Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on March 28, 2004, 06:07:50 pm
-
bull****!
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html
-
this is a bit distressing, it's hard to make a solid jugement based on the limited description of the ruleing. it doesn't say what changes are made, doesn't give details on the suet that this stemed from, only the sensational title that cops can search your home without a warent.
why would a cop want to search a house if he felt threatened already.
-
argh well.....
Amendment IV
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.
-
Well, it is distressing. I personally don't care about the circumstances, the result is what bothers me.
Until the day that Earth is invaded by shape-shifting aliens, I want my civil liberties left alone damnit. This includes laws such as this. I know that Bush and Ashcroft make the case that this is for national security, but thats utter bull****.
-
Completely. Wait until they bring the stuff outside their homes, then nab them. That's what steakouts are for.
-
well what I was saying is it's hard to tell what the hell is going on here based on that half page article, if what this amounts to is; cops can at any time come to your house breake in and take your stuff without anyone's approveal but there own than this is nothing more than a breach of the fourth amendment, hard to think what this could be other than a breach of the fourth amendment, but it's hard to tell what's going on period based on the article. is there a more detailed acount of this?
odds are it'll be over turned buy the end of the week.
-
What does this have to do with Bush or Ashcroft? :wtf:
-
it's something Ashcroft would have a wet dream about, Bush is to stupid to understand the implications of what this seems to be.
-
Anyone find anything suspicious about the poor spelling in the article? The police chief quoted as saying "manor" in place of "manner", for instance.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it's something Ashcroft would have a wet dream about, Bush is to stupid to understand the implications of what this seems to be.
well this is a state law so bush and ashcroft have no jurisdiction or effect on what happens. the only way to stop it is through the courts or if the US congress passes a law. So stop *****ing on bush doing this and go ***** down in lousiana.
-
badbadbadbadbadbBADBADBADBADBAD!
I love how some of you make the DOJ sound like Hitler's Gestapo and SS rolled into one.
-
You mean under Ashcroft, they're not? You might want to tell that to our concentration camp internees in Guantanamo.*
Of course the Ashcroft's DOJ isn't like the SS. The regime that employed the SS was legally elected into power by a majority of the citizens of Germany.
* Yes. Its an exaggeration. Its for effect. Its okay. We all know its an exaggeration.
-
did I *****/blame bush?
I was simply pointing out the connection others were makeing.
this whole thing seems weird, you'd think the abolition of one of our central rights would have made more news. so I'm thinking as of now, either this is total bull****, or it's misleading/sensationalized.
-
I'm thinking that someone has misunderstood the law and done some bad reporting, Bob. I cannot believe that there's any way a state could abrogate the Constitution so directly and blatantly.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You mean under Ashcroft, they're not? You might want to tell that to our concentration camp internees in Guantanamo.*
bull**** there not american citizens. There treated just like every other pows the americans have captured since ww1 and 2. None of the germans in ww2 had some sort of US rights given to them
ahh well....
EDIT: liberator, u have the annoying tendancy to change the topic of topics
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm thinking that someone has misunderstood the law and done some bad reporting, Bob. I cannot believe that there's any way a state could abrogate the Constitution so directly and blatantly.
its a state court descision. Hypothetically, the state courts can do just about anything even if its against the US constitution. Thats why there these things call appeals courts. IF this get challenged at any higher level itl get shot to hell.
-
we haven't classified the gitmo prisoners as POWs though, I do think it's about time we started processing some of them, 3 years is quite long enough for us to determine who's a threat.
anyway, I did some looking and found a better acount of the story in question
http://www.ddtonline.com/articles/2004/03/28/news/editorials/edit1.txt
The ruling came from a Baton Rouge case which was heard first in U.S. District Court then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court.
The Associated Press reported on Friday that the decision came in the case of a Denham Springs, La. man, Kelly Donald Gould, who was arrested in October 2000 on federal gun charges. He allegedly threatened to kill unidentified judges and police officers.
East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies went to Gould's trailer without a search or arrest warrant, but were invited into the trailer by another resident. Gould, authorities were told, was asleep in a bedroom at the time the deputies arrived.
Because of the Gould's threats and criminal history, the deputies said they looked for him under the bed and in two closets, where they found three rifles. They later found Gould hiding in the woods and seized the weapons after they got him to sign a permission for the search.
U.S. District Judge James Brady ruled that the guns could not be used as evidence because they were obtained illegally. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit upheld that decision, but encouraged prosecutors to request a hearing before the court to reconsider the legal precedent on which it was based.
Dissenting justices argued the ruling establishes another exception to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure.
The AP story goes on to report that Judges Harold DeMoss Jr. and Carl E. Stewart writing for the court, said "I have no doubt that the deputy sheriffs believed they were acting reasonably and with good intentions. But the old adage warns us that ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions."'
Any evidence discovered during that search is now admissible in court as long as the search is a "cursory inspection," and if police entered the site for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and believed it might be dangerous.
seems that some cops found evedence while looking for the guy and later tried to use it in a case, they got permission from him, but I don't think that's a very good excuse. in this particular case I'd say I agree with the ruleing, but the constitutional implications are a bit precarius.
this brings into question a more general situation, rules of evedence, I don't like how our current system rewards criminals for cops screwing up. I don't see how it helps the rest of us, I'd rather see the cops punished (fines, suspentions (without pay), getting fired, maybe even jail time if the violations are severe enough) for bad work rather than evedence being ignored becase of a tecnicality.
-
Originally posted by Drew
its a state court descision. Hypothetically, the state courts can do just about anything even if its against the US constitution. Thats why there these things call appeals courts. IF this get challenged at any higher level itl get shot to hell.
Yes, HYPOTHETICALLY.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is a difference.
Its rather odd for a state court to blatantly go against the Constitution. They state judiciary knows the contents of the instrument as well as a federal judiciary. Knowing that something like that invites a trip to a state appeals court, a circuit appelate court and possibly a trip to DC to do the song and dance with the SCOTUS.
In light of that, its pretty damnably odd.
-
Originally posted by Drew
bull**** there not american citizens. There treated just like every other pows the americans have captured since ww1 and 2. None of the germans in ww2 had some sort of US rights given to them
You mean that during both world wars you gave punishment beatings to the prisoners and tortured them physically and mentally? Your country must be more f**ked up then I thought if that's the case. :rolleyes:
The simple fact is they aren't being treated like POWs. How many Red Cross visits have they been allowed?
-
Cops in France don't need warrant to search your home. Afaik, that's never been abused, or we'd have heard about it ( french medias just LOVE police abuse, they wouldn't skip that - " laughs about the latest one, where a guy got ass-raped with a ... that plastic/alu/chrome thing you put on a car felloe to hide the mechanic parts, you know, the first thing you change when you're tuning a car, by a bunch of very angry policemen. Must have hurt :p")
-
:lol: Sounds nasty....
Originally posted by Drew
bull**** there not american citizens. There treated just like every other pows the americans have captured since ww1 and 2. None of the germans in ww2 had some sort of US rights given to them
What?? I think you need to go and read the Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument).
-
Sucks to be you!
-
Guys, I'm not supporting the law, but this decision isn't something new; it just now applies to your home. Cops have been able to do it in your vehicles for decades. They're allowed a search of your car within arms reach, which anyone knows is basically the entire cabin of a car (without going into further detailed searches of opening door panels or whatnot). All they need is probable cause. There was a case in which an officer pulled over a driver who was under the influence of narcotics. They conducted their search and came upon a pack of cigarettes. They opened the pack of cigarettes and found a large amount of drugs packed into it. At court, the defense disputed that the search was unconstitutional as it went further than legal, but was upheld in appeals as the officer had probable cause and intent.
Second, they have to have a reason to be in your home in the first place. They won't just show up and do a search without having to be there in the first place (although this could be abused I'll wager) Consider this argument: An officer is called to a domestic dispute where both mates are clearly agitated. A cursory search of the home could help the officer determine either the extent of the dispute (is there a rifle right behind that closet door?), or the degree of everyones safety.
Anyway, yeah I think it could be abused if not regulated. But, it's just not something new.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Yes, HYPOTHETICALLY.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is a difference.
Its rather odd for a state court to blatantly go against the Constitution. They state judiciary knows the contents of the instrument as well as a federal judiciary. Knowing that something like that invites a trip to a state appeals court, a circuit appelate court and possibly a trip to DC to do the song and dance with the SCOTUS.
In light of that, its pretty damnably odd.
not that odd. IM sure you have heard of the 9th circut court of appeals ;P the stuff that court hands down makes this look like candy
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
:lol: Sounds nasty....
What?? I think you need to go and read the Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument).
Read my post again. I said US rights. Non-US citizens dont have US rights. In this case, these prisioners have none of the rights we americans get. When ppl ***** about these terrorists not being givin rights we americans have; thats cuz they dont get the rights we americans have. They get the rights stated in the convention or other treatys.
Its to bad were just about the only ones on the planet that actually treat our prisioners the way the Geneva convention states.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
:lol: Sounds nasty....
What?? I think you need to go and read the Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68?OpenDocument).
:nod:
As far as I can tell, the reason the Guantanamo inmates are classified as 'illegal combatants' is simply so their Geneva convention rights can be ignored.
It's seems the response to a threat to democracy appears to be to tear up the fundamental principles of that democracy. It'd be *almost* laughable (for me), were it not being repeated in the UK........
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It's seems the response to a threat to democracy appears to be to tear up the fundamental principles of that democracy. It'd be *almost* laughable (for me), were it not being repeated in the UK........
fundimental principles of democracy? u mean those in the constitution right? so far there hasnt been a Democratic Manifesto written, so if were going by the standard of democracy for the last 220 years aka the Constitution, that still leaves the terrorists unafected by it.... :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Drew
fundimental principles of democracy? u mean those in the constitution right? so far there hasnt been a Democratic Manifesto written, so if were going by the standard of democracy for the last 220 years aka the Constitution, that still leaves the terrorists unafected by it.... :doubt:
Isn't their something in the constitution about the right to a fair trial & due process?
-
As far as I know, the illegal combatant status was invented during WW2, to prosecute 4 German spies who infiltrated American soil. Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that even during the Bigass Was, only 4 people to charged with bieng enemy combatants, while **** and Ashcroft are now using this with total impunity.
The right of due process is just that, a right. Military tribunals are simply an elaborate form of execution. And when even they decide they can't prosecute a case, then you KNOW something is wrong.
-
Especially when the five brits who were held were released within a day once they were allowed out of there. As I keep stating one of them was picked up in a taliban jail where he was sent for being a British spy.
Seriously Drew can you give me any plausable explaination for that?
-
NB: Geneva convention;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Look at the latter part of Article 3 (RE: red cross access)
Also (one of) the article 4 definitions for a combatant
"6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
And, well, there's a lot else. Specifically stuff regarding the conditions the POWs are held in, and what information they are compelled to give. Much of which explains why the US decided the Geneva convention would be a bit too much of a hassle........