If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business.
Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could be abused.
The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
The ruiling stems from a lawsuit filed in Denham Springs in 2000.
New Orleans Police Department spokesman Capt. Marlon Defillo said the new power will go into effect immediately and won't be abused.
"We have to have a legitimate problem to be there in the first place, and if we don't, we can't conduct the search," Defillo said.
But former U.S. Attorney Julian Murray has big problems with the ruling.
"I think it goes way too far," Murray said, noting that the searches can be performed if an officer fears for his safety -- a subjective condition.
Defillo said he doesn't envision any problems in New Orleans, but if there are, they will be handled.
"There are checks and balances to make sure the criminal justce system works in an effective manor," Defillo said.
Maybe someone needs to send a copy of the 4th Amendment to the Appeals court.
"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."
Originally posted by KC@Mar 28 2004, 12:57 AM Maybe someone needs to send a copy of the 4th Amendment to the Appeals court.
"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."
That's just fucked up beyond belief. Anyone who doesn't think that won't be abused is an idiot. The vast majority of police are good people but there are enough that will abuse any erosion of people's rights that gets offered up by the people and the courts.
Fair bit of discussion about this going on around the internet. Amusing to see the people talking about Bush taking away people's rights, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with it. I'm not exactly a Bush fan, but c'mon people.
You are the poster child of my point. You bitch about what the police can do in NO, yet defend the fucking imbiciles that brought us the (UN)Patriot Act. Don't be hypocritical, it weakens any argument you might try to make.
No where did I blame Bush for this, I asked a question.
Can anyone tell me how this is different than the powers given to the FBI in the patriot act ? (Which by the way are a LOT more intrusive)
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 03:23 AM
You are the poster child of my point. You bitch about what the police can do in NO, yet defend the fucking imbiciles that brought us the (UN)Patriot Act. Don't be hypocritical, it weakens any argument you might try to make.
it is hard to be critical of the patriot act since it was almost entirely concieved by clinton and became law under bush.
Hopefully this will be overturned by the Supreme Court....
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
Is anyone just a little upset that because of this absurd law that SHOULD be overturned, we now have to waste resources and money to make sure that it IS!!
These law makers today are just pissing out these rediculous laws to what?? keep a job??
Look at how much BS is going on with this gay marriage law....
Or a few years back Oregon making pot legal...(something to that effect)
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 05:23 AM Buff, have not had a drink in 7 years.
You are the poster child of my point. You bitch about what the police can do in NO, yet defend the fucking imbiciles that brought us the (UN)Patriot Act. Don't be hypocritical, it weakens any argument you might try to make.
No where did I blame Bush for this, I asked a question.
Can anyone tell me how this is different than the powers given to the FBI in the patriot act ? (Which by the way are a LOT more intrusive)
See? This post is why I think you are drunk!
I do not defend the Bush Administration or Congress. I detest them all. I do not like the patriot act either. Or the campaign finance "reform" act. Or anything the government does.
Pay attention: I hate the government, Democratic and Republican.
That being said, the only two things about government I don't mind are:
1) War
2) Partisan government investigations which bring shame to other people in government.
And once more for those of you who drink:
I did not vote for Bush last time (voted Harry Browne, Libertarian), and I don't plan to vote for Bush this time.
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 08:31 AM
Patriot Act went to the Senate October 24th 2001 - almost 11 months after Clinton was gone.
I will give you the likelyhood that the conception for it was there during Clintons term, but I seriously doubt It would have looked anywhere near the same as it does.
The Patriot Act is a horrible trampling of our rights, and the current top banana if looking to strengthen it.
thank you for the history lesson. I know when the patriot act was passed. The patriot act is the "Anti Terrorism Act" of 1996 (if my memory is correct) first proposed by Clinton. The Patriot Act is this bill, almost word for word with the exception of some provisions that addressed problems that did not exist during Clinton (disposible, untraceable mobile phones etc).
the Patriot Act is a horrible trampling of our rights? what do you call watching 2 of the worlds largest buildings crashing to the street below, killing 3000 people? "an unfortuneate incident"?
How many terrorist attacks have happened through out the world since 9/11?
How many terrorist attacks have happened in Russia since 9/11?
How many terrorist attacks have happened on US soil since 9/11?
I think that claiming the Patriot Act is responsible for the lack of a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9/11 is, at the very least, more than a little generous. I'm not denying that some of its provisions have not been beneficial in the fight against terrorism - that kind of claim would be just as absurd as giving complete credit to the Act - but some of its provisions need a good hard second look without the emotionalism of 9/11 in such prominent play.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 29 2004, 09:43 AM I think that claiming the Patriot Act is responsible for the lack of a terrorist attack on the U.S. since 9/11 is, at the very least, more than a little generous. I'm not denying that some of its provisions have not been beneficial in the fight against terrorism - that kind of claim would be just as absurd as giving complete credit to the Act - but some of its provisions need a good hard second look without the emotionalism of 9/11 in such prominent play.
i am not claiming anything other than the fact that there has not been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 (whereas there have been many outside the US) and i doubt anyone is prepared to argue that its due to a lack of effort or intent on the terrorists part.
... so i would say that the argument that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with that fact would be a weak case as well. no attacks. zero. how many arrests? how many foiled plots? ... many.
i agree the Patriot Act should be under scrutiny. thats how our legal system works. thats what free speach is. our system is set up with enough checks and balances that it should works correctly in protecting it's people. but i also agree that it can be a little helpful to inject some realism into the discussion of fighting terrorism in the 21st century.
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 09:56 AM
We have a pretty Terror Alert Warning system that tells us when we should go out and buy duct tape, yet the same idiots, and convicted felons screening baggage and having us take off our shoes at the airport, only now they do it for more money
that system has almost nothing to do with the average joe. it has to do with law enforcement and other government agencies and a state of preparedness.
of course... you were probably one of the first to cry "how could they let this happen, why weren't they prepared? what did they know and when did they know it?... and why didn't they keep us informed"?
Where are the facts that say we are safer, no attacks in 3 years shows nothing, like I said, there were no attacks for 5 years before 9-11
partisan politics - you might want to look to the mirror for that one.
In my life I have voted for a Democrat once - that being Congressman William Pascrell - and that vote was only because I knew him personally.
I cast my vote for the person, not the party - Bush Jr in an imbicille, working in conjunction with the "good old boys" to plunge us back to the 1950's
The attacks of 9/11 are nothing more to ANYONE in the government other than a political tool to be used against the other political party
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 29 2004, 10:25 AM
I don't disagree that there needs to be a realistic discussion of security measures in this century. That being said, you are engaging in as many/much "hypotheticals, personal bias, partisan politics, insecurity and paranoia" as OldJeff, IMHO.
i think you are assuming a lot. i did not say anything other than point out that there has not been any more attacks on US soil since 9/11. i don't think the Patriot Act is the absolute answer or that Bush with his Ring Of Power will lead the US to defeat the Evil Kings.
i was just suggesting that the Patriot Act, although not popular with many and questionable in many ways could have also played a role in the fact that there have been no more terrorist attacks in the US... whereas there have been many elsewhere... so called "soft targets". They are "soft targets" for a reason. The US is not one for a reason.
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 10:30 AM Where are the facts that say we are safer, no attacks in 3 years shows nothing, like I said, there were no attacks for 5 years before 9-11
there was no major policy shift 5 years before 9/11 in fighting terrorism.
there was no "patriot act" that you are criticising today, 5 years before 9/11.
there have been no attacks AFTER 9/11 and AFTER the patriot act.
i am not saying i believe in the patriot act and all that it contains or G.W. Bush... just pointing out an obvious and undeniable fact.
Originally posted by OldJeff@Mar 29 2004, 10:30 AM Where are the facts that say we are safer, no attacks in 3 years shows nothing, like I said, there were no attacks for 5 years before 9-11
lets put it this way.
an exercise in logic.
the only way to prove we are not safer post 9/11, would be to prove that more acts have occured. or that less plot attempts were foiled post 9/11 than pre-9/11 while the total number of plot attempts remained similar (i.e. a decrease in success of foiling attempts or an increase in terrorist successes)
otherwise, its just a subjective argument. you do not really seem to be arguing about the patriot act or safety and security... you are saying all this to make it clear that you don't like Bush and supposedly feel less secure post 9/11 than pre 9/11 because of Bush policies.
can we blame bush for anything though?
his boyfriend Michael Powell and the FCC imposing quarter million dollar fines on anyone who says a word that the some person at home deems indecent, who writes to the FCC to complain, and the FCC deems is indecent
This is issue is big to me
ok you guys say its cuz i love Stern
well it won't stop at stern
they will fine your local DJ
your favorite tv show
your news cast
fuck the religious right
do you realize how vanilla radio is now, the talk shows are scared shitless to say talk about anything because they are look at $275K fines soon
as soon as BUSH signs it
you think a $275K fine is ok if you say SHIT on the air?
balloon knot?
blumpkin?
this is the US?
run by the Bush Taliban
religious nuts over in the Middle east run shit
and religious nuts in the US are taking over
03-28-2004
Nick@ilynx: "MasterP, YOU'RE FIRED!"
Linear Mode
