Republicans And The 4th Amendment

[Almighty Colin]

Many have suggested here that that the government is infringing upon, even violating the 4th amendment with various legislation and actions the past two years. Now, Washington tells us that there are two dozen men living in the US that are believed to have trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

If Washington is not bluffing, they are completely acting within the bounds of the 4th Amendment. Wouldn't the naysayers have us believe the evil republicans would just round 'em up and arrest them anyway? Vengeful vigilante violaters of our rights and personal freedoms?

-----

The 4th Amendment:
"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."

[Mike AI]

I think both parties are forgeting aspects of the Constitution, like the legislative branch does too often.... normally it takes judicial branch to remind them.

However on times like these, there are some ways around it. I heard they are looking to pass laws that will revoke citizenship away from naturalzied Americans who are suspicious. Hence taking away their Consitutional rights....

To be honest, for the short term, I really do not have a problem with that. We have had our boarder way to open in the past, and givingcitizenship to anyone....

We definately have to rethink this....

I want to be clear, I am NOT against immigrants - I think immigrants built this country and continually put new blood and ideas into this wonderful Nation. However, I think we should be a little pickier, and check out those who are coming here a little closer!

[TheEnforcer]

Anybody who supports the drug war is in an enemy of the 4th amendment. It has been so bastardized by the USSC to support the "war on drugs" that it barely has any meaning anymore.

And a pox on BOTH the dems and repubs for that because they encourage it.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 14 2003, 10:00 AM
I think both parties are forgeting aspects of the Constitution, like the legislative branch does too often.... normally it takes judicial branch to remind them.

Mike, interesting. I have read here and elsewhere the claims about the Republican party doing such. Have anything specifically in mind regarding the Democratic party?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Feb 14 2003, 03:18 PM
Anybody who supports the drug war is in an enemy of the 4th amendment.
How so?

[JR]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Feb 14 2003, 12:18 PM
Anybody who supports the drug war is in an enemy of the 4th amendment. It has been so bastardized by the USSC to support the "war on drugs" that it barely has any meaning anymore.

And a pox on BOTH the dems and repubs for that because they encourage it.
is it your Constitutional right to put curses on political parties you disagree with? can you point that Article out to us?

i am too sleepy to look, but i imagine there is something right under the "right to bear arms" that states something about your right to miscellaneous witchcraft?

[PornoDoggy]

In my early years in corporate America they hadn't heard of the right to bare arms ... long sleeve white shirt, day in, day out :blink:

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Colin+Feb 14 2003, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Feb 14 2003, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Feb 14 2003, 03:18 PM
Anybody who supports the drug war is in an enemy of the 4th amendment.
How so?[/b][/quote]
Look at some of the dcecisions that the USSC have come down on regarding the 4th amendment and searches.

Police can get warrants on even the flimsiest of information and stop you and search for nearly any damn reason they feel necessary.
Assest forfeiture in the name of the drug war is nothing more than legalized theft and you can be proven completely innocent of any crime but they STILL DONT GIVE YOU YOUR PROPERTY BACK because even thoughYOU are innocent your property or money may not be and needs to be cleared as well seperately. So now you have to prove your property is innocent of a "crime" as well. And that costs a whole hell of a lot of money and there is no guarantee that you will get it back in the condition it was in when they took it.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer+Feb 14 2003, 06:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheEnforcer @ Feb 14 2003, 06:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Feb 14 2003, 03:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Feb 14 2003, 03:18 PM
Anybody who supports the drug war is in an enemy of the 4th amendment.
How so?
Look at some of the dcecisions that the USSC have come down on regarding the 4th amendment and searches.

Police can get warrants on even the flimsiest of information and stop you and search for nearly any damn reason they feel necessary.
Assest forfeiture in the name of the drug war is nothing more than legalized theft and you can be proven completely innocent of any crime but they STILL DONT GIVE YOU YOUR PROPERTY BACK because even thoughYOU are innocent your property or money may not be and needs to be cleared as well seperately. So now you have to prove your property is innocent of a "crime" as well. And that costs a whole hell of a lot of money and there is no guarantee that you will get it back in the condition it was in when they took it.[/b][/quote]
yup

...and funny thing about the 4th amendement...no one cares about it until they are the victim of an illegal search and seisure.....

I often refer to the 4th amendement as "the forgotten amendment" because everyone is always so up in arms about the first, second and fifth...until they get detained and have THEIR stuff taken "in for investiagtion" to never be returned ;)

I have a friend who works at the Police Evidence vault and you'd be amazed at how long some of that stuff sits there (that which isn't stolen by employees) from people who were INNOCENT.

[PornoDoggy]

Many have suggested here that that the government is infringing upon, even violating the 4th amendment with various legislation and actions the past two years. Now, Washington tells us that there are two dozen men living in the US that are believed to have trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

If Washington is not bluffing, they are completely acting within the bounds of the 4th Amendment. Wouldn't the naysayers have us believe the evil republicans would just round 'em up and arrest them anyway? Vengeful vigilante violaters of our rights and personal freedoms?


Funny things you hear from people who claim to be independents, you know? What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that none of the concerns of civil libetarians could possibly be true because they haven't arrested these guys?

Before we even get to that, what could possibly be the point of "Washington" releasing this information? I mean, this Administration would classify the time and temperature if they thought they could get away with it - so why tip off any trained terrorists that we know about them? Gee ... you don't think it could be to reassure some people that they're not as bad as the folks concerned with personal liberty say, and at the same time get an amen out of the choir that already believes we have too much freedom already? Naw ... that couldn't be it. I must be inhaling too much duct tape fumes.

If the government has proof that these folks have been in al Qaida training camps I am sure they have violated a law in doing so. If they merely suspect they've been to such camps and can't prove it, what should they do? Is suspicion of maybe being a terrorist enough in your opinion to warrant locking them up? How far down this road do you want to go?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 15 2003, 03:01 AM
Funny things you hear from people who claim to be independents, you know?
Independent. That's right, PD. Sorry if I'm disagreeing with your latest conspiracy theory. Not everything in America happens as a result of evil Republicans in secret meetings.

My post could not have been more balanced, PD. Every sentence is prefaced with commentary such as "Many have suggested" and "If Washington is not bluffing". You are so biased you couldn't see the truth if it smacked in ya in the face. I mean come on, all this talk about what "this administration" WOULD do if it could get away from it is lifted right off the Communist conspiracy websites. Pinky got yer brain? Glad you can read minds, Obi Wan.

What is the point? I think people overreact to nearly everything and much of the anti-Republican sentiment is as ill-founded as the anti-Clinton bashing was. Do I remember correctly that Republicans a few years ago were against Clinton's bombing of Iraq? Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe someone was paying more attention that I. I was heavily sedated that year and under the influence of many terrible drugs. Now the Democrats OPPOSE military action against Iraq?

Reading Clinton's statements from 1998 is like reading Bush's from 2002:

"PRESIDENT CLINTON HAS MADE AN APPEAL TO IRAQI LEADER SADDAM HUSSEIN TO ALLOW U-N WEAPONS INSPECTIONS TO GO FORWARD AND ELIMINATE THE NEED OF U-S-LED MILITARY ACTION. HE ALSO SAYS RUSSIAN OPPOSITION TO A MILITARY MOVE WILL NOT STOP THE UNITED STATES FROM ACTING. V-O-A'S DAVID GOLLUST HAS DETAILS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

MR. CLINTON SAYS HE WANTS A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS AND HAS "BENT OVER BACKWARDS" TO TRY TO ACHIEVE ONE. HE SAYS IF THERE HAS TO BE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ, IT WILL BE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S DECISION, NOT HIS. "

Clinton's speeches at the time said this was "Iraq's last chance". Well, so what? Was it the "last chance"? Now what? Was that Bush or Clinton speaking in 1998 anyway? Maybe George was already in power at the time working clandestinely though various channels to brainwash Dear Bill while he was distracted by other domestic issues. Maybe George made him say such "Republican-like" things. The Puppet Master. The Great Orchestrator. Long live George Bush!

America is not going to disappear simply because the Democrats are not in power, PD. And when the Democrats get back in the White House, the US won't turn into a communist dictatorship either. Balance is what America is about. It has been. It is. Times change. Platforms change. The parties change. Would Abe Lincoln be a Republican today? Good question. America goes on, baby. 2002 and going strong.

For all I know, the Republicans will be pro-welfare in 2016. Won't matter. People are more loyal to their political parties than they are to America. Thats been true for a long time. Probably since the founding of the country though I am unsure about how to measure that. Seems to me Democrats today are hoping for the economy to tank so they can get the White House back. It's not worth it.

Not pro-Democrat. Not pro-Republican. I think things are pretty damned ok almost all of the time. This is America and it is awesome. Why? Largely because of a system of checks and balances that is very much alive and well. Bill Clinton was alright with me and so is George Bush.

Just relax, PD. The Republicans are not secretly seizing power so they can spy through your windows at night and force you at gunpoint to take an oath to God and Country before burning brown people on crosses on the White House lawn.

[PornoDoggy]

Colin, you are correct ... I overreacted to your initial statement. Looking at it in a different light (and with some sleep and a couple of cups of coffee), it isn't the biased attack that I initially thought. Would it be okay with you if I used a little bit of catsup with this crow?

I still think there was a political reason for releasing the information about the twelve suspected terrorists we haven't arrested yet. Not conspiratorial - political. Look - the Democrats play politics, the Republicans play politics, and dogs bite postmen. Some Democrats would have supported a war under Clinton that will oppose it under Bush (and the reverse is just as true about some Republicans). Some of the very same Republicans who were livid about Democrats "obstructing" President Bush's judicial appointees dragged their feet and stalled on Clinton nominees for the same judicial seats.

Diehard partisans of both parties will tell you that I'm lying, that their guys love Mom, apple pie, the flag, and that the other guys don't love 'em as much. The true morons will declare that the other guys are traitors and fifth-columnists and conspirators and whatever the hell else. My reading of American history indicates to me that it's been true since the 1830s at least - and probably will always be true.

I don't believe that the jackboots of the facists will show up at my doorstep tomorrow because the Republicans are in control right now. I am not concerned about the immenient demise of American democracy, or to be politically correct for the more right-wing readers, the American democratic republic. That doesn't mean I like some of the things that I see going on.

I don't want to see American foreign policy go back to the days when we would overthrow even a duly-elected government that we opposed, or replace one despot with another who was different only because he took payola from the U.S. - and IMHO that's the direction this adminstration seems to be heading. I don't want to see a return to the old days when law enforcement could spy on American citizens for political reasons. Designation of American citizens as "enemy combatants", denying the accused access to counsel, or even private access to counsel, are things that worry me - a lot. Welfare for religious organizations (a form of political pandering no Democrat would have the balls to attempt) and this Administration's attempt to return to the "God" standard bothers me a lot.

Does it mean the Republic will fall? No, probably not. Does it mean there are troubles ahead? Yes, I believe it does.

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

I think I had TOO MUCH coffee. :ph34r: My apologies also.

There might be any number of reasons for why any particular administration would make any such decision and often much more than just one.

Why release info about terrorist potential threats? Really. there is not much we citizens can do with the information. If another terrorist attack were to occur however and it later came out that the administration had information that lead them to believe one would occur but didn't say anything, well we all know how that would play.

Now I'm speculating but that seems quite reasonable to me.



Last edited by Colin at Feb 15 2003, 04:17 PM