What Should Happen to George W. Bush?

[David Floyd]

Even a single civil liberty being violated would be too much.

[orange]

so if John Doe has access to 50 urban assault weapons in his basement, and plans to take his gang buddies and wage war on the city police, and the police come with a warrant to search the house for drugs only...and when they get to the basement, discover the assault weapons...instead of making the arrest, now the policemen have to pretend they didn't see what they saw, go back to HQ, file a report that they need a search warrant, wait until it is processed, go back, and arrest him for having the guns?

Wouldn't it be much easier to arrest him on the spot and prevent the possible carnage that would break out while all that crap work is being processed?

There is such thing as an emergency warrant, but it is not always given or easily aquired and may still require paperwork.

[Berzerker]

Orange -

I don't mind the tightening of 4th amendment rights in most cases, especially during a national crisis or time of emergency.

Any time politicians want to "tighten" our 4th Amendment freedoms it's because of some "crisis".

I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, and if you do have something to hide, than I don't think it's a problem to seize the illegal items (especially weapons).

I'll have to re-read the 4th Amendment. I don't recall the Framers telling people we don't need protection from searches and seizures because if we have nothing to hide, then we have no reason to worry. I can tell the authorities have never searched your property for drugs. They have this nasty habit of destroying the property they are searching. After sinking a yacht looking for drugs, the government rep told the owner and the Supreme Court(and the rest of us) that he had no cause for a lawsuit because insurance will cover the damage (as if private insurance companies are now required to provide government a$$holes free coverage).

As long as it isn't based on race/religion...I don't have a problem with it.

I don't understand these exceptions. You're willing to "tighten" our rights because of the current situation, but not based on race or religion? The people we are fighting happen to be Arab Muslims.

That would be more of an invasion of 1st amendment rights, I think, if it were based on race, religion, etc.

If you can ignore the Amendments you want out of the way, don't we all get to throw a few out?

A more conservative interpretation of 4th amendment rights, IMO, is a good thing.

So there are liberal and conservative versions of the 4th Amendment? I thought there was only one, the Framer's version.

I'm quite in favor of strict gun control as well, so I guess we just disagree on this one across the board

That takes care of the 2nd and 4th, any other amendments you want to discard?

[David Floyd]

I bet he doesn't like the 10th, either

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Even a single civil liberty being violated would be too much.

4,500 people in New York had their liberties violated in a much more fundamental way. So what are you going to say while people whoop and holler about the gummint takin' away our rights, while these ********ers openly announce their intent to wage nuclear and chemical warfare on the civilian populace of the US?

You're awfully willing to toss away other American's lives, which is a far more onerous invasion of liberty than any yet proposed by the US government.

These ********ers out there (and infiltrated into the US) could give a flying **** less for your pedantic debates. They laugh at how US intelligence and law enforcement is so hog-tied that it's been rendered virtually impotent by all this abstract whining about civil liberties.

Meanwhile, while we have people who have stated outright their intent to wage nuclear and chemical war against us, you ***** and whine about a military tribunal which does not yet exist, about pedantic questions on the interpretation of what is an "unreasonable" search or siezure under the Fourth Amendment, and about the function of National Guard troops acting in a constitutionally permitted role (nationalization in time of public emergency) at facilities with Federal jurisdiction (the function of airports is interstate transportation and commerce)

Everyone else can bend over and take it up the ass at the terrorists convenience, as long as you aren't "affected" by an order authorizing the executive branch to do something in the future that may never be done, and won't in any conceivable likelihood be done to you.

[rev]

Just a little catch, MtG, from the BBC: "while the English-language newspaper carries a clear message from Bin Laden that he has access to such weapons, he makes no such claim in an Urdu-language version of the interview."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1648000/1648572.stm

"whine about a military tribunal which does not yet exist"

You mean we can't complain that Bush is putting it together? For that matter, we shouldn't be able to complain about pending legislation, either, because it's not yet law.

"about pedantic questions on the interpretation of what is an "unreasonable" search or siezure under the Fourth Amendment"

It's the Constitution. If they really want to change it, they can make an Ammendment. If it passes, by all means, search us.

"and about the function of National Guard troops acting in a constitutionally permitted role"

I agree with you on this one - at a time when paranoia runs rampant, if it makes people feel better, it might be worth it. If they're still there six months from now, though, people are just going to be annoyed.

"as long as you aren't "affected" by an order authorizing the executive branch to do something in the future that may never be done"

Many of us have criticized the Taliban for murdering women simply for showing their faces, for performing public executions in the middle of soccer matches, for outlawing music under the penalty of death. But it doesn't affect us, so why should we care? Not to equate the military tribunal to what the Taliban did, but if people are being unfairly affected by policies we can change, can speak out upon, then it's our moral obligation to do so. (I believe it was you who said that if we capture someone overseas and bring them here ourselves, they can be tried under the tribunal, and I agree. But I do have some doubts about its effectiveness over the civilian courts, its jurisdiction, and its sources of precedent and law.)

[faded glory]

Ahhh yes thats 100% badass Bob for you

Move to germany to get drunk you commie

[chequita guevara]

We have to speak out about it now, or we may not be able to later.

[sulla]

No one has any respect for the American presidency. And who do we have to thank? Why are best bresident ever! Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

[SlowwHand]

"A" and "B".

You boys would absolutely freak out over rationing of things like gas, and other various items, wouldn't you?
Sometimes one has to forego civil liberties for a while, to insure they last forever.

[David Floyd]

I'd go absolutely ****ing APE**** over rationing.

[SlowwHand]

What makes you so special, David ?
I don't ask with maliciousness.
You need to think through what you're saying more though.
If I have to curtail gas use, for instance, so that the military can accomplish their mission, so be it.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'd go absolutely ****ing APE**** over rationing.

Jeez, go thing you didn't live during the war and *dare* make sacrifices, eh?

[TCO]

Dave...you can keep your ideals and philosophy. But in addition to that...why not give something back. This is a great country that people died for. You are so lucky to be in a place with the Constition. Put that energy into serving your country. (You can still think rationing and searches are wrong...but you'll be putting your energy towards a more useful cause.)

[Ramo]

I agree with most of what David has written wrt civil liberties, blah, blah, blah. I've argued about this enough since 9/11.

Ah, something new...

2) What other actions by Mr. Washington do you find objectionable? Not looking for a debate on the subject, I'm just interested in hearing more of your POV on the subject.

1. Massive theft of Amerindian lands
2. The Fugitive Slave Act
3. The first protective tariff
4. The First Bank of the US
5. The Whiskey Excise Tax
6. Attempting to crush the slave rebellions in Haiti

And I'm sure there's some other stuff I can't recall at the moment...

So Washinton was a bastard.