The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[Charade]

Here's another part of that Constitution:

But we know that warrentless searches are possible within those guidelines. It doesn't say no searches whatsoever without a warrant.

 

[Fitswimmer]

But we know that warrentless searches are possible within those guidelines. It doesn't say no searches whatsoever without a warrant.

There have to be compelling reasons. The Supreme Court has set precedents on this:

McDonald v US

'Where, as here, officers are not responding to an emergency, there must be compelling reasons to justify the absence of a search warrant. A search without a warrant demands exceptional circumstances... We are not dealing with formalities. The presence of a search warrant serves a high function. Absent some grave emergency, the Fourth Amendment has interposed the magistrate between the citizen and the police. This was not done to shield criminals nor to make the home a safe haven for illegal activities. It was done so that the objective mind might weigh the need to invade that privacy in order to enforce the law. The right of privacy was deemed too precious to entrust to the discretion of those whose job is the detection of crime and the arrest of criminals... And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home. We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of a search warrant without showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.'

 

[Charade]

There have to be compelling reasons. The Supreme Court has set precedents on this:

McDonald v US

I understand that but many opponents have stated "get a warrant!". I'm just saying a warrant isn't needed in every case. And so does the SCOTUS.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I understand that but many opponents have stated "get a warrant!". I'm just saying a warrant isn't needed in every case. And so does the SCOTUS.

When it comes to the police, they've got to see blood, hear screaming or hear shooting in order to go barging into someone's home. Real probable cause situations.

There MUST be a balance, some kind of check that the Executive Branch is really using these powers correctly. As it stands, any Administration can define "national security" as anything they want-and I'm not real happy with any administration having that kind of unfettered power.

 

[Charade]

When it comes to the police, they've got to see blood, hear screaming or hear shooting in order to go barging into someone's home. Real probable cause situations.

There MUST be a balance, some kind of check that the Executive Branch is really using these powers correctly. As it stands, any Administration can define "national security" as anything they want-and I'm not real happy with any administration having that kind of unfettered power.

What kind of a "national security" circumstance would you consider similar to "blood or screaming or shooting" that would prompt the authorities to intervene without a warrant and that'd you be OK with?

 

[Fitswimmer]

What kind of a "national security" circumstance would you consider similar to "blood or screaming or shooting" that would prompt the authorities to intervene without a warrant and that'd you be OK with?

So now I have to articulate specific scenarios?? Please. I think I've made my position on this issue very clear.

 

[dejr_8]

When it comes to the police, they've got to see blood, hear screaming or hear shooting in order to go barging into someone's home. Real probable cause situations.

Charade nails it - there are National Security equivalents to "hearing screaming and shooting".

You just can't accept that.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Charade nails it - there are National Security equivalents to "hearing screaming and shooting".

You just can't accept that.

That's where you're wrong. I can accept it-I just don't want the decision made in a vacuum. I want someone besides the Oval Office involved to insure that an emergency is really a danger to the country, and not a danger to the administration's power. I would think all Americans would want that.

 

[Charade]

That's where you're wrong. I can accept it-I just don't want the decision made in a vacuum. I want someone besides the Oval Office involved to insure that an emergency is really a danger to the country, and not a danger to the administration's power. I would think all Americans would want that.

That logic would require the police to "get permission" (from someone) before intervening in a situation that involved "blood, screaming and shooting".

 

[Fitswimmer]

That logic would require the police to "get permission" (from someone) before intervening in a situation that involved "blood, screaming and shooting".

That's taking it to the extreme and I really think you know darn well that's not what I'm saying.

Before I get into any trouble, I'm opting out.

 

[dejr_8]

That's taking it to the extreme and I really think you know darn well that's not what I'm saying.

Before I get into any trouble, I'm opting out.

But see the terrorists are already taking it to the extreme because they want to KILL us.

 

[chris1gill]

They probably monitor all your DISboard posts as well.

No doubt they do my friend... which of course makes me unhappy about the loss of habius corpus....

 

[chris1gill]

They've got my prints too, I worked for the DOD!

this is one of those issues that I can't believe people aren't outraged over. I just don't see why it's labeled a "Democrat" or "Liberal" issue-it's not. It's an AMERICAN issue.

Same here Fits, worked for the DOD as well.. many of us have in the past and or present...

Habius Corpus is a Constitutional issue, not Democratic not Republican, AMERICAN issue... you are quite correct.

 

[chris1gill]

It's not really the fingerprints for most of us. It's about the ability of this or any future government to imprison people, render people, listen to their phone calls, read their emails, check out their borrowing history from the library or track their purchases without a warrant and for no other reason than the nebulous "threat to national security."

What kind of threat? Who decides what constitutes a threat? What governmental branch balances that power?

This is completely true, not so interested in the fingerprint issue... I'm more interested in my tapped telephone, my emails being read, and possibly being imprisoned because I do not care for the current President or his policies. As Habius Corpus has been removed, I now run the risk of being imprisoned because of my stated stance, as do many of us who say anything other than those who say they love George Bush and what he's done .... Afterall who determines what is a threat to National Security? What exactly is a threat? It could be deemed just about anything that is not in the lockstep with current policy.

 

[dejr_8]

Same here Fits, worked for the DOD as well.. many of us have in the past and or present...

Habius Corpus is a Constitutional issue, not Democratic not Republican, AMERICAN issue... you are quite correct.

Please correct if I am wrong but Habius Corpus was NOT suspended for US Citizens.

I believe - and I wish the coutry adopted the idea - that Constitutional Rights ONLY apply to US Citizens.

 

[Fitswimmer]

This is completely true, not so interested in the fingerprint issue... I'm more interested in my tapped telephone, my emails being read, and possibly being imprisoned because I do not care for the current President or his policies. As Habius Corpus has been removed, I now run the risk of being imprisoned because of my stated stance, as do many of us who say anything other than those who say they love George Bush and what he's done .... Afterall who determines what is a threat to National Security? What exactly is a threat? It could be deemed just about anything that is not in the lockstep with current policy.

and it's not just GW, now that the precedent has been set ANY President could decide to go after their enemies in the name of national security-which is why I simply cannot understand why only one side is upset about it.

 

[Charade]

That's taking it to the extreme and I really think you know darn well that's not what I'm saying.

Before I get into any trouble, I'm opting out.

That's not extreme, that's logic. Don't run away. Discuss this logically and rationally. I'm trying to.

 

[Charade]

and it's not just GW, now that the precedent has been set ANY President could decide to go after their enemies in the name of national security-which is why I simply cannot understand why only one side is upset about it.

If *this* president or any other president actually does that and not use those extended powers to just prevent terrorist attacks on us, I will stand by you and be just as upset and demand justice.

You seem to be upset about the potential for abuse. I'm not because I hope they wouldn't get away with it. That's where we differ in opinion.

 

[eclectics]

post edited by request.

 

[TCPluto]

When it comes to the police, they've got to see blood, hear screaming or hear shooting in order to go barging into someone's home. Real probable cause situations.

There MUST be a balance, some kind of check that the Executive Branch is really using these powers correctly. As it stands, any Administration can define "national security" as anything they want-and I'm not real happy with any administration having that kind of unfettered power.

You're quite wrong about this.