The 'Patriot' act strikes again

[raVeneyes]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/26/MNG4PEDMKC1.DTL

I'd like you right wing guys to note the section of the article which states:

"the FBI is using a separate investigative tool, a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter, to get records related to library patrons, reading materials and Internet use by patrons.

The FBI's power to use national security letters to demand records without a judge's approval was expanded under the Patriot Act."

So notice this isn't even about the part of the Act that says they can have access to Library records...it's about the part of the act that says they can ask for this type of stuff without any sort of warrant.

Someone please tell me how that *isn't* unconstitutional?

 

[fossten]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/08/26/MNG4PEDMKC1.DTL

I'd like you right wing guys to note the section of the article which states:

"the FBI is using a separate investigative tool, a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter, to get records related to library patrons, reading materials and Internet use by patrons.

The FBI's power to use national security letters to demand records without a judge's approval was expanded under the Patriot Act."

So notice this isn't even about the part of the Act that says they can have access to Library records...it's about the part of the act that says they can ask for this type of stuff without any sort of warrant.

Someone please tell me how that *isn't* unconstitutional?

If you understand the original intent of warrants, you would know that their meaning has been distorted by activist judges and "Miranda" proponents.

There was never any intent for a warrant to be the only way to get information or conduct a search. Warrants were for law officials' protection; to prevent them from being sued in case the search was deemed unreasonable.

In other words, warrants were optional. They were only a safeguard for law enforcement. Based on the original intent, warrants aren't necessary for law enforcement to conduct a search or require information.

Read up on the history of the law and the Constitution sometime and you'll see this.

 

[raVeneyes]

If you understand the original intent of warrants, you would know that their meaning has been distorted by activist judges and "Miranda" proponents.

There was never any intent for a warrant to be the only way to get information or conduct a search. Warrants were for law officials' protection; to prevent them from being sued in case the search was deemed unreasonable.

In other words, warrants were optional. They were only a safeguard for law enforcement. Based on the original intent, warrants aren't necessary for law enforcement to conduct a search or require information.

Read up on the history of the law and the Constitution sometime and you'll see this.

I know what the *original* intent of warrants was, just as I know what the original purpose of the three branch government was...however, as you've so astutely pointed out in the other forum, that's not the way it works now.

Warrants are now issued to give authorization to police officials to search, even going so far as having to specify exactly whom and where to search.

The current warrant system became necessary because of corruption in every level of policing and government except the judicial. Judges have always held themselves and each other to much higher standards than most officials...and they review and can over turn each other's rulings.

I suppose though you'd rather some cop be standing on every street corner frisking every Jew, Arab, Black, and Hispanic that walks by him.

:Bang

 

[raVeneyes]

There was never any intent for a warrant to be the only way to get information or conduct a search. Warrants were for law officials' protection; to prevent them from being sued in case the search was deemed unreasonable.

Also, I might add:

Warrants were not issued for law official's protection against suit...they were issued to temporarily extend the court's vision to places other than public knowledge, that's why a judge had to do it. The warrant is basically a Judge's request that a certain person or piece of evidence be presented in court. It had the added benefit of protecting the law enforcement officer from being sued because the Judge was the one ordering the search. Warrants were then twisted by law enforcement to get in to places that, under constitutional law and most local law (based on the constitution and British law), they had no right to search.

The original way of crime investigation started out (and is still legal to do without warrant) as search of public space and interviews with cooperative people. It has ALWAYS, under even prosecutorial British rule (where you're guilty until proven innocent), been necessary to receive some sort of mandate from the Judicial system to search someone's private property, records, and to demand testimony.

 

[MAllen82]

I suppose though you'd rather some cop be standing on every street corner frisking every Jew, Arab, Black, and Hispanic that walks by him.

That's pretty uncalled for.

I must say that you demonstrate a large lack of knowledge when it comes to the inner workings of the government again. Where did you get your education? And Judges aren't some higher form of gervernment official. They are percieved that way, but in fact they are not.

 

[raVeneyes]

That's pretty uncalled for.

REALLY!??!?!!?

And what do you think happened in the past that could have caused this whole ACLU thing to start up anyway??? OHHHH Right...the civil rights movement! :slam I forgot.

During which time it was common for cops to conduct random searches, plant evidence on people, then beat the confession out of them.

You guys for all your "James you should read your history, you don't know what you're talking about...blah blah blah blah" Don't seem to remember your history either.

I must say that you demonstrate a large lack of knowledge when it comes to the inner workings of the government again. Where did you get your education? And Judges aren't some higher form of gervernment official. They are percieved that way, but in fact they are not.

I never said "Judges aren't some higher form of gervernment official"...what I said is they have always held themselves and each other to higher standards.

Policemen have a brotherhood. They are like members of a club...they need to be because they support each other and stand shoulder to shoulder against dangers that average people do not face. Judges are just that...judges...they hold themselves to a standard of impartiality and attempt to keep their decisions neutral...and, when a Judge steps out of line...another judge will not hesitate to tell him so, throw out his ruling, and ask for his bench to be revoked.

So no, not a higher form of government...just a different one.

 

[MAllen82]

REALLY!??!?!!?

And what do you think happened in the past that could have caused this whole ACLU thing to start up anyway??? OHHHH Right...the civil rights movement! I forgot.

During which time it was common for cops to conduct random searches, plant evidence on people, then beat the confession out of them.

You guys for all your "James you should read your history, you don't know what you're talking about...blah blah blah blah" Don't seem to remember your history either.

Yeah, but you know what, they wouldn't be beating up every minority out there. That IS incalled for. Look, we know who the majority of terrorists are. Midle Eastern and Africans. Why not go after them and scrutinize what they do. I would feel the same way about that if white guys were doing the bombings. You wanna screen me before I go to an abortion clinic(which I would never anyways) FINE!!!

And your explanation of judges basically confirmed what I said. Look, when a Senator steps out of line, heads roll, and he'll get voted out of office. Let me ask you, what do you think about the eminent domain ruling?? That obviously goes against the constitution, but I don't see any judges being punished for it. Judges have been letting child rapists off on mintzy little sentances for decades, and no other judges are doing much about it until now because the public knows about what a problem it is. These judges are still holding their seats, are they not??? Beleive me when I talk about lawyers and judges because I personally have about 100 attorney friends, and know about 20 judges on a formal basis. And they come from all different backgrounds and political persuasions.

 

[raVeneyes]

Yeah, but you know what, they wouldn't be beating up every minority out there. That IS incalled for. Look, we know who the majority of terrorists are. Midle Eastern and Africans. Why not go after them and scrutinize what they do. I would feel the same way about that if white guys were doing the bombings.

Fine, I want the FBI to do a random search of EVERY 30-60 year old white male american's home, office, and recreation facilities. Why you ask? That is the predominant profile of serial killers, and terrorist bombers on US soil.

*DEE DEE DEE*

More bombings and terrorist actions have been committed by white males age 30-60 in the US than any other profile.

Over 90% of serial killers are white males between the ages of 30 and 60.

Just your racist, short sighted, and uneducated statement above would be enough, but no...you go on...

You wanna screen me before I go to an abortion clinic(which I would never anyways) FINE!!!

Men are currently not allowed in to most abortion clinics just for that specific reason...most of the attacks on abortion clinics have started with a breach of front door security.

AND STILL YOU KEEP GOING!!!

And your explanation of judges basically confirmed what I said. Look, when a Senator steps out of line, heads roll, and he'll get voted out of office.

Oh you mean when the Senator happens to be of the currently minority party. Cause no Senator has *ever* done anything untoward and gotten away with it.

Let me ask you, what do you think about the eminent domain ruling?? That obviously goes against the constitution, but I don't see any judges being punished for it.

But the courts *have* been arguing back and forth about it...that's why the Supreme Court made a ruling on the topic.

:slam

And Judges don't ask for other Judge's benches because of some stupid thing like an unfavorable ruling on an archaic bit of law...they ask for benches because of true corruption and partiality.

Judges have been letting child rapists off on mintzy little sentances for decades, and no other judges are doing much about it until now because the public knows about what a problem it is.

Most cases involving child rape and molestation involve other crimes as well. Often it is not up to the judge what the sentence will be as the prosecution has made some sort of deal to lessen the term of the sentence. Judges often have their hands tied when it comes to sentencing and it's been a major problem for the legal system and a major debate for decades.

These judges are still holding their seats, are they not??? Beleive me when I talk about lawyers and judges because I personally have about 100 attorney friends, and know about 20 judges on a formal basis. And they come from all different backgrounds and political persuasions.

I'm glad your personal acquaintances are so well diversified...perhaps you should get them to write you a little paper on the topic of warrants, eminent domain, sentencing, and the impartiality of the judicial community. It would be interesting to see opinions on those things from different sides.

 

[MAllen82]

Fine, I want the FBI to do a random search of EVERY 30-60 year old white male american's home, office, and recreation facilities. Why you ask? That is the predominant profile of serial killers, and terrorist bombers on US soil.

*DEE DEE DEE*

More bombings and terrorist actions have been committed by white males age 30-60 in the US than any other profile.

Over 90% of serial killers are white males between the ages of 30 and 60.

Just your racist, short sighted, and uneducated statement above would be enough, but no...you go on...

Fine, I have nothing to hide. You can search everything I own, because I'm a law abiding citizen who would rather be searched than feared. The fact is Islam has a huge sect that wants to destroy western civilization. It is a defined group of people. There is no Abortion Clinic Bombers Society where we can do investigations and find other members. These guys are preaching theism all day long to the point where they surpass all other religions and want everyone else dead. Whe was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed? How many US embassies around the world have been bombed by middle easterners or africans who happen to be Muslim? If you can't see the difference between violence of a serial killer, and a movement of people who want to kill even you most likely (I'm not aware of your religious affiliation if any) then there is no point in arguing with you.

And your comments about me being a racist really infuriate me. You know nothing about me. I've made one comment related to race on this forum, and it is one held by a lot of people, and not just white men. You don't know me. Don't ever generalize me like that because I have not done that to you, nor has anyone else. And if they have, I'd say the same to them.

Oh you mean when the Senator happens to be of the currently minority party. Cause no Senator has *ever* done anything untoward and gotten away with it.

But judges have?? Look, it doesn't matter who's in the majority, it matters what their hometown constituency is. If they go against what their voters want, they get voted out next election.

Often it is not up to the judge what the sentence will be as the prosecution has made some sort of deal to lessen the term of the sentence. Judges often have their hands tied when it comes to sentencing and it's been a major problem for the legal system and a major debate for decades.

So everytime a person gets off on an easy sentance, it's the prosecution's fault? I suppose you would think it's a conservatives fault too because we're just evil Rush listeners, huh??

Again, where were you educated about our government? I was a Political Philosophy major in college so I have plenty of knowledge on the subject.

 

[raVeneyes]

Fine, I have nothing to hide. You can search everything I own, because I'm a law abiding citizen who would rather be searched than feared.

But not everyone in the US would agree with you. I appreciate the fact that you feel you have nothing to hide. Neither do I. I would much rather enjoy my freedom to hide something if I wish or do something wrong than have to sit at home every second thursday of the month to wait for the state inspection team to come by. A state that fears it's citizens is a state in decline and if you think our government should fear Muslims of Arab or African decent then you are wishing the end of our government on us.

The fact is Islam has a huge sect that wants to destroy western civilization. It is a defined group of people. There is no Abortion Clinic Bombers Society where we can do investigations and find other members. These guys are preaching theism all day long to the point where they surpass all other religions and want everyone else dead.

There is in fact a huge defined group of white american Christains who support bombing abortion clinics, the death of non-whites, and the jailing of non-christians. The Klu Klux Klan still exists, and as recently as 6 years ago the ACLU protected their civil rights in court by blockading an attempt by the FBI to get a member registry after a member of that sect killed several people in Oklahoma City.

There is also a huge defined group of white american Christians who are anti-homosexual to the point of saying that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. They march and rally. Members of that sect have killed gays. And we protect their rights.

There is a very defined and vocal group of white american Christians who are anti-abortion...and several bombings and assassinations have been carried out by members of that sect. And we protect their rights.

Seems to me the problem may be white american Christians...why don't we start jailing them? (sarcasm)

Whe was the last time an abortion clinic was bombed?

When's the next time an abortion clinic will be bombed?

How many US embassies around the world have been bombed by middle easterners or africans who happen to be Muslim?

Several...how many Americans have been killed in the 50 United States by white american Christians?

If you can't see the difference between violence of a serial killer, and a movement of people who want to kill even you most likely (I'm not aware of your religious affiliation if any) then there is no point in arguing with you.

No I see a big difference...I was just saying that there are TWO reasons we could profile white american males between the age of 30 and 60. There's only ONE reason to profile African and Arab Muslims

And your comments about me being a racist really infuriate me. You know nothing about me.

I don't need to know you personally to say a statement is racist.

rac·ism - discrimination especially on the basis of race or religion

Your whole line of reasoning is racist

I've made one comment related to race on this forum, and it is one held by a lot of people, and not just white men. You don't know me. Don't ever generalize me like that because I have not done that to you, nor has anyone else. And if they have, I'd say the same to them.

I was not attacking you personally...I'm saying your statment, and this idea you're holding on to so tightly is racist. Let it go...or you will fall victim to it just like many of the people who I grew up with who told me they weren't racist and would then call me a :q:q:q:q:q:q in the same breath.

But judges have?? Look, it doesn't matter who's in the majority, it matters what their hometown constituency is. If they go against what their voters want, they get voted out next election.

So everytime a person gets off on an easy sentance, it's the prosecution's fault? I suppose you would think it's a conservatives fault too because we're just evil Rush listeners, huh??

Look...this whole Judge vs. anyone thing is the heart of the thread...let's forget for a minute the argument about if we should profile people.

A Judge has the luxury of not being biased. He has the protection of the court against prosecution and arrest. He has the protection of the government against attack, and his whole job in life is to be the impartial guy who mediates things.

Personally I'd much prefer an impartial, or at least a seemingly impartial, judge decide if it's necessary for a law enforcement person to look in to my personal stuff. If law enforcement has done it's job, then it has a reason for wanting to see in to my personal stuff, and that reason should be easily explainable to a Judge. Any Judge who doesn't grant a warrant on a reasonable explanation of needing to search further is a different matter entirely, but if there is no reason at all for the search...if we're still just grasping at straws in the investigation...then there should be no breach of personal property.

Again, where were you educated about our government? I was a Political Philosophy major in college so I have plenty of knowledge on the subject.

I minored for two years in history and took several advanced courses on law and history in high school.

 

[97silverlsc]

Truth-Telling on Race? Not in Bush's Fantasyland

By BOB HERBERT
Published: August 25, 2005

The Bush administration has punished a Justice Department official who dared to tell even a mild truth about racial profiling by law enforcement officers in this country.
In 2001 President Bush selected Lawrence Greenfeld to head the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which tracks crime patterns and police tactics, among other things. But as Eric Lichtblau of The Times reported in a front-page article yesterday, Mr. Greenfeld is being demoted because he complained that senior political officials were seeking to play down newly compiled data about the aggressive treatment of black and Hispanic drivers by police officers.

My first thought when I read the story was that burying the messenger who tells uncomfortable truths has always been a favorite tactic of this administration, which seems to exist largely in a world of fantasy. (Grown-ups don't do well in the Bush playtime environment. Remember Gen. Eric Shinseki? And former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill?)

My second thought was of a couple of stories from several years ago that dramatically illustrated the differences in the ways that white and black drivers can be treated.

Rachel Ellen Ondersma was a 17-year-old high school senior when she was stopped by the police in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Nov. 14, 1998. She had been driving erratically, the police said, and when she failed a Breathalyzer test, she was placed under arrest.

An officer cuffed Ms. Ondersma's hands behind her and left her alone in the back seat of a police cruiser. What happened after that was captured on a video camera mounted inside the vehicle. And while it would eventually be shown on the Fox television program "World's Wackiest Police Videos," it was not funny.

The camera offered a clear view through the cruiser's windshield. The microphone picked up the sound of Ms. Ondersma sobbing, then the clink of the handcuffs as she began maneuvering to free herself. She apparently stepped through her arms so her hands, still cuffed, were in front of her. Then she climbed into the front seat, started the engine and roared off. With the car hurtling along, tires squealing, Ms. Ondersma could be heard moaning, "What am I doing?" and, "They are going to have to kill me."

She roared onto a freeway, where she was clocked by pursuing officers at speeds up to 80 miles per hour. She crashed into a concrete barrier, and officers, thinking they had her boxed in, jumped out of their vehicles. But Ms. Ondersma backed up, then lurched forward and plowed into one of the police cars.

Gunfire could be heard as the police began shooting out her tires. The teenager backed up, lurched forward and crashed into the cop car again. An officer had to leap out of the way to keep from being struck.

Ms. Ondersma tried to speed away once more, but by then at least two of her tires were flat and she could no longer control the vehicle. She crashed into another concrete divider and was finally surrounded.

As I watched the videotape, I was amazed at the way she was treated when she was pulled from the cruiser. The police did not seem particularly upset. They were not rough with her, and no one could be heard cursing. One officer said: "Calm down, all right? I think you've caused enough trouble for one day."

Ms. Ondersma is white. As I watched the video, I kept thinking about an incident on the New Jersey Turnpike in April 1998 in which four young men in a van were pulled over by state troopers. Three of the men were black and one was Hispanic. They were neither drunk nor abusive. But their van did roll slowly backward, accidentally bumping the leg of one of the troopers and striking the police vehicle.

The troopers drew their weapons and opened fire. When the shooting stopped, three of the four young men had been shot and seriously wounded.

The beginning of the end of Lawrence Greenfeld's tenure as director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics came a few months ago, as his agency was completing a major study showing that black and Hispanic drivers were treated more aggressively than whites when stopped by the police.

Mr. Greenfeld was overruled when he tried to include references to these disparities in a news release announcing the findings of the study. The study was then buried in the bowels of the Bush bureaucracy.

Mr. Greenfeld obviously failed to understand that the preferred methods of dealing with uncomfortable facts in the fantasyland of the Bush administration are to ignore them, or simply wish them away.

 

[fossten]

The current warrant system became necessary because of corruption in every level of policing and government except the judicial. Judges have always held themselves and each other to much higher standards than most officials...and they review and can over turn each other's rulings.

Boy have you been misled. You really need to read Max Boot's book "Out of Order", which details the massive slide of our judicial system. You just don't know what you're talking about. Judges get away with corruption on a large scale all the time, and they legislate from the bench repeatedly. While you're at it, read Napolitano's book, "Constitutional Chaos." If you really have the balls, read Mark Levin's book "Men In Black." You'll be pretty pissed off about our judicial system by the time you get done with any one of those titles.

Or you can just take my word for it.

Oh, and by the way, I AM a Jew you racist.

 

[raVeneyes]

Boy have you been misled. You really need to read Max Boot's book "Out of Order", which details the massive slide of our judicial system. You just don't know what you're talking about. Judges get away with corruption on a large scale all the time, and they legislate from the bench repeatedly. While you're at it, read Napolitano's book, "Constitutional Chaos." If you really have the balls, read Mark Levin's book "Men In Black." You'll be pretty pissed off about our judicial system by the time you get done with any one of those titles.

Or you can just take my word for it.

How about I don't take your word or theirs for it...I'm sure it's quite slanted.

I'm not saying that Judges don't get away with corruption...as a whole though it's a different system. What a judge does on the job is on the record...available for scrutiny, and will be scrutinized if either side is unhappy with a ruling, so it's much tougher for a judge to say 'screw the constitution' or 'this guy is just guilty because I said so'

Oh, and by the way, I AM a Jew you racist.

Bully for you?

What does your religion or race have to do with this conversation?

I've not once commented on your race or religion, all I've said is that your line of reasoning on the issue of profiling is racist.

 

[fossten]

I've not once commented on your race or religion, all I've said is that your line of reasoning on the issue of profiling is racist.

You said this:

I suppose though you'd rather some cop be standing on every street corner frisking every Jew, Arab, Black, and Hispanic that walks by him.

I made no comment referring to those races or racial profiling. You assumed that I did. You assumed I feel this way toward those races. Your assumption was a racist comment.

Your personal attack was out of context and irrelevant. You don't know enough about me to know what I think about anything. Sort of like your own "magic ball" comment on another thread. You need to stick with what is said on this forum. Anything else is a personal attack.

 

[MAllen82]

raVeneyes, where do you keep getting this information on the judiacial system?? On the record?? The only thing on the record is the final outcome of a judgement. How the judge arrived at that outcome is totally unrecorded. And if I remember correctly, weren't judges constantly being paid off from the 30's to the 60's with documentation and testimony to prove it? Do you think organized crime has gotten out of that game? What about powerful corporations? Judges are not what you think they are, so give it up. The government isn't what you think it is, it doesn't work how you think it does. I don't wanna have to start pulling out all my college texts but I will if I have to I suppose.


PS. the only reason I said that period that I did was because that's the only one I have researched when I did a paper on the influence of organized crime on public policy during this period about 3 years ago.

 

[raVeneyes]

raVeneyes, where do you keep getting this information on the judiacial system?? On the record?? The only thing on the record is the final outcome of a judgement. How the judge arrived at that outcome is totally unrecorded.

On record is the entire trial, it's testimony, it's meetings, the evidence...everything except what's going through the Judge's head, because every other Judge *should* be able to arrive at the same decision given the same evidence and testimony. If they're not then the case is overturned. If they're not *and* there's obvious corruption the bar association for that state can be brought in on the matter.

And if I remember correctly, weren't judges constantly being paid off from the 30's to the 60's with documentation and testimony to prove it? Do you think organized crime has gotten out of that game? What about powerful corporations? Judges are not what you think they are, so give it up. The government isn't what you think it is, it doesn't work how you think it does. I don't wanna have to start pulling out all my college texts but I will if I have to I suppose.


PS. the only reason I said that period that I did was because that's the only one I have researched when I did a paper on the influence of organized crime on public policy during this period about 3 years ago.

Ok, firstly...we started the discussion of the warrant system with why they were *originally* put in place... which was before the founding of our country in merry ol' England, but then refined and set in to law by the Constitution. Back in the day as now, I'm sure Judges were subject to corruption, but they are held to higher standards... Dude...I don't feel like repeating myself. You're arguing the reality of the world vs. what I'm saying the ideal spirit of the system is. I am not talking about how it does work, I'm talking about how it's designed to work, while you keep throwing back at me 'but they're corrupt'. It's a circular argument that goes no where.

Regardless of corruption, regardless of how it does work in the real world, the constitution says that "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." it's the fourth amendment to the constitution and it was set that way for a reason. Unreasonable has always been confirmed by the court system to mean a search of anything not public.

 

[fossten]

On record is the entire trial, it's testimony, it's meetings, the evidence...everything except what's going through the Judge's head, because every other Judge *should* be able to arrive at the same decision given the same evidence and testimony. If they're not then the case is overturned. If they're not *and* there's obvious corruption the bar association for that state can be brought in on the matter.



Ok, firstly...we started the discussion of the warrant system with why they were *originally* put in place... which was before the founding of our country in merry ol' England, but then refined and set in to law by the Constitution. Back in the day as now, I'm sure Judges were subject to corruption, but they are held to higher standards... Dude...I don't feel like repeating myself. You're arguing the reality of the world vs. what I'm saying the ideal spirit of the system is. I am not talking about how it does work, I'm talking about how it's designed to work, while you keep throwing back at me 'but they're corrupt'. It's a circular argument that goes no where.

The problem you're having is that you stated earlier that the judicial branch is the exception when it comes to corruption.

The current warrant system became necessary because of corruption in every level of policing and government except the judicial. Judges have always held themselves and each other to much higher standards than most officials...and they review and can over turn each other's rulings.

We're easily refuting that statement because it's absurd. There are clear cases to back us up, as well as detailed books written by several different authors which back us up and refute your statement. And your best answer is, "They're slanted"???

Get over yourself and face facts. You made a ridiculous statement and we are going to expose it. If you had any balls, you would research this yourself and find out the truth. But you Fibs never do that. You just make outrageous claims and expect the shrillness of your voice to carry the argument. Not anymore.

 

[fossten]

On record is the entire trial, it's testimony, it's meetings, the evidence...everything except what's going through the Judge's head, because every other Judge *should* be able to arrive at the same decision given the same evidence and testimony. If they're not then the case is overturned. If they're not *and* there's obvious corruption the bar association for that state can be brought in on the matter.

That's not how it happens. Jeez, you're living in a dreamland. Judges very seldom get punished for their missteps. And the circumstances surrounding a trial, like the judge presiding over a trial where the plaintiffs are suing a company that he has a financial stake in, where he should recuse himself and doesn't, but instead makes life hell for the plaintiff's attorneys so they'll lose the case, happens a lot with no consequences to the judge. Oftentimes the judge has to be in gross violation of the law before any action is taken, and then only usually after several violations.

You really need to read up on this stuff. Until then, you really don't know what you're talking about.

 

[raVeneyes]

You said this:

I suppose though you'd rather some cop be standing on every street corner frisking every Jew, Arab, Black, and Hispanic that walks by him.

I made no comment referring to those races or racial profiling. You assumed that I did. You assumed I feel this way toward those races. Your assumption was a racist comment.

I assumed nothing. The statement "I suppose though you'd rather some cop be standing on every street corner frisking every Jew, Arab, Black, and Hispanic that walks by him." was a facetious remark designed to remind the reader of the period in our history where that kind of thing did happen. It was highlighted as a facetious remark by the inclusion a line later of the :Bang icon....and in case you missed it, which you obviously did, I clarified the reason for that statement in my next post by further explaining the links between the warrant system, racial profiling, the ACLU, and the civil rights movement.

Also, I also made no assumption about you referring to racial profiling. You assume I was talking about racial profiling at the time, when, in fact, I was merely responding to your grossly erroneous line of reasoning that warrants are optional to searches and seizures of personal property. The civil rights movement and the period of history surrounding that movement prove that a strong interpretation of the rights of the suspect in an investigation are paramount to liberty and freedom. I was simply reminding the reader of that time.

MAllen82 brought racial profiling in to the mix later by saying, "Look, we know who the majority of terrorists are. Midle Eastern and Africans. Why not go after them and scrutinize what they do."

Now you jump back in to the mix with "I am a Jew"??? That's just silly.

Your personal attack was out of context and irrelevant.

There was no personal attack...I didn't say "fossten wants a fascist regime in america"

The statement was in the context of the thread...and relevant to your line of reasoning.

You don't know enough about me to know what I think about anything. Sort of like your own "magic ball" comment on another thread. You need to stick with what is said on this forum. Anything else is a personal attack.

*DEE DEE DEE*

 

[raVeneyes]

The problem you're having is that you stated earlier that the judicial branch is the exception when it comes to corruption.

The current warrant system became necessary because of corruption in every level of policing and government except the judicial. Judges have always held themselves and each other to much higher standards than most officials...and they review and can over turn each other's rulings.

We're easily refuting that statement because it's absurd.

Actually...you haven't refuted any part of that statement. You've repeatedly said 'Judges are corrupt'...and you keep annoyingly parroting that statement. A statement that has nothing to do with my conjecture about the warrant system. You have not refuted that the warrant system became necessary because of corruption in law enforcement. You can not refute the statement that Judges have always held themselves and each other to higher standards, because it's a statement of judical ethics...it's what the judicial system is based on. And you have not refuted that they can review and overturn each other's rulings...because they can.

Your problem is you can't see the difference between the way things are and the ideal of the way things are set up to be. I'm talking about ethics and goals, and you're talking about failures to attain those ethics and goals.

There are clear cases to back us up, as well as detailed books written by several different authors which back us up and refute your statement. And your best answer is, "They're slanted"???

I'm sure the books are slanted, but my actual answer to the idea that Judges are corrupt has over and over again been "Your right...they are"

Get over yourself and face facts. You made a ridiculous statement and we are going to expose it.

I think I just proved that untrue.

If you had any balls, you would research this yourself and find out the truth.

And what if I had lost my balls in a horrible skiing accident...wouldn't that just put egg on your face.

:joke

But you Fibs never do that. You just make outrageous claims and expect the shrillness of your voice to carry the argument. Not anymore.

Again with the generalizing. I've not made any outrageous claims...and I've supported my every argument with quotes and facts. You on the other hand have only supported your arguments with accusations, speculation, and generalizations.

Love when people do that...really... (sarcasm)

 

[fossten]

Actually...you haven't refuted any part of that statement. You've repeatedly said 'Judges are corrupt'...and you keep annoyingly parroting that statement. A statement that has nothing to do with my conjecture about the warrant system. You have not refuted that the warrant system became necessary because of corruption in law enforcement. You can not refute the statement that Judges have always held themselves and each other to higher standards, because it's a statement of judical ethics...it's what the judicial system is based on. And you have not refuted that they can review and overturn each other's rulings...because they can.

Your problem is you can't see the difference between the way things are and the ideal of the way things are set up to be. I'm talking about ethics and goals, and you're talking about failures to attain those ethics and goals.



I'm sure the books are slanted, but my actual answer to the idea that Judges are corrupt has over and over again been "Your right...they are"



I think I just proved that untrue.



And what if I had lost my balls in a horrible skiing accident...wouldn't that just put egg on your face.

:joke



Again with the generalizing. I've not made any outrageous claims...and I've supported my every argument with quotes and facts. You on the other hand have only supported your arguments with accusations, speculation, and generalizations.

Love when people do that...really... (sarcasm)

If the statement about judges has nothing to do with the warrant system, then why did you mention it? You're the one who brought up judges being the exception to the corruption rule.

Re: Comment about judges overruling and reviewing each other: Your key word is "can." They usually don't. It is you who doesn't differentiate b/t reality and dreamland. The reality is that the judicial system has been corrupted and we are now being ruled by unelected, unaccountable officials who are consolidating their own private fiefdoms.

(Sigh) Once again, your argument that judges are not corrupt has been refuted by many people, a few of which's books have been mentioned. I don't have to go back and research facts that have already been cited by others. I merely refer to them.

Ok, so you don't have the balls to do your own research. Fine. Do you have the guts???

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Your personal attack was out of context and irrelevant. You don't know enough about me to know what I think about anything. Sort of like your own "magic ball" comment on another thread. You need to stick with what is said on this forum. Anything else is a personal attack.

:bsflag: Yeah, let's all follow fossten's shining example of this! :slam

 

[MAllen82]

On record is the entire trial, it's testimony, it's meetings, the evidence...everything except what's going through the Judge's head, because every other Judge *should* be able to arrive at the same decision given the same evidence and testimony. If they're not then the case is overturned. If they're not *and* there's obvious corruption the bar association for that state can be brought in on the matter.

There's a key word in your statement, can you find it?

There' also a key phrase that summed up my entire point.