handy going to go to Steven Braintree. Steve, we're talking
about whether or not the FBI should become a little
bit more aggressive with these sites on the dark web
where people somehow get radicalized. Your thought or your question
for Harvey silver Light.
Speaker 6 (22:54):
Yes, my question is, yeah, I understand that you want
the FBI to be more aggressive.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
Yes.
Speaker 6 (23:01):
Well, one of the things that as far as people
that you may say are in a mental crisis that
they have been using is red flag laws. And I
wanted to hear Hobby's opinion on those because I believe,
based on how they are written, that red flag law
(23:22):
is actually unconstitutional. I think that you have a right
to face your accuser. And here's someone Now the government's
going to come in and confiscate your belongings, and you
have no idea who or what has done.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
This to you.
Speaker 3 (23:43):
Okay, So you're talking much more in the sense of
the government comes in and says we're going to take
your weapons away. I suspect that's your question. Is that right?
Speaker 6 (23:53):
Well, or the police or any entity. Basically, you're saying
that they should be more aggressive, and yes, saying that
there was information out there. Here's here's a procedure that
they are now using that is completely in the dark.
Someone goes in and and goes to a judge and says,
I think this person is dangerous. I want you to
(24:15):
confiscate this stuff. And sure enough the police come up
and they.
Speaker 3 (24:19):
I don't know how. I don't if I go to
court tomorrow and I go in front of a judge
and I say I think that Steve from Brendwa, Braintree
is dangerous. I don't know how how many judges would
would authorize some agency to go in and confiscate your
so called stuff with with nothing or some individual.
Speaker 4 (24:44):
Harvey jump in here, judge. Judge does not have that power.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
Okay, well then why are red flag confiscations up in
some places? Two and sixty?
Speaker 3 (25:02):
But do you want to cite some example, Steve again,
have you been in New York? Let me ask you,
have you been involved in a similar situation in a
situation like this or are you speaking about some statistic
or study that you've seen.
Speaker 6 (25:16):
No, I am this is a specific New York has
ramped up and asked all law enforcement if you see
a person who is acting aggressively in any situation that
you then need to file a red flag law on
(25:37):
it if you know that they are in possession or
have owned firearms.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
Here.
Speaker 3 (25:42):
Okay, So the observation is by the officer of aggressive
behavior is what you're saying in.
Speaker 6 (25:49):
New York or any family member, any family member period,
without any any other criteria they are implementing in UH
filing red flag wives.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Well, okay, Harvey's going to jump in here, but there's
a difference between an officer who sees someone doing something
or acting aggressively in public, UH and a family member
who says, gee, I was threatened last night by by
my spouse or my boyfriend or whatever. Harvey, go ahead,
if however you can handle this would be great.
Speaker 4 (26:26):
If somebody is doing something completely bizarre, there is a
there is a procedure for involuntarily committing them to a
mental institution and having them examined. That that is that
is a constitutional It's been around for a long time.
Speaker 6 (26:48):
Yes, I understand that. But the way that these are
being if two people are yelling at one another, that
is now being conceived as aggressive behavior here. Now, nobody's
throwing a punch, nobody's been well, again, all.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Of Steve, all of those cases would be would be litigated.
A police officer would would would have to say, look,
I have a I have a belief that the the
actions of this individual, uh, you know, rose to a
certain level that that we need to find out if
someone makes threats I'm gonna shoot you that that's a
(27:26):
different story between two guys throwing a punch. I wish
you had a specific to give us, Steve. But obviously
in this case of domestic abuse, if there's.
Speaker 6 (27:36):
A case of the only reason why I'm saying this
is because you are saying that you want the FBI
to be more aggressive. Yes, you want police forces to
be more aggressive in handling these situations.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
In terms in terms of what I'm talking about is
in terms of the dark web, uh, and in terms
of individual rules who are becoming radicalized, like the guy
in New Orleans, they visit public websites. There's a way
in which that's that's different than private conversations. Harvey has
(28:14):
agreed with me, Whether you like it or not, I
think that's an entirely different scenario than someone who's a
legitimate gun owner gets into some sort of a road
rage conversation and you know, there's an argument or whatever,
and that moves on. If on the other hand, some
guys in the middle of the streets saying a guy,
(28:35):
I'm going home, I'm getting my ar fifteen and I'm
going to find you an off you. I bet you
the police have an obligation at that point to red
flag him.
Speaker 6 (28:47):
Fair enough Again, I understand where you're coming from, Dan,
I'm just telling you that what is happening to gun
owners across this country, this is.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
Not a Yeah, this is not a gun owner. I mean,
I know you want to go there with the gun owners,
but this is not a gun owners. I mean, you
know gun owners situations. It treat it. If you want
to talk about that some night, send me some specifics, okay,
and we can we can talk about it. I'm the
specific I'm talking about tonight is fourteen dead people in
New Orleans as a result of a guy who did
(29:20):
use apparently public websites ISIS websites and was radicalized thereon.
And fourteen people are dead and dozens of others were
badly injured. So I just don't want to go off.
I'm giving you a lot.
Speaker 6 (29:35):
I I will get you that information.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Look forward to it. Thank you very much. All Right,
we're going to take a quick break back on Night's side.
Right after this, more phone calls with Harvey Silverglade. Again, Harvey,
I just didn't I didn't want to go down a
rabbit hole. And I hope you understand that I wasn't
trying to be interruptive. Six one seven, two ten thirty
six one seven, nine thirty back of Nightside to this.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios on WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
I guess there's Attorney Harvey Silverglade. Let's keep it rolling here,
gonna go to ed in Worcester. Ed You're next on Nightside. Welcome,
you're all with Harvey Silverglade? Is Ed there or no? Okay, Okay,
why don't you figure it out if he's there or not?
And well, Harvey, I appreciate you know the conversation tonight,
(30:35):
and I honestly did not know where you would come
out on this. But I am gratified because I do
you think that twenty years ago you would have had
the same position. Yes, you do, Okay, of course, twenty
(30:57):
years ago we were not dealing with with some of
the various ancendric groups that we're dealing with at this point,
do you feel uncomfortable? You really, for the most part
in your career spent a lot of time on the
(31:17):
other side of the courtroom from police authorities. Are you
at all uncomfortable at this point acknowledging that, hey, maybe
a little bit more needs to be done.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
Well, I wouldn't say. I don't think my view of
these things have changed in fifty years. My analysis of
this case tries to pit the rights of the defendant
against the rights of the state, and these facts might change.
(31:55):
The atmosphere might change, but they constitution it doesn't change absolutely,
but you have to adapt it. And I think that
in this case, I've come.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
To a.
Speaker 4 (32:11):
Point where I'm satisfied with the solution that I've come
up with.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
Ye as well, I got ed from Wooster back here,
so I want to accommodate him if I can. Ed
appreciate you calling me back. I don't know what happened
we lost you Go right ahead. You're on with Harvey
silver Glader.
Speaker 5 (32:29):
Yeah, new phone that I've paid a lot of money
for that it's less reliable than the old step Why
that's what happens a couple of things about your observation.
You know, you said it's government and competence, and I
sort of agree with that, except my one comment about
that is, you know, we know that people who commit
these acts or get arrested in a sting or get arrested,
(32:51):
you know, when they're in the final stages of planning.
But we don't know how many people exhibit these same
behaviors who never do anything about it. It's like a
fraction where you know the numerator, but you don't know
the denominator.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
Yeah, but in my yeah, go ahead, a lot more doing.
Speaker 5 (33:13):
This kind of stuff than you would think. There are,
like doing these making these kinds of noises online than
you would think.
Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, I think that's why my suggestion, and it was
made out of frustration with the loss of life and
the a lot of those people who are injured New
Orleans New Year's warning, they're gonna have they're gonna deal
with those injuries for the rest of the life. I mean,
it's it's more than you know, a pulled back muscle.
(33:43):
A lot of those people were badly injured, and I
just think that there are and I've never been to
any of these dark sites, but I think I have
a sense of what they're all about, and if average
American citizens can access the dark websites, then I would
think FBI agents or investigators of some level should be
able to access those sites, find out who's on those sites,
(34:06):
find out what people are saying on those sites, and
try to figure out the difference between people who are
there out of curiosity. Maybe some people are there because
they're they're doing research, academic research, I get that. But
there are other people down there, particularly this fellow who
acted out on New Year's Morning, who pretty clearly became radicalized.
(34:30):
I mean, ten years in the US military, everything seemed
to be pretty squared away, and this guy ends up
driving down Bourbon Street mowing people down. I'm willing to
give the authority to agencies, you know. I know that
those who give up privacy for security at the end
(34:54):
will have neither. I know all of the the aphorisms,
but I just want to I want to see. I
think we're going to see more of this over time,
and I'm hoping that more of these incidents can be prevented.
Go ahead, and I didn't mean to interrupt.
Speaker 4 (35:09):
Go ahead, Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
I'm not against your your remedy. I'm just saying I
think if we start doing that, there's a lot more
people who are going to get caught up in the
in the net than we might think. And I get
sort of on a related thing. I wanted to respond
to your last collar their Steve from what was different
Brain Trade, who was talking about you know, if they
(35:33):
come in and take your stuff. Yeah, I'm very sympathetic
to his argument. And I do think, you know, if
you read the Constitution, it's it's he's he's got the
better of that argument. Except all that was done contemplating
a world where most people exercise self restraint, and we
(35:55):
are increasingly living in a country where people don't exercise
self restraint. And you know, there's a whole I can't
count how many times you see on YouTube or wherever. Yeah,
these people who there's their fast food order is incorrect
and it on fire.
Speaker 3 (36:14):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (36:14):
And I just think in a world like that, you know,
I just think the authorities are going to be a
lot more aggressive in in in reaching out than I
wish they were, you know, But I think it's just
gonna happen if if we live in a world where
people are gonna and and you had a thing a
few weeks or months ago. But there was a fender
(36:37):
bender on kid Cod and didn't one guy get killed
and the other guy's now facing murder charges.
Speaker 3 (36:43):
Yeah, that that was done. It's actually in Plymouth. And
the guy got out and shot and then was rendering
a life saving efforts of you know, ten seconds later literally.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
And there was one in Providence last week when there
was a fender bender. Guy took mother, grabbed her out
of her car, inverted her and like gave her the
piles I saw that, yeah, advert into the pavement.
Speaker 3 (37:09):
Yeah. And and clearly that guy should should suffer the
consequences of that. I mean, the woman looked like she
weighed about one hundred and five pounds, soaking wet, and
he looked like he was two hundred and fifty pounds.
It was, you know, it was a mismatch of enormous proportions.
Let's put it like that, right.
Speaker 5 (37:29):
But well, my point is we're just living in and
I mean, I guess this would be my response to
both you and Steve. We are living in a society
that is increasingly violent, increasingly tolerant of law breaking or
just law disregarding increasingly tolerant. This is where I probably
disagree with Hardy of anti social behavior that is short
(37:51):
of law breaking, which I don't like, and just increasingly
tolerant of government incompetent incompetence. I mean, I think the
story in southern California is not so much the fires,
it's just government incompetence at every imaginable level.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
I think it was today.
Speaker 5 (38:11):
Yeah, Karen, Karen Bass said if you need, you know, assistance,
you can reach us at you r L. Obviously that
was like something somebody had put in her and they
meant to put the correct website in before I get it.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
Well. Yeah, do you think that Karen Bass has ever
actually utilized a computer? I'm sure never in her life.
Speaker 5 (38:34):
People older than Karen Bass who would not make that mistake.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
No, I understand that, but I'm sure she's had staff people. Hey,
I'm so glad you called in. I appreciate it, ed,
and I get you none of the wires, So we'll
talk soon.
Speaker 5 (38:45):
I appreciate that call.
Speaker 3 (38:46):
Thank you much. You give me an idea for a
couple of other shows. In the meantime, Harvey is always
thank you, sir. I look forward to seeing you in
early February. Looking forward to that that that morning. Okay,
as do I thanks, Thanks Harvey, talk to you soon.
If you're on the line, I'd like to stay there.
(39:07):
Feel free. If you've called into late, I apologize because
Harvey's is departing. We could talk about this for a
little while into the next hour if you want, and
if not. I want to talk about the Jimmy Carty
Carter funeral today, which I thought was done very well,
and I also want to talk about the interactions that
(39:28):
I had with him as a reporter, and I suspect
many of you probably had a moment up close and
personal with Jimmy Carter, and i'd like to, you know,
putting aside the politics of it and all of that,
an incredibly decent man who lived a very full life
(39:50):
and remain true to his values and was the victim
I think of circumstances much beyond his control. We'll be
back right after the Tentacle News on Nightside with Dan Ray.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
I'm telling you easy Boston News Radio.
Speaker 3 (40:08):
All right. So I want to thank Harvey Silverglad for
joining us. Harvey is as fierce a defender of personal
liberties and rights under the Constitution as anyone I know,
and we had that conversation. It was New Year's night,
actually it would have been a week ago, in which, yeah,
(40:29):
well it would we could go last night, pardon me.
And I just became very frustrated when all this evidence
poured out that this guy who had engaged in this
this slaughter on New Year's morning at about three point
fifteen by driving down Bourbon Street and having mowed people down.
(40:49):
I've been on Bourbon Street in New Orleans. I suspect
many of you have been as well, And it just
seemed to me that these websites, these dark websites, the
FBI should know about them. They should see what Americans
are visiting them, and it's open to the public that
they don't need a search warrant. And then depending upon
(41:12):
what they begin to suspect about individuals, they should be
able to use their law enforcement experience to maybe isolate
some of those who are there not just for the
kick of going to one of these websites, but who
actually seem to be in the process of getting radicalized,
and maybe maybe spare the lives of some Americans or
(41:37):
Americans to spend the rest of their lives with terrible injuries.
I mean, the FBI had interviewed the Boston bombers up
here before the bombing and everything was fine. And I
think what happens is that politically there's a lot of
pressure brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, and I
(41:57):
think that a lot of the law enforcement agencies somehow
become influence. We see that with the Boston Police Department
at this point. I'm sure you saw the stories in
the papers. The last couple of days with a number
of serious detainers were not honored by the Boston Police
and they basically have have set up a brick wall
(42:19):
between them and Ice. Well that's going to change fairly soon.
And I just think it's important to talk about this,
and you can agree or disagree. And let's see what
Jack and the Cape says. Jack's held over, so I
assume he's looking to talk about what we talked with
Harvey Silvic late about last hour. Jack next on NIGHTSAGA,
right ahead.
Speaker 7 (42:35):
Thanks Dan for carrying the conversation. The only thing I
want to interject, as far as the Louisiana and the
Las Vegas thing, both didn't both of those individuals experience
some kind of a marital loss.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
You know, I don't know. I do know that the
guy in Colorado apparently, now, yeah, he was a Green
Beret and shot himself in the head and then had
had the wherewithal to blow up the car a very
different situation than the guy down in Houston and that.
Speaker 5 (43:12):
Well.
Speaker 7 (43:13):
But but what I'm doing at here is the you know,
you take emotional frustrations that we all experience, but you know,
you really hit the red line with some of these
marital situation's girlfriend emotional situations and you you know, and
then you couple that with uh, these acts acts and terrorism.
I really think that you know, that has to be
(43:37):
examined in context.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
Well, well let's take him, let's take him, let's deal
with them. Okay, the guy in Las Vegas, I don't
know that you would characterize that as an active terrorism.
I think that was an act of absolute lunacy and insanity,
and that this guy, I don't know what he went
through in the Green Beret. Apparently he was deployed a
lot of places around the world. Obviously a lot of
(44:02):
men and women have relationships that dissolved.
Speaker 7 (44:07):
I'm really referencing his immediate emotional environment. If you lose
a loved one, a love, abby, divorce, adult whatever it
traders an emotional response, and uh, I think you know what.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Wait but hold on, wait, wait a sec hold on
just for one second. Okay. First of all, there's a
mountain of evidence that the guy in Houston was radicalized
on an ISIS website, and that he's slowly but surely
I guess he was a practicing Muslim, which had nothing
(44:45):
to do with There are plenty of practicing Muslims in
this country who are not UH terrorists and who are
driving down Bourbon Street on New Year's New Year's morning
killing people. That guy went through a metamorphos from being
he was in the US military for ten years, right,
(45:05):
and so I don't think he he had a metamorphois
which was very different than what the guy in the
tesla at Las Vegas. I have no idea what the
guy in the tesla was trying to do.
Speaker 7 (45:16):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (45:16):
Maybe he wanted to make a criticism of of Trump
UH and and his policies. He parked at the Trump
hotel in it in a tesla. I have no idea.
But he drove from Colorado, drove from Cold He had
a break He had a breakdown with his wife. There's
(45:36):
no nothing to suggest that the guy in Houston was
motivated by by a divorce. I guess he's had two divorces.
Speaker 7 (45:44):
Well okay, well okay, but we're we're dealing with thee
with a species, the human species, that has incredible emotional context.
And I'm not I'm not justifying oralida, but uh, you know,
we we live in an insanely uh emotionally energized So what.
Speaker 3 (46:06):
What's your solution?
Speaker 5 (46:07):
What? What?
Speaker 3 (46:08):
What is your solution? Person who goes through a divorce
or an emotional breakup, somebody breaks up a relationship, we
then have to do something with them. I'm simply I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (46:19):
I don't think.
Speaker 3 (46:20):
Well, I think that there's thousands of people or who
tonight will have a split breakup and and either of
both of the parties will be crestfallen, and none of
them are going to engage in any sort of terrorist activity.
I don't think the guy in Las Vegas was engaging
in terrorist activity. He was making some sort of a
weird political statement by renting a rest a tesla, killing
(46:43):
himself and blowing the car up in the proximity of
a Trump hotel. The guy in Houston was clearly making
He left notes, he left videotapes, he was he considered
himself a soldier of isis.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Okay?
Speaker 3 (46:59):
Different situation, Jack.
Speaker 5 (47:02):
All Right, I'm going to say not trying to fight you.
Speaker 3 (47:04):
I'm just I could sit here and say, yeah, no, Jack,
you might be right, but I'm not going to insult you.
I think that they're two very different situations. They both
might have gone through some domestic discord or divorce, but
so do millions of Americans every every month, every year.
(47:25):
All Right, thanks Jack, Sorry to shoot down your theory.
All right, we'll take a break week, go back. I
want to talk about Jimmy Carter. I want to talk
about some of my close and personal experiences with him.
Very decent guy in my opinion, and a very moving
ceremony today at the National Cathedral. So, if you've ever
(47:47):
met Jimmy Carter, I'd love to get your reaction. I
met him on several occasions, and every occasion he was
easy to work with. I was a reporter, he was
a candidate, then a candidate for president, a president and
a former president.
Speaker 5 (48:05):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (48:05):
And I don't want to boy you with all of
my stories. I want to be entertained. By Your Stories six, one, seven, two, five,
four ten thirty six one seven, nine three one ten
thirty Coming back on Nightside
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.