WTF is a THOUGHT CRIMES BILL????????

[Shogun]

I think that we are pretty much in agreement here. I think of it as that old unilateral cowboy itchy-trigger-finger mentality. Koresh could have been picked up at any time. If he and his people refused to leave, all we would have needed to to was put up a fence and leave a few guards. We could have waited them out. The assault was not necessary.

sure.. unless we chose that path and then found some dead babies under the some freshly poured concrete afterwards. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that is easier judged by partisan monday morning quarterbacks than any republican solutions being brought up at the time.


Funny that USMB's own herpe virus, RGS, couldn't miss a shot at shit talking liberals from out of no where though. It's almost as if it's purposful irony when he calls anyone a troll.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

sure.. unless we chose that path and then found some dead babies under the some freshly poured concrete afterwards. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that is easier judged by partisan monday morning quarterbacks than any republican solutions being brought up at the time.


Funny that USMB's own herpe virus, RGS, couldn't miss a shot at shit talking liberals from out of no where though. It's almost as if it's purposful irony when he calls anyone a troll.

well except for the simple fact MY post is in direct response to a post IN THIS thread. Unlike most of your personal insults towards me in most threads.

Further the claim that I was NOT responding to material in this thread by you is in fact ANOTHER example of your trolling.

 

[mattskramer]

sure.. unless we chose that path and then found some dead babies under the some freshly poured concrete afterwards. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that is easier judged by partisan monday morning quarterbacks than any republican solutions being brought up at the time.


Funny that USMB's own herpe virus, RGS, couldn't miss a shot at shit talking liberals from out of no where though. It's almost as if it's purposful irony when he calls anyone a troll.

I guess that I am slow – babies under concrete?!? I don’t understand. Would Koresh have killed babies if we waited him out? Please explain. I’m not as strongly anti-ATF as some people but I do think that the assault was not necessary. Please explain the “babies” comment and your perspective.

 

[Shogun]

Can someone please put some valtrex on Rgs's above post? I'd like to get back to discussing the Supreme Court and their potential of supporting the topic of the thread than listen to this net Herpe talk shit about liberals.

 

[Steerpike]

They are NOT unconstitutional and not even close to the same. They do NOT violate anyones rights under the Constitution.

Parts of the Patriot Act are certainly unconstitutional.

This is where it becomes clear that everyone is Constitutional textualist in some areas, and not in others.

For example, the Second Amendment. I suspect you are pretty much a textualist on the second amendment. That it protects an individual's right to be armed. I agree.

But the 4th amendment just as clearly has a warrant requirement, which is something the Patriot Act purports to do away with in certain instances. The Constitution also clearly provides for habeas corpus.

But people who insist on a strict reading of the Constitution in some areas completely disregard it in others.

Everyone does it, I think.

Jillian, for example, probably agrees with me on a pretty strict reading of the 4th amendment. Probably not of the 2nd though, and I'd argue not of the portions that purpotedly provide the "penumbra" of rights in which the right to abortion is found.

It all becomes subjective, and that makes it hard for any one side to say they follow the Constitution better than the other.

 

[eots]

The simple fact is Koresh was never a threat. The local sheriff had him down to his office EVERY time he had a complaint. No guns drawn, no shooting, no siege, AND no dead children.

The ATF fucked up, they wanted a BIG raid to impress the Country because the DEA was getting all the coverage at the time.

Do I think Reno or Clinton had anything to do with the initial raid? NOT at all. It was a retarded decision by idiots for points. They planned it poorly, executed it even worse and left the FBI holding the dirty after effects.

However there NEVER was a reason to assault the compound. No one was trying to get out and in fact if they had, that would have been a BETTER result, easier to track one or two people down then attack a house full of kids with armed adults WAITING to die in JUST such an attack, The Branch Davidians were NO threat to any of their neighbors or any American anywhere at all.

Now remind us who decided to assault a compound FULL of children, with the knowledge the armed adults wanted to die in such an assault and with further knowledge the compound was rigged to be destroyed ( if we are to believe the FBI about why and how the fire started, they insist the Davidians set it up and that they know this from BEFORE the assault)

Now go off on a tangent and claim child abuse... a claim NEVER made until AFTER the siege began and most likely a political ploy to get the American people off the fact there never was a reason for the raid to begin with. Further not a reason to assault that compound and kill those kids.

Remind us how many times in the past TANKS were used to resolve stable under control hostage situations with no threat to the hostages except from the police?

Then remind us why Reno ordered ARMED men to later seize a 5 year old from his family that was neither armed nor had ever failed to produce the child when ordered ( In Florida, remember that one?) Two examples of Reno and a total disregard for law and order and the rights of our citizens.

And explain again how that LANDMARK decision about Abortion was not an idealogical one made by Liberals with no basis in law or the Constitution.

Cry all you want. Your ignorant claims are the partisan ones.

wow... rgs ever now and then you actually get it right

 

[Steerpike]

I guess that I am slow – babies under concrete?!? I don’t understand. Would Koresh have killed babies if we waited him out? Please explain. I’m not as strongly anti-ATF as some people but I do think that the assault was not necessary. Please explain the “babies” comment and your perspective.

Janet Reno was one of the most corrupt AGs we've ever head. Look at what she did while she was down in Florida. Talk about acting unconstitutionally.

The whole debacle in Waco could have been avoided by snatching Koresh on one of the numerous times per week we left the compound and went into town. If they'd done that, it would have been a non-story. I don't know what possessed them to storm the place, other than maybe they were trying to send some kind of message. It was a disaster and got a lot of people, including kids, killed.

 

[Paulie]

They are NOT unconstitutional and not even close to the same. They do NOT violate anyones rights under the Constitution. Further the Patriot act is historically proven to be acceptable by past actions of Congress in similar times and the Constitution allows for extra actions in a time of War or conflict.

I do not know the 2007 act though, but unless it pays for a military ( other than the Navy) past two years I do not see how it is unconstitutional either.

Can you please source the constitution where it says in times of war, it can be altered. Please do that for me.

The MCA of 06 strips Habeus Corpus. The John Warner Act strips Posse Comitatus, and allows the president, for the first time in HISTORY, to have jurisdiction over a state's NG and Reserve units, superceding the respective governors. That means a president can declare martial law anywhere in the US or it's territories. It's right in there. Maybe you should read bills more. We all know that congress barely does.

 

[Shogun]

I guess that I am slow – babies under concrete?!? I don’t understand. Would Koresh have killed babies if we waited him out? Please explain. I’m not as strongly anti-ATF as some people but I do think that the assault was not necessary. Please explain the “babies” comment and your perspective.

I think that David Koresh was a wild card that no one could predict any more than Leo Ryan could predict being blown away when visiting Jonestown. In fact, when dealing with religious nutjobs the past doesn't indicate that they are quick to stand down or succumb to a siege. No, they have a nack for killing each other off as a final self-percieved effort to rebel against what they see as a total corrupt society. Name one fanatic group that finally gave up peacefully. I think that the spectre of Jonestown was fresh in the mind of America and Janet Reno would have been harpooned just the same had she sat back and WAITING for the people inside the compound to drink the grape FLAVOR-aid*.

Sure, it's easy to shit on Reno after the fact. Yet, I don't recall much coming out of the republican camp when they could sit back and let the brand new dem President and his admin deal with it.


Take a good look. THIS is what took sitting and waiting off the table.

Now, back to Scotus.





* people who use the term "kool-aid drinker" always get this wrong.

 

[nibor]

What's scotus........................waaaaaaa your side sucks................no waaaaaaaaaa your side sucks more.........................let me clue all of ya...............IT ALL SUCKS....................AND ALL THE INCOMPETENT BRAINDEAD SHIT FLOWS DOWN HILL ON US...................

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Parts of the Patriot Act are certainly unconstitutional.

This is where it becomes clear that everyone is Constitutional textualist in some areas, and not in others.

For example, the Second Amendment. I suspect you are pretty much a textualist on the second amendment. That it protects an individual's right to be armed. I agree.

But the 4th amendment just as clearly has a warrant requirement, which is something the Patriot Act purports to do away with in certain instances. The Constitution also clearly provides for habeas corpus.

But people who insist on a strict reading of the Constitution in some areas completely disregard it in others.

Everyone does it, I think.

Jillian, for example, probably agrees with me on a pretty strict reading of the 4th amendment. Probably not of the 2nd though, and I'd argue not of the portions that purpotedly provide the "penumbra" of rights in which the right to abortion is found.

It all becomes subjective, and that makes it hard for any one side to say they follow the Constitution better than the other.

The courts already ruled the Habeas issue was not constitutional and it does not apply in the Patriot act. So much for no oversight by the courts, ehh? Further the Constitution does NOT apply to foreign Nationals OUTSIDE the boundries of the US, no matter how you stretch the meaning of the term " the people" and the 4th still applies even under the Patriot act in that no information found with OUT a search warrant is admissable in Court. Thus no lose of rights under the 4th amendment.

Now if you want to talk about lose of protection and rights.... research the drug laws passed by the dems before the Congress was controlled by the Republicans and check out the Secret Courts allowed against legal aliens in this country also passed under Clinton before the Republicans gained control.

One allows the police to seize your money or property with nothing more than a claim you match a pattern that drug movers have used. You have no right to a court appearance, you have no legal rights to recover your money or property at all. Well except you can pay a bond for the AMOUNT of money or property seized and gain a court date where YOU have to prove your NOT guilty of trafficing drugs.

And the other allows secret courts to be convened and "trials" to be held against legal aliens and naturalized citizens with out ever informing them of any court or even any charges. These Courts can rule to strip them of their Naturalized citizenship and deport them and can also strip them of any green card they have and also deport them. No appeal, no day in court at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can you please source the constitution where it says in times of war, it can be altered. Please do that for me.

The MCA of 06 strips Habeus Corpus. The John Warner Act strips Posse Comitatus, and allows the president, for the first time in HISTORY, to have jurisdiction over a state's NG and Reserve units, superceding the respective governors. That means a president can declare martial law anywhere in the US or it's territories. It's right in there. Maybe you should read bills more. We all know that congress barely does.

I guess you missed the part where even Habeaus can be denied in time of invasion or revolt? If that can be removed under that threat then the Government can and does have the power to restrict other rights within reason during war time.

But more to the point, provide us a list of these rights we were stripped of by the Patriot act. I have ask before and never been provided one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Janet Reno was one of the most corrupt AGs we've ever head. Look at what she did while she was down in Florida. Talk about acting unconstitutionally.

The whole debacle in Waco could have been avoided by snatching Koresh on one of the numerous times per week we left the compound and went into town. If they'd done that, it would have been a non-story. I don't know what possessed them to storm the place, other than maybe they were trying to send some kind of message. It was a disaster and got a lot of people, including kids, killed.

The ATF wanted a big PUBLIC raid because the DEA had a couple big ones over the last couple years before that and these boobs thought they might lose money if they didn't do something big and public.

 

[Paulie]

The courts already ruled the Habeas issue was not constitutional and it does not apply in the Patriot act. So much for no oversight by the courts, ehh? Further the Constitution does NOT apply to foreign Nationals OUTSIDE the boundries of the US, no matter how you stretch the meaning of the term " the people" and the 4th still applies even under the Patriot act in that no information found with OUT a search warrant is admissable in Court. Thus no lose of rights under the 4th amendment.

Now if you want to talk about lose of protection and rights.... research the drug laws passed by the dems before the Congress was controlled by the Republicans and check out the Secret Courts allowed against legal aliens in this country also passed under Clinton before the Republicans gained control.

One allows the police to seize your money or property with nothing more than a claim you match a pattern that drug movers have used. You have no right to a court appearance, you have no legal rights to recover your money or property at all. Well except you can pay a bond for the AMOUNT of money or property seized and gain a court date where YOU have to prove your NOT guilty of trafficing drugs.

And the other allows secret courts to be convened and "trials" to be held against legal aliens and naturalized citizens with out ever informing them of any court or even any charges. These Courts can rule to strip them of their Naturalized citizenship and deport them and can also strip them of any green card they have and also deport them. No appeal, no day in court at all.

Well, I haven't seen the MCA of 2006 get rescinded yet. When I see that, I'll think differently about THAT issue. As for the Patriot Act, law enforcement uses it's sweeping powers everyday against American citizens suspected of crimes. You can get documentation of that by doing a simple search. Cops shouldn't have the right to see what Library books I've been checking out, for instance.

You didn't address Posse Comitatus, either. I was wrong about it never happening in history, though. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed after Civil War reconstruction. So since THEN, no president has ever had jurisdiction over "militias of the states", I.E. National Guard and Reserve. I haven't seen one instance of that one being challenged in Fed court. If you have a link to show me that, I'd love to see it.

Also please provide info that suggests Habeus Corpus is actually restored.

I also, by the way, agree with you about the drug laws that have been pased over the years. Someone like me, sees the War on Drugs in the same light as the War on Terrorism. A never-ending "war" used to justify the erosion of civil liberties. I'd much rather my Federal Government butt the fuck out, thank you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, I haven't seen the MCA of 2006 get rescinded yet. When I see that, I'll think differently about THAT issue. As for the Patriot Act, law enforcement uses it's sweeping powers everyday against American citizens suspected of crimes. You can get documentation of that by doing a simple search. Cops shouldn't have the right to see what Library books I've been checking out, for instance.

You didn't address Posse Comitatus, either. I was wrong about it never happening in history, though. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed after Civil War reconstruction. So since THEN, no president has ever had jurisdiction over "militias of the states", I.E. National Guard and Reserve. I haven't seen one instance of that one being challenged in Fed court. If you have a link to show me that, I'd love to see it.

Also please provide info that suggests Habeus Corpus is actually restored.

I also, by the way, agree with you about the drug laws that have been pased over the years. Someone like me, sees the War on Drugs in the same light as the War on Terrorism. A never-ending "war" used to justify the erosion of civil liberties. I'd much rather my Federal Government butt the fuck out, thank you.

I guess you missed where they had to charge or release a certain individual and could no longer hold him as a military prisoner? That they HAD to provide him access to a lawyer.

And since the Posse act is in fact not in the Constitution you have no leg to stand on for that one. Cite the amendment or the portion of the Constitution not some law passed by a previous Congress.

And there is NO right in the Constitution that protects you from being reported for what you do in a PUBLIC Space. Libraries are Public, even the College ones are Public. The ONLY argument you have is if they were to force a totally private library to disclose information THEY chose not to.

Further even the guys that have NEVER been in the US and were captured in a foreign country fighting against us have rights to lawyers.

I am waiting for that specific list of rights we have lost.

 

[Shogun]

The ATF wanted a big PUBLIC raid because the DEA had a couple big ones over the last couple years before that and these boobs thought they might lose money if they didn't do something big and public.

yea.. THATs it.. just a big scam to keep a bloated yearly budget.

 

[Lookout]

The simple fact is Koresh was never a threat. The local sheriff had him down to his office EVERY time he had a complaint. No guns drawn, no shooting, no siege, AND no dead children.

The ATF fucked up, they wanted a BIG raid to impress the Country because the DEA was getting all the coverage at the time.

Do I think Reno or Clinton had anything to do with the initial raid? NOT at all. It was a retarded decision by idiots for points. They planned it poorly, executed it even worse and left the FBI holding the dirty after effects.

However there NEVER was a reason to assault the compound. No one was trying to get out and in fact if they had, that would have been a BETTER result, easier to track one or two people down then attack a house full of kids with armed adults WAITING to die in JUST such an attack, The Branch Davidians were NO threat to any of their neighbors or any American anywhere at all.

Now remind us who decided to assault a compound FULL of children, with the knowledge the armed adults wanted to die in such an assault and with further knowledge the compound was rigged to be destroyed ( if we are to believe the FBI about why and how the fire started, they insist the Davidians set it up and that they know this from BEFORE the assault)

Now go off on a tangent and claim child abuse... a claim NEVER made until AFTER the siege began and most likely a political ploy to get the American people off the fact there never was a reason for the raid to begin with. Further not a reason to assault that compound and kill those kids.

Remind us how many times in the past TANKS were used to resolve stable under control hostage situations with no threat to the hostages except from the police?

Then remind us why Reno ordered ARMED men to later seize a 5 year old from his family that was neither armed nor had ever failed to produce the child when ordered ( In Florida, remember that one?) Two examples of Reno and a total disregard for law and order and the rights of our citizens.

And explain again how that LANDMARK decision about Abortion was not an idealogical one made by Liberals with no basis in law or the Constitution.

Cry all you want. Your ignorant claims are the partisan ones.

WOO-HOO

 

[Lookout]

I think that David Koresh was a wild card that no one could predict any more than Leo Ryan could predict being blown away when visiting Jonestown. In fact, when dealing with religious nutjobs the past doesn't indicate that they are quick to stand down or succumb to a siege. No, they have a nack for killing each other off as a final self-percieved effort to rebel against what they see as a total corrupt society. Name one fanatic group that finally gave up peacefully. I think that the spectre of Jonestown was fresh in the mind of America and Janet Reno would have been harpooned just the same had she sat back and WAITING for the people inside the compound to drink the grape FLAVOR-aid*.

Sure, it's easy to shit on Reno after the fact. Yet, I don't recall much coming out of the republican camp when they could sit back and let the brand new dem President and his admin deal with it.


Take a good look. THIS is what took sitting and waiting off the table.

Now, back to Scotus.





* people who use the term "kool-aid drinker" always get this wrong.

Thats why no one tells Guyana jokes anymore...The punch line is too long.

 

[Lookout]

As soon as the law passes I suspect it will go RIGHT to Federal Court. It is a violation of our rights under the Constitution.

What rights would that be? You, (I) have no rights anymore due to patriot act!!! The patriot act basically undermines the constitution making it invalid.

 

[Steerpike]

What rights would that be? You, (I) have no rights anymore due to patriot act!!! The patriot act basically undermines the constitution making it invalid.

If you had no rights left, you wouldn't be on the internet complaining about how you don't have any rights.