detainees have phones and doors to kick in?
get your story straight. either way, you dont know why you serve. I thought you military boys were supposed to be superior to us civilians?
I don't see it that way. The fourth amendment protects from "UNREASONABLE" searches and seizures. It is not worded to mean a warrant is required. A warrant is a judicial order, and often used to protect the law enforcement officer. In most crimes, a warrant is now required, but by law. Not cons ution.
Maybe you should read the cons ution again.
What difference does "no knock" make? They still have to prove probable cause and get a warrant from a judge before executing the raid. I don't see that it's such a big deal that they "knock" first. Should they also say "pretty please" and "thank you"?
Read the text:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
pretty clear that unreasonable is any instance where a Warrant is not issued. Either your unreasonable or you have a warrant. read the text.
What makes you think I'm in the military? Never was. I got a full boat offer from the Air Force Academy but declined it because I didn't want to commit for 6 years.
the only justification is if you expand the powers of the executive branch, beyond thier original scope, to allow warrantless search. WHICH YOU HYPOCRITES ARE AGAINST WITHOUT AMENDMENT.
What a crop of winners.
then your just a sheep.
Have you had your blood pressure checked lately? You seem quite excitable and easily baited..
Have you ever read the legal definition of a warrant? And the meaning of a warrant in the 19th century?
I suggest you stop assuming you know what you think you know.
So all the way to 1978, the gov could incur CRIMINAL LIABILITY for warrantless search and seizure in violation of the cons ution.In 1975, the Church Committee, a United States Senate select committee chaired by Frank Church of Idaho, a Democrat, investigated Cold War intelligence-gathering by the federal government, including warrantless surveillance.[2] The committee report found the "Americans who violated no criminal law and represented no genuine threat to the 'national security' have been targeted, regardless of the stated predicate. In many cases, the implementation of wiretaps and bugs has also been fraught with procedural violations, even when the required procedures were meager, thus compounding the abuse. The inherently intrusive nature of electronic surveillance, moreover, has enabled the Government to generate vast amounts of information - unrelated to any legitimate governmental interest - about the personal and political lives of American citizens."[3]
The "potential criminal liability of the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency for operations such as SHAMROCK (interception of all international cable traffic from 1945 to 1975) and MINARET (use of watchlists of U.S. dissidents and potential civil disturbers to provide intercept information to law enforcement agencies from 1969 to 1973)" helped persuade president Gerald Ford in 1976 to seek surveillance legislation, which was ultimately enacted as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978.[4]
Abuses of power by the federal government led to reform legislation in the 1970s.[4] Advancing technology began to present questions not directly addressed by the legislation as early as 1985.[5]
In its 1985 report "Electronic Surveillance and Civil Liberties," the nonpartisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment suggested legislation be considered for a surveillance oversight board.[6] Congress disbanded this agency in 1995.[5]
Bill Clinton's admin made the first move toward an expanded executive power to include warrantless searches. Just goes to show you party lines mean . continued in GWB admin. In Obama Admin.
Bottom line is, your all about a do ent that you 1) know nothing about, and 2) would destroy based simply on aggressive policies of the republican party (and other parties as well, but that escapes you completely) to directly contradict your own self professed beliefs in the founding principles of this country, up to and including our cons ution.
What a hypocritical . you two repub joy boys need to take a long strong look in the mirror and realize that the inconsistancies in your position are not limited to you two individually, but stretch to your party of allegiance as well, and that is WHY NONE OF YOU MOFOS CAN BE TRUSTED BEYOND THAT TRUST WE THE PEOPLE COULD PUT IN KIM JONG IL.
Dude, you crack me up!
Of course I do. alot of things are funny when you have a fourth grader's IQ. You should try making farting noises with your mouth on your arm...I bet that will keep you laughing for hours...
Dude, you crack me up!
Next time I log on a thread and you two repub twins see me on here, I want you to offer me your seats and a cold beverage. After today, I own you both.
Only in your dreams.Next time I log on a board and you two repub twins see me on here, I want you to offer me your seats and a cold beverage. After today, I own you both.
adios muchachas re-pooh-bli-cahn.
No .
I gotta admit he's passionate. ing stupid and easy as to bait, but he's damn passionate about it!
Good night. Hope you mommy tucks you in well.
Think you can lose the passifier?
You realize that we've released many detainees because they were actually innocent? So you're saying you're ok with shooting innocents without a trial?
That's not really the point, is it? The whole "If you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry" is as dumb an argument as the whole, "You make enough money to live, we can tax the rest" argument that some Dems make.
Clearly? I haven't seen that data anywhere. I have heard of innocents who've been assaulted in their homes though.
I'm guessing you're not familiar with this, but up until recently, the "state secrets" clause was only used to disallow certain EVIDENCE. Nowadays, it's being used to throw out an entire court case.
Tell me, you're for government transparency, right? So why do you agree that the government should just be able to shout "State secrets" and throw out a case?
No arguments there.
[
Ok.
Ok.
Disagree for various reasons (ie. if I were in a foster home, I'd probably rather go to a home with two gay people than be stuck in the foster home. And I'm rather confident that children could choose not to go to a gay home... anyways, moving on.
So, of the above issues, you agree with the right-wing on everything but the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Not quite the mark of a "middle of the road independent".
WC, I think you know you're on the right side of the aisle moreso than an independent... you're just more right than many of the "right-wing" politicians because those politicians with an R by their name don't live up to their fiscal bonafides. And I haven't debated the death tax with you because I agree with you on that subjectlol
If they were captured while shooting at our guys, then it should be an open and shut case, should it not? Why not put them on trial?
You're twisting the use of the word "unreasonable" here WC, which is surprising as you're usually a stickler for using the words as they're meant to be.
Here, unreasonable does not mean "not much of a hassle". It means they must have a reason to search you. It can't be on a whim. The problem with warrantless wiretapping is that they've been running a wide net, and intercepting calls/info that isn't just terrorist-related, but also covers many innocent communications.
The usefulness of the program is dubious, as it provides almost too much info to understaffed police/federal forces looking for the bad guys. We'll never know though because the govt won't spill those details.
If you try to justify it as "There's a reason, they're protecting us from terrorists", well I guess that police officers should just be able to stop anyone they care to and pull off a strip search, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
The "knock" is to let occupants aware that the police are about to come in, so they don't think a criminal is busting down their door.
It also prevents the police from looking like idiots when they get an address wrong, so they don't break down the door, shoot some people, and apologize afterwards for being mistaken.
And what's so wrong about cops being polite? *shrug*
Would you argue that probable cause is not needed for a search?
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 07-15-2010 at 06:18 PM.
The knock also allows bad guys time to grab their guns and shoot back, and in the hypothetical case of suicidal terrorists, blow the house up.
I'm not sure why "knocking" is such a big deal to you. They can't go in without probable cause and a search warrant signed by a judge.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
