PDA

View Full Version : The Must-Do List for Undoing the Damage of the Bush Admin.


dharmabum
03-04-2007, 03:22 PM
We have our work cut out for us. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/opinion/04sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

The Must-Do List
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Single Page Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

Published: March 4, 2007
The Bush administration’s assault on some of the founding principles of American democracy marches onward despite the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. The new Democratic majorities in Congress can block the sort of noxious measures that the Republican majority rubber-stamped. But preventing new assaults on civil liberties is not nearly enough.

Five years of presidential overreaching and Congressional collaboration continue to exact a high toll in human lives, America’s global reputation and the architecture of democracy. Brutality toward prisoners, and the denial of their human rights, have been institutionalized; unlawful spying on Americans continues; and the courts are being closed to legal challenges of these practices.

It will require forceful steps by this Congress to undo the damage. A few lawmakers are offering bills intended to do just that, but they are only a start. Taking on this task is a moral imperative that will show the world the United States can be tough on terrorism without sacrificing its humanity and the rule of law.

Today we’re offering a list — which, sadly, is hardly exhaustive — of things that need to be done to reverse the unwise and lawless policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Many will require a rewrite of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an atrocious measure pushed through Congress with the help of three Republican senators, Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham and John McCain; Senator McCain lent his moral authority to improving one part of the bill and thus obscured its many other problems.



Our list starts with three fundamental tasks:

Restore Habeas Corpus

One of the new act’s most indecent provisions denies anyone Mr. Bush labels an “illegal enemy combatant” the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The arguments for doing this were specious. Habeas corpus is nothing remotely like a get-out-of-jail-free card for terrorists, as supporters would have you believe. It is a way to sort out those justly detained from those unjustly detained. It will not “clog the courts,” as Senator Graham claims. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a worthy bill that would restore habeas corpus. It is essential to bringing integrity to the detention system and reviving the United States’ credibility.

Stop Illegal Spying

Mr. Bush’s program of intercepting Americans’ international calls and e-mail messages without a warrant has not ceased. The agreement announced recently — under which a secret court supposedly gave its blessing to the program — did nothing to restore judicial process or ensure that Americans’ rights are preserved. Congress needs to pass a measure, like one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, to force Mr. Bush to obey the law that requires warrants for electronic surveillance.

Ban Torture, Really

The provisions in the Military Commissions Act that Senator McCain trumpeted as a ban on torture are hardly that. It is still largely up to the president to decide what constitutes torture and abuse for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who breaks the rules. This amounts to rewriting the Geneva Conventions and puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured. It allows the president to decide in secret what kinds of treatment he will permit at the Central Intelligence Agency’s prisons. The law absolves American intelligence agents and their bosses of any acts of torture and abuse they have already committed.



Many of the tasks facing Congress involve the way the United States takes prisoners, and how it treats them. There are two sets of prisons in the war on terror. The military runs one set in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. The other is even more shadowy, run by the C.I.A. at secret places.

Close the C.I.A. Prisons

When the Military Commissions Act passed, Mr. Bush triumphantly announced that he now had the power to keep the secret prisons open. He cast this as a great victory for national security. It was a defeat for America’s image around the world. The prisons should be closed.

Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’

The United States has to come clean on all of the “ghost prisoners” it has in the secret camps. Holding prisoners without any accounting violates human rights norms. Human Rights Watch says it has identified nearly 40 men and women who have disappeared into secret American-run prisons.

Ban Extraordinary Rendition
This is the odious practice of abducting foreign citizens and secretly flying them to countries where everyone knows they will be tortured. It is already illegal to send a prisoner to a country if there is reason to believe he will be tortured. The administration’s claim that it got “diplomatic assurances” that prisoners would not be abused is laughable.

A bill by Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, would require the executive branch to list countries known to abuse and torture prisoners. No prisoner could be sent to any of them unless the secretary of state certified that the country’s government no longer abused its prisoners or offered a way to verify that a prisoner will not be mistreated. It says “diplomatic assurances” are not sufficient.



Congress needs to completely overhaul the military prisons for terrorist suspects, starting with the way prisoners are classified. Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared all members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be “illegal enemy combatants” not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions or American justice. Over time, the designation was applied to anyone the administration chose, including some United States citizens and the entire detainee population of Gitmo.

To address this mess, the government must:

Tighten the Definition of Combatant

“Illegal enemy combatant” is assigned a dangerously broad definition in the Military Commissions Act. It allows Mr. Bush — or for that matter anyone he chooses to designate to do the job — to apply this label to virtually any foreigner anywhere, including those living legally in the United States.

Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively

When the administration began taking prisoners in Afghanistan, it did not much bother to screen them. Hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo, where far too many remain to this day. The vast majority will never even be brought before tribunals and still face indefinite detention without charges.

Under legal pressure, Mr. Bush created “combatant status review tribunals,” but they are a mockery of any civilized legal proceeding. They take place thousands of miles from the point of capture, and often years later. Evidence obtained by coercion and torture is permitted. The inmates do not get to challenge this evidence. They usually do not see it.

The Bush administration uses the hoary “fog of war” dodge to justify the failure to screen prisoners, saying it is not practical to do that on the battlefield. That’s nonsense. It did not happen in Afghanistan, and often in Iraq, because Mr. Bush decided just to ship the prisoners off to Gitmo.



Prisoners designated as illegal combatants are subject to trial rules out of the Red Queen’s playbook. The administration refuses to allow lawyers access to 14 terrorism suspects transferred in September from C.I.A. prisons to Guantánamo. It says that if they had a lawyer, they might say that they were tortured or abused at the C.I.A. prisons, and anything that happened at those prisons is secret.

At first, Mr. Bush provided no system of trial at the Guantánamo camp. Then he invented his own military tribunals, which were rightly overturned by the Supreme Court. Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act, which did not fix the problem. Some tasks now for Congress:

Ban Tainted Evidence

The Military Commissions Act and the regulations drawn up by the Pentagon to put it into action, are far too permissive on evidence obtained through physical abuse or coercion. This evidence is unreliable. The method of obtaining it is an affront.

Ban Secret Evidence

Under the Pentagon’s new rules for military tribunals, judges are allowed to keep evidence secret from a prisoner’s lawyer if the government persuades the judge it is classified. The information that may be withheld can include interrogation methods, which would make it hard, if not impossible, to prove torture or abuse.

Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence

The military commission rules define this sort of secret evidence as “any information or material that has been determined by the United States government pursuant to statute, executive order or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.” This is too broad, even if a president can be trusted to exercise the power fairly and carefully. Mr. Bush has shown he cannot be trusted to do that.

Respect the Right to Counsel

Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration allowed the government to listen to conversations and intercept mail between some prisoners and their lawyers. This had the effect of suspending their right to effective legal representation. Since then, the administration has been unceasingly hostile to any lawyers who defend detainees. The right to legal counsel does not exist to coddle serial terrorists or snarl legal proceedings. It exists to protect innocent people from illegal imprisonment.



Beyond all these huge tasks, Congress should halt the federal government’s race to classify documents to avoid public scrutiny — 15.6 million in 2005, nearly double the 2001 number. It should also reverse the grievous harm this administration has done to the Freedom of Information Act by encouraging agencies to reject requests for documents whenever possible. Congress should curtail F.B.I. spying on nonviolent antiwar groups and revisit parts of the Patriot Act that allow this practice.

The United States should apologize to a Canadian citizen and a German citizen, both innocent, who were kidnapped and tortured by American agents.

Oh yes, and it is time to close the Guantánamo camp. It is a despicable symbol of the abuses committed by this administration (with Congress’s complicity) in the name of fighting terrorism

WindWip
03-04-2007, 03:32 PM
Great list. How do you think it could be implemented?

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 03:35 PM
Massive public outcry and activism. Millions of people all telling their representatives that they are "Mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.".

Honestly, I don't know what the chances of success are but the only alternative is revolution.

WindWip
03-04-2007, 03:43 PM
Honestly, I don't know what the chances of success are but the only alternative is revolution.

The purpose of a revolution is to tear down an ineffective political system and build it back up. I don't think the government is even remotely close to the point where you would need to tear the whole thing down; the result would most likely be far, far worse than what we have now.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 03:52 PM
The purpose of a revolution is to tear down an ineffective political system and build it back up. I don't think the government is even remotely close to the point where you would need to tear the whole thing down; the result would most likely be far, far worse than what we have now.


A lot of people said the same thing before the American Revolution.

Evakian
03-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Honestly, I don't know what the chances of success are but the only alternative is revolution.
Yes, that'll work swell.

You first.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 04:10 PM
why would we want to undue the damage done to Al-Qaeda?

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 04:12 PM
why would we want to undue the damage done to Al-Qaeda?

You think America is Al Queda?

No wonder your opinions are so wacked.
:rolleyes:

WindWip
03-04-2007, 04:15 PM
A lot of people said the same thing before the American Revolution.
Oh please don't try to compare the two. The American revolution was to overthrow a tyrant, this revolution that you are suggesting would be to tear down an EFFECTIVE government because a few civil liberties were trampled on. The only thing the two have in common is that they are both revolutions and they are both American; that is where the similarities end.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 04:16 PM
You think America is Al Queda?

No wonder your opinions are so wacked.
:rolleyes:
beyond the odd solo terrorist attack, why do you think they're not? because our borders are sealed tighter than a drum?

WindWip
03-04-2007, 04:16 PM
why would we want to undue the damage done to Al-Qaeda?
...what?

WindWip
03-04-2007, 04:17 PM
beyond the odd solo terrorist attack, why do you think they're not? because our borders are sealed tighter than a drum?
They're not what? I'm not really following you here.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by dharmabum
You think America is Al Queda?

beyond the odd solo terrorist attack, why do you think they're not? because our borders are sealed tighter than a drum?

You are becoming a parody that I simply cannot take seriously.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 04:23 PM
They're not what? I'm not really following you here.
Al-Qaeda has been able to launch another high profile attack in the U.S. because we're allowing our government to do it's job-to protect us.

Evakian
03-04-2007, 04:24 PM
You are becoming a parody that I simply cannot take seriously.
-The collective thought of allForums as each day passes with Dharma's postings.

WindWip
03-04-2007, 04:26 PM
Al-Qaeda has been able to launch another high profile attack in the U.S. because we're allowing our government to do it's job-to protect us.
uh huh..... Care to elaborate or are you just being sarcastic?

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 04:34 PM
uh huh..... Care to elaborate or are you just being sarcastic?

Maybe he is being sarcastic about the fact Republicans refused to enact most of the reccommendations of the 9-11 commisison.

500lbguerilla
03-04-2007, 04:36 PM
Oh please don't try to compare the two. The American revolution was to overthrow a tyrant, this revolution that you are suggesting would be to tear down an EFFECTIVE government because a few civil liberties were trampled on. The only thing the two have in common is that they are both revolutions and they are both American; that is where the similarities end. Bzzzzt, incorrect. Monarchy is far more 'effective' then democracy.

The American revolution was (suppossedly) about 'no taxation, without representation'. In actuality it was about a bunch of rich guys pissed that some richer guy wanted a cut of their stolen wealth when he was way across the see but......In theory it was about being represented. If the American people deem that the govenment does not represent them or has overstepped its bounds in any way then it is their right destroy said governement.

You merely feel it is 'efficient' because you are a product of the system and enjoy its benefits. Regardless of whether or not it is you are hardly in an unbiased position to make such an assessment by yourself.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 04:42 PM
uh huh..... Care to elaborate or are you just being sarcastic?
dharmaqueen's entire "Must-Do List" is the ACLU's complaint about the war on terror-effective intelligence gathering and detention of those that want to kill you for no other reason than you don't bow to Mecca 5 times a day.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 04:59 PM
Oh please don't try to compare the two.

No, I think I will make whatever comparisons I want.

The American revolution was to overthrow a tyrant, this revolution that you are suggesting would be to tear down an EFFECTIVE government because a few civil liberties were trampled on.

The obvious question is, "effective" for whom? Obviously if things get to the point of revolution then there is a significant number who do not find it effective for them. There were a lot of people who thought the British monarchy was effective for them before the revolution.

Alexander Hamilton suggested we have a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention because he believed the British form of Government was "the best in the world."


The only thing the two have in common is that they are both revolutions and they are both American; that is where the similarities end.

It is a hypothetical situation. You don't know how similar the situations are because it hasn't happened yet.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:03 PM
Mikezila, you craven coward, terrorism can be fought effectively without throwing away the liberties so many U.S. Soldiers have sacrificed their lives for.

You are spitting on all their graves by suggesting that their sacrifices were wasted for liberties you don't think we need because you are scared of the Muslims.

James Madison had the country invaded and the White House burned to the ground and he didn't even consider throwing away our liberties.

And Madison was right.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:11 PM
Mikezila, you craven coward, terrorism can be fought effectively without throwing away the liberties so many U.S. Soldiers have sacrificed their lives for.

You are spitting on all their graves by suggesting that their sacrifices were wasted for liberties you don't think we need because you are scared of the Muslims.

James Madison had the country invaded and the White House burned to the ground and he didn't even consider throwing away our liberties.

And Madison was right.
what liberties of American citizens have been trampled upon by the Bush Administration?

(think hard about that-Project Echelon was started in the early 60s)

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:12 PM
No, I think I will make whatever comparisons I want.

...no matter how bizzare:@@:

Napsterbater
03-04-2007, 05:14 PM
We could start with the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, evidenced by the radically rolled back restrictions on the use of wiretaps.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:19 PM
what liberties of American citizens have been trampled upon by the Bush Administration?


Have you taken a blow to the head or something that made you unable to even remember back to the beginning of the thread you are posting on?

I am debating whether a question that stupid even deserves an answer.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:24 PM
We could start with the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, evidenced by the radically rolled back restrictions on the use of wiretaps.
the 4th Amendment doesn't protect from warrentless search, it's from unreasonable search.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3119

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:26 PM
A warrent is the legal documentation required to show that the search is reasonable.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:26 PM
Have you taken a blow to the head or something that made you unable to even remember back to the beginning of the thread you are posting on?

I am debating whether a question that stupid even deserves an answer.
if you can't answer the question in your own words just drop the subject.

i still assert that the rights of not one single American Citizen have been trampled on.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:28 PM
i still assert that the rights of not one single American Citizen have been trampled on.

And you are, as usual, demonstratably wrong.

Can you say "Jose Padilla"?

You are not only wrong, but the more you post the more I have to question your sanity.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:31 PM
A warrent is the legal documentation required to show that the search is reasonable.
but not always required. if a cop sees you go in a bank with a mask in your hand, he doesn't need a warrant to search you for that gun in your pocket.

it's all about what is probable cause.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:37 PM
Probable cause is very shakey grounds for a search and one of the most easily and commonly thrown out in court.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 05:42 PM
And you are, as usual, demonstratably wrong.

Can you say "Jose Padilla"?

You are not only wrong, but the more you post the more I have to question your sanity.
not so...and the courts agree-"On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser Hamdi."

good thing his mental competency hearing went well, he can finally get his trial over with and start serving his sentence.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:50 PM
not so...and the courts agree

Not so. ONE rightwing appeals court agreed.

You are really stretching. I still have to question your sanity.

The Supreme Court has already come down against this kind of thing (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/1819ecce-9167-4b33-a723-98144291f664.html)before and there is no reason to think they won't do it again.

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to President George W. Bush's strategy in the war on terrorism. In presenting its case before the court two months ago, the Bush administration argued that in order to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, it has the right to detain and interrogate Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects captured in Afghanistan without interference from the courts. But the country's highest court has ruled that the administration must allow access to American courts for all prisoners, whether they are U.S. citizens or foreigners.

WindWip
03-04-2007, 05:51 PM
No, I think I will make whatever comparisons I want.
You can make any comparison u want, it doesn't mean that they won't be completely absurd though.

The obvious question is, "effective" for whom? Obviously if things get to the point of revolution then there is a significant number who do not find it effective for them. There were a lot of people who thought the British monarchy was effective for them before the revolution.
Well, obviously the majority of the masses believe that it is an effective government right now since they aren't revolting quite yet.

Alexander Hamilton suggested we have a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention because he believed the British form of Government was "the best in the world."
Apparently it wasn't, which became clear after the ideal of democracy was implemented. Did you have a different form of government which you believe is better?

It is a hypothetical situation. You don't know how similar the situations are because it hasn't happened yet.
Why does it have to happen first for us to predict with reasonable accuracy what will happen? I have a pretty damn good idea of how revolutions work by reading up on history.

WindWip
03-04-2007, 05:54 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a blow to President George W. Bush's strategy in the war on terrorism. In presenting its case before the court two months ago, the Bush administration argued that in order to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, it has the right to detain and interrogate Taliban and Al-Qaeda suspects captured in Afghanistan without interference from the courts. But the country's highest court has ruled that the administration must allow access to American courts for all prisoners, whether they are U.S. citizens or foreigners.

I think that answers your question right the mikezilla.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 05:56 PM
Well, obviously the majority of the masses believe that it is an effective government right now since they aren't revolting quite yet.

What part of "hypothetical" do you not understand? Jesus, I can't speculate without you jumping all over me with your "predictions of certainty".


Apparently it wasn't, which became clear after the ideal of democracy was implemented.

The "Ideal" of Democracy was never implimented.
A compromise of Democracy was.

And can you show me that Hamilton ever changed his opinion that a small elite should rule over the masses?


Did you have a different form of government which you believe is better?

How about one without so much corporate interference?


Why does it have to happen first for us to predict with reasonable accuracy what will happen?

Because you sound like one of those doomsayers always trying to tell people what is going to happen.

They think they are always right.

They are hardly ever right.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 06:01 PM
Not so. ONE rightwing appeals court agreed.

You are really stretching. I still have to question your sanity.


it's the opinion of the last court that hears it that matters.

The Supreme Court has already come down against this kind of thing (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/1819ecce-9167-4b33-a723-98144291f664.html)before and there is no reason to think they won't do it again

good, the system still works.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 06:03 PM
I think that answers your question right the mikezilla.
i can deal with it. i don't like it, but i can deal with it.

WindWip
03-04-2007, 06:21 PM
What part of "hypothetical" do you not understand? Jesus, I can't speculate without you jumping all over me with your "predictions of certainty".
Look, I said we had an effective government. You said effective is subjective. I said the population believes it is effective since they have not revolted. We were not talking about the hypothetical revolution in this instance, you're the one not staying on track.

The "Ideal" of Democracy was never implimented.
A compromise of Democracy was.
Irrelevent. The point I made was that a better form of government was suggested, then implemented.

And can you show me that Hamilton ever changed his opinion that a small elite should rule over the masses?
What does his opinion have to do with our discussion?

How about one without so much corporate interference?
Interference in what? Politics?

Because you sound like one of those doomsayers always trying to tell people what is going to happen.

They think they are always right.

They are hardly ever right.
Your logic is floundering.

I said that you don't need to have something happen to predict what will likely happen in a scenario. And you reply by calling saying that I sound like a doomsayer and that doomsayers are hardly ever right. You're throwing personal attacks and ignoring what I said almost completely.

Napsterbater
03-04-2007, 06:34 PM
good, the system still works.
Pfft, if every probable cause challenge had to make it to the supreme court to be overturned, that would be a pretty good indication that the system is very broken.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 06:46 PM
it's the opinion of the last court that hears it that matters.


Yup, and the last court is...

The Supreme Court.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 06:53 PM
The point I made was that a better form of government was suggested, then implemented.

Actually it was hammered out over time in a series of compromises.

You make it sound like it was suggested and implimented as a complete package all at once.

mikezila
03-04-2007, 06:55 PM
Yup, and the last court is...

The Supreme Court.
if they decide to hear it.

dharmabum
03-04-2007, 06:57 PM
if they decide to hear it.

Yup, and they have already shown that they are willing to hear these kinds of issues.

Time will tell.

paulc
03-08-2007, 01:13 PM
Im a little bit ignorant of the legal setup of the US, so bear with me,
why is it that the US Supreme Court has not pulled the President in and questioned him about Iraq, or more obviously, the detentions at Gitmo, if these arent unconstitutional, its amazing.

F. de Marzipan
03-08-2007, 01:25 PM
Im a little bit ignorant of the legal setup of the US, so bear with me,
why is it that the US Supreme Court has not pulled the President in and questioned him about Iraq, or more obviously, the detentions at Gitmo, if these arent unconstitutional, its amazing.

I believe it's mostly because SCOTUS is overrun with conservatives/Bushie's pals (seven of the nine current justices of the court were appointed by Republican Presidents, two were nominated by a Democrat).

paulc
03-08-2007, 01:30 PM
Fucl great.So you put your people in the Supreme Court then do what you like. Im sure the guys who signed the Constitution are turning in their graves. I would have thought there was an Independant panel to appoint these Judges.

LionelHutz
03-08-2007, 09:51 PM
why is it that the US Supreme Court has not pulled the President in and questioned him about Iraq, or more obviously, the detentions at Gitmo, if these arent unconstitutional, its amazing.

The Supreme Court (or any court in this country, for that matter) doesn't have to power to investigate things on its own. Someone has to file suit before a court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

paulc
03-09-2007, 01:04 AM
Right, Im surprised some of the Government Watch Groups havnt considered doing this before

Thislin
03-09-2007, 04:21 AM
The Supreme Court (or any court in this country, for that matter) doesn't have to power to investigate things on its own. Someone has to file suit before a court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

I am reminded of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, or of his illegally arresting enough members of the Maryland legislature to prevent that state's seceding. The Supreme Court eventually ruled what he did unconstitutional, but the Union was preserved.

It was once observed that if you throw a shoe at random out of a train in America, the odds are it won't hit anyone, but if it does it will either be a fundamentalist or a lawyer.

Executive power is not exactly above the law, but lawyers often can do great harm to a nation. It is for this reason that courts evolved in Common Law as bodies that cannot interfere: they can only decide the cases that reach them.

Phyrex
03-09-2007, 04:44 AM
Sounds to me like some of you think that all the worlds problems will just dissapear when Bush leaves office. Most of the worlds current problems were here before his administration, and will be here after. Im not saying hes done much to remedy the situation but still.

Sparky2
03-09-2007, 04:52 AM
Shhhhh. Don't tell Bush-bashers stuff they don't want to hear.
Just makes them angry and argumentative.

Vilepagan
03-09-2007, 06:26 AM
the 4th Amendment doesn't protect from warrentless search, it's from unreasonable search.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3119


That's true, but the courts have consistently ruled that the government should get a warrant when there's no reason not to, and the search is considered unreasonable when they don't without some exigent circumstance being present.

Vilepagan
03-09-2007, 06:35 AM
but not always required. if a cop sees you go in a bank with a mask in your hand, he doesn't need a warrant to search you for that gun in your pocket.

it's all about what is probable cause.

Actually, if you had the mask in your hand the cop would probably stop you to talk to you, and at that point he'd have the right to "frisk" you to make sure you weren't armed for his own safety. If he wanted to "search" you, he'd have to arrest you first.

Edit: If during the "frisk" (patting down), a suspicious object was found, then you would be subject to a search as well.

Freethinker
03-09-2007, 09:21 AM
How about one (a democracy) without so much corporate interference?


Interference in what? Politics?

WTF?!?!?!?

..........later down the page............


Your logic is floundering.


If you do not recognize the immense and overwhelming *influence* that Corporations and Corporate power exert on the political realm in the U.S. then your logic is not merely "floundering"..........it is non-existent.

The U.S. is a nation of the Corporation, by the Corporation, and for the Corporation.

paulc
03-09-2007, 12:04 PM
I wouldn't suggest Bush is responsible for the worlds wows, but hes made his contribution, while doing so hes made AMERICANS travelling the world more of a target than ever, Muslim Extremists would tell you that 9/11 was retaliation for US actions in the middle east, so the world is a far more dangerous place thanks to the present President.

Lungdop Philing
03-10-2007, 11:24 AM
How do you undo killing a father and his 2 young daughters ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070310/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestus_070310115748

of how do you undo raping (pre-meditated) a 14-year-old then killing her and her family including a 6 month old baby?

Phyrex
03-10-2007, 12:08 PM
How do you undo killing a father and his 2 young daughters ...

You cant undo things like that. This is not the fault of the soldiers involved though.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070310/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestus_070310115748

or how do you undo raping (pre-meditated) a 14-year-old then killing her and her family including a 6 month old baby?

This cannot be undone either. The act is dispicable in the worst possible way, there is no excuse. The soldiers who perpatrated this will spend the rest of their lives in a military prison more than likely.

You can not say thought that Bush is directly responsible for these things. That is niave.