It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Constitution , Executive order & the army's obligation

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
If you check with the Transit Authority, I will bet they have a Court Order allowing them to conduct said searches. It will also be listed on the signs warning you as you enter.


By Court Order, I mean warrant. It differs in that it is a 'general' order, giving officials the freedom to make those decisions on a case by case basis. Come on, if they did not do this, do you think it would be safe to fly, take a bus or train, do business in any government building? If they were restricted in the way you mention, terrorists would have a very easy job! Now going into your home is a different matter altogether! The Constitution was designed to ensure public safety, not endanger it. If the police and transit authorities did not have this ability, then Akhmed would have a much easier time blowing that subway up that you speak of. Is that the world you want to live in? Seriously, folks, let's use some common sense here. The primary job of the Government is to keep us safe from "enemies, both foriegn and domestic"!

[edit on 28-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]




posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


The question is about constitutionality, not fear-mongering rhetoric and wether or not we should circumvent the Constitution in the name of "public safety."

This is precisely what Benjamin Franklin was talking about when he said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

You are the threat to freedom, not the "terrorists."



Come on, if they did not do this, do you think it would be safe to fly, take a bus or train, do business in any government building?


Yes I do.



Now going into your home is a different matter altogether!


You can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like and don't like. It doesn't just say your house. It says, once again...


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...




The Constitution was designed to ensure public safety, not endanger it.


But safety from what? The Constitution was created to protect the people from the government!



If the police and transit authorities did not have this ability, then Akhmed would have a much easier time blowing that subway up that you speak of.


You can't stop him no matter what you do.



Is that the world you want to live in?


Yes, I would rather die than not live free.



The primary job of the Government is to keep us safe from "enemies, both foriegn and domestic"!


Yes, and the domestic enemies come armed with your brand of rhetoric and propoganda.

I am not afraid of the terrorists, and I know people who died on 9/11, so don't go shredding up the Constitution on my account.

Every liberty that we sacrifice is a victory for the terrorists.

[edit on 9/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


What you propose is Anarchy. I don't believe that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind at all. You seem to be avoiding the issue of 'probable cause', and that is the basis of blanket search warrants. If there is past instances of violence or terrorism on transportation, then there is probable cause, and therefore it is Constitutional. I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances. The only people who have to worry about these types of searches are those with something to hide, and such searches to not impede on my freedom whatsoever. What you propose is a 'toothless' law enforcement structure.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



What you propose is Anarchy.


No, what I propose is Constitutional Republic. Where did you get anarchy from? There's a big difference between freedom and anarchy.



You seem to be avoiding the issue of 'probable cause', and that is the basis of blanket search warrants.


Well terrorists have homes too. Maybe we should just put cameras in everyone's homes "just to be safe."


There is a world if difference between probable cause and blanket searches. It's too bad that you don't see what it is.



If there is past instances of violence or terrorism on transportation, then there is probable cause, and therefore it is Constitutional.


No, not Constitutional. "Legal?" Yes. Constitutional? No. Most terrorists are men, now we have "probable cause" to search all men.
Maybe we should have warrantless searches of book-depository buildings, and U-Haul trucks too.




I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances.


No wonder why we're in so much trouble then.




The only people who have to worry about these types of searches are those with something to hide, and such searches to not impede on my freedom whatsoever.


That is the weakest of arguments, that is parroted all too often. If you have nothing to hide, maybe we should put a camera in your bedroom too.

These searches do impede freedom. One person that I know lost their job, because they were late getting to work because of a subway bag search. But let me give a few other hypotheticals.

You are with a client, going from one office uptown, to another office downtown. You happen to have a nudey book in your briefcase. Embarrising enough, but you might lose your client as well.

What about secret materials, or documents? People are allowed to have secrets without breaking any laws. In fact, secrets in business are very prevelant.

This last exmaple is another true story. Man and woman go shopping for the holidays. Cop insists on searching bags. Holiday surprise ruined.

[edit on 9/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


OK, then let's do as you propose. Let's get rid of security checkpoints at all the airports. Let's get rid of transit security, that will save alot of money. We will just wait until something actually happens until we allow law enforcement to react. And to the blantant insult to the service of my country, FU!!!!


Republic

1. a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them [syn: democracy]

2. a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president"


Last I checked, we still fall under this definition. If such searches were unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court would have already addressed this issue as we have been doing this at airports for decades, long before 9/11 and the Bush Administration. If you do not want to be subject to said searches, you are free to find alternate transportation. It is the duty and responibility of the Goverment and Law Enforcement to protect the safety of the public at large. As for your example, the individual in question should have requested privacy during said search due to the sensitivity of their belongings. If Law Enforcement refuses to do so, then you do have a point.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Not much privacy in a subway station first of all. But more importantly, I shouldn't be being harassed by the police in the first place, according the the Consitution, just because you are scared. The police can't protect you, and it is not their job to protect you. They are there to enforce law. Do it the other way around, and everyone is a criminal waiting to prove themselves innocent. And that my friend, is not what the Constitution is about at all. That is fascism and a totalitarian state.

Do you really think that we still elect our officials?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 
The police can't protect you, and it is not their job to protect you. They are there to enforce law.


Hmm, so 'To Protect and Serve' is a BS motto of Law Enforcement? And what is the purpose of law?


Do you really think that we still elect our officials?


Yes I do. And if you don't, feel free to go somewhere where they do.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



Hmm, so 'To Protect and Serve' is a BS motto of Law Enforcement?


Bingo.



And what is the purpose of law?


Social order.



Yes I do.


I would suggest that you do some research into the voting process as it stands today, but somehow I get the feeling that you wouldn't even recognize what is plain. We haven't elected a President since Kennedy.






[edit on 9/29/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Jackinthebox
Jaxon Robert

I can understand where you are both coming from and the debate between the two of you is most interesting and very constitutional


I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the report that the US army will start patrolling US streets starting this Oct . Assuming that the report is accurate .



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


I find that to be highly plauseable. While I would certainly find that to be very un-Constitutional and very totalitarian indeed, I am sure that my esteemed opponent would argue with great exuberence that the Patriot Act is completely Constitutional and necessary for our safety.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


In the end, there is a big difference between true Constitutionality and what you deem to be "necessary" for our safety. Subway bag searches, for example once again, are indeed un-Constitutional, wether or not you think that they are necessary. Even if I believed that they were in fact necessary and kept us safe, that does not change the words of the Constitution which specifically prohibit such action. Now you can argue that we have sort of outlived the usefulness and practicality of the document, but black is not white and up is not down.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Max_TO
 


I would agree that if the Military starts to patrol the streets, it is not Constitutional. And the Patriot Act is extremely flawed, and so not necessary and parts are not Constitutional at all. While I would agree that the Government should track hits on overseas Islamic Jihadist websites, especially those originating within our borders, the 'Big Brother' aspects of that act do worry me.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Why would troops on the streets not be Constitutional? Especially in neighborhoods that might have terrorists in them, like MS-13.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I stand corrected. It is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibits that.

Source.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Wait a minute, what? You said this earlier...



I spent 8 years defending the Constitution, so I would be the last person to justify any suspension of it, under any circumstances.


...and you just found out what Posse Comitatus is? How exactly did you spend those eight years?



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
In the event that the bottom drops out of the economy and all of the doom and gloom people here are predicting, it only makes sense to have a force prepared to restore some semblance of order. I don't really think any of this is going to happen though.

The reason this brigade has been placed under the authority of the North Region is because they are returning to the States. They will no longer be in the Middle East so they can't remain under their command. Anyone that inchops/deploys to another theatre always gets placed under the command of the CINC of that theatre.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Sorry, I wasn't in the legal department during my tours. So what? What the blue hell does that have to do with anything? Or are you just trying to insult my service to my country again? The fact is that I did know that it was not legal for US military forces to deploy on US soil. Apparently you are just trying to be argumentative.

Now getting back to the topic of this thread. In order for this to happen, 'King George' would have to have the backing of 218 members of the House of Representatives, 50 members of the Senate, all 50 State Governors and 5 Supreme Court Justices. Now that's one hell of a conspiracy! If you give that much credit to the C- student and his cronies, then I suggest you put your tin-foil hat back on and hide under your bed until the sky falls.

This is not even taking into account the massive desertion rate that would run rampant through the military, the total recall of all US troops overseas, and the fact that our military has taken 5 years to finally get control over most of Iraq, a country only slightly larger than the State of California, and a population of 29 million people! Now you think that they can just waltz in and take control of a country that is 22.5 times the size of Iraq and a population of over 300 million people, 34% of which own 200 million guns! Do you really think this is even possible????

[edit on 29-9-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RealityisanIllusion
 


You may want to study up on the bill of rights, constitution, federalist papers and the various legal and scholar writings on them. Americans have a god given right to modify, reconstitute or if necessary, overthrow their government if it becomes a vehicle of oppression and violates our rights. It is not treason or sedition to discuss that fact, a government in compliance with our constitution and bill of rights has nothing to worry about, one which is not is subject to the voter's booth or even armed resistance if necessary.

Our founding fathers were very clear on rights we were guaranteed should these things become necessary.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Here's an idea guaranteed to generate heart burn! Next time you get stopped for any reason, or approached to be searched by any LE, ask them politely for their probable cause?

A professional will rattle off the PC faster than you can follow.
A mope will not answer and probably threaten you if you don't
do what they say.

I get stopped by LE all the time for doing nothing illegal. When they do, I ask them what their probable cause is/was. Again, the pros rattle it off instantly. The bogarters out there make excuses, or say something stupid like-you were clocked at 72 in a 69 zone when I was doing 20 coming away from a street light in a 35 zone. The sharp ones say something that neither side can prove in an attempt to generate probable cause.

Then I badge them and they go- awww shucks!- have a nice day!



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


A cop can always find PC. "You fit the description" is popular with minorities.

Here in NYS we have a color coded, yearly, vehicle safety and emissions inspection sticker on the lower corner of the windshield. I decided to push the PC issue with a cop one night, and I got a ticket for the sticker being out of place by a half inch, another for it being "obstructed" by some grime, and a third for it being "tampered with."

The placement of the sticker is done by a licensed shop (except for temp stickers issued by DMV directly), so there wasn't much I could do about that, nor was I even aware that there was such an exact regulation. I thought it was pretty much just "lower driver-side corner."

The "obstruction" was street grime from the sand and crap they throw on the road in the winter here. Creates a nice, fine, "mud" spray from any car in front of you whenever the roads get wet. You might go through a whole bottle of washer fluid in one round trip to the mall if the conditions are right, and of course your wipers don't cover the entire windshield.

The "tampering" was the piece of Scotch-tape I used to reattach one corner that was peeling because the original sticky back glue didn't hold.

Long story short, I was convicted on all three counts and paid over two-hundred bucks for asking for probable cause.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join