The Glade 4.0

I'm pretty sure they all wanted the guy caught. And they probably didn't want the cops to think they were hiding the guy. I can't see that going well.

They didn't really have much of a choice:

Oh. My. ****. God.

That is perhaps the most egregious violation of the 4th amendment I have ever seen.

There is absolutely no excuse for that. None whatsoever. Its one thing to do a house to house search, but completely another to pull citizens out of their houses with their hands up and then frisk them as if they were criminals.

I am sickened by this.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

4th Amendmants are lame. We're at WAR, man! You sidin' with the enemy? Which enemy, you ask? "ALL OF THEM" I say in my best Gestapo voice. We'll let you off easy if you call the police on yourself immediately for having seditious thoughts.



Also, this seriously. Where have you guys been? Once Obama took office all the Bush admin stuff people were up in arms about dissipated from the public discussion.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Remember, in most states, denying a search is now an admission of criminal activity not protected by the 5th.

_________________

Breathalyzer?

I was gonna say, "Nobody is gonna tell them to buzz off with a SWAT team in their face, assuming they even get the chance to answer before their doors are knocked in."

But then I saw RD's video, which pretty much sums it up.





Again, that's pretty much been my attitude since PATRIOT ACT, and even moreso since NDAA.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That video is sickening.

That video is the result of a Department of Justice and Administration with a demonstrated lack of respect for your Constitution and the rule of law. If you thought it was bad during George W. Bush's administration (and it was), it is WORSE now. These guys were convicted before the arraignment. One died in pursued, and regardless of whatever truth is or is not out there about the situation, we will never know beyond these brothers.

The Government does not care about your rights; government agencies, particularly under the current administration, view citizen rights as an impediment to their work and mission. The Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored, as the last year has taught us ...

And, yet, there are those of you who believe our elections still represent real choice, still have real power, and that we can exert influence on our government. The fallout of last week's tragedy is ever more realization that our government does not care about rule of law at any level. The sad part is that they are following the White House's example.

_________________

Here, saying the same crap, for 12 years?

Truly. Also - I'm assuming that a large number of people were armed. I would be.

Step one: There's a terrorist loose in your neighborhood.
Step two: Get gun.

So if people are carrying weapons in their own homes and invaded by a SWAT team - that's a dangerous situation.

Also known as Standard Operating Procedure these days.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Perhaps with terrorism manhunts like we just had, but not I believe for day to day police actions.

On the contrary:


In the Watertown video I posted, the cops were considerably less aggressive than they are in at least 50,000 entries each year. SWAT-style entries are becoming more and more the norm for routine matters.

Didn't they kick down the door of that 80 year old lady in Atlanta (maybe Philly?) and shoot her dead? I am thinking it was 2 or 3 years ago.

_________________

When do we get to mention the I word?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I'm actually really curious as to how the left has managed to avoid fracturing their base. The right has split into two camps that disagree on literally everything except gun rights. Why haven't the liberals who are upset about the unending wars, black sites, drone strikes, and warrantless searches formed their own camp?

Well, first off, I question the premise that the right has split into two camps. That said, I'll give two alternative explanations for the lack of a split on the left:

1. Republicans are just so much worse on those things, that there's really no alternative for liberals but to hold their nose on election day and complain about it on blogs the rest of the time.

2. Liberals elected Obama, who was supposedly against all those things, and then promptly ceased paying any attention whatsoever.

Personally, I fall into category 1.

RangerDave:

Statement #2 is true. Statement #1 is predicated on accepting a falsehood as true: the vast majority of American liberals BELIEVE "Republicans are just so much worse on those things" ... History tells a much different story about the parties than your rhetoric or contemporary myth tells.

_________________

Quick, can anybody name the party of the president who ordered citizens of Japanese descent to be placed in concentration camps?

Can anybody name the party that formed the Ku Klux Klan to stop blacks from voting?

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

That's the second iteration of the KKK; I imagine any serious discussion of the first iteration would make North Eastern Liberals REALLY uncomfortable.

_________________

Dated references are dated.

Really, because the current American Democratic Party is, by my count, the longest existing single political party on the planet.

_________________

Hmm. Let's grant you that point.

At what point do things "stop" becoming "dated," by which I assume you mean "not relevant?"

5 years? 10 years? 100 years? Because, if you were logically consistent, your stance could be taken to mean certain things that the Democratic party needs to STFU about, like Jim Crow (as just one of many examples that spring to mind).



I think you should read Rand Paul's speech to Howard. The GOP has consistently been pro-black, despite the current culture's belief to the contrary.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I think it's less a function of the pure passage of time than of intervening events / mechanisms of change. The US political system underwent a significant realignment over the course of the 60, 70s and 80s, resulting in the rural, white, southern, voters in the base of the Democratic Party shifting over to the Republican Party. On foreign affairs, the Vietnam War broke the centrist consensus, with the more hawkish gravitating toward the Republican Party and the more dovish gravitating toward the Democratic Party. And so on, and so forth.

Mostly, though, I'm just saying, "Which party was most closely associated with the KKK in 1865, and which party ordered the internment of Japanese Americans in 1945 are not particularly relevant to the question of which party is more inclined to torture a terrorism suspect in 2013, and even if there was some tenuous relevance, it would be completely overshadowed by more current and obvious data points (like, for example, Lindsay Graham's Twitter feed).