Opinions large and small, worth everything you pay for them.
Got to say (and probably won't be popular for saying it), that the author of the PJ piece strikes me as a dirty little Machiavellian prag.If he is willing to countenance exceptions to the constitution, the only question is then entirely subjective - at what level of threshold do such exceptions kick in?You either have a constitution or you don't, if you allow exceptions to it, what is the point of having it*?I've posted a few places that it isn't so many years since Boston was the fund raising centre for groups planting bombs in Britain. and back in those times US cops and firemen could be found marching in their uniforms behind an IRA bomber who was leading them in a Paddy's day parade.at times the US was notably less than cooperative about extraditing bombers, and during the Kennedy presidency, British Intelligence was passed out through the US embassy in Dublin.Two wrongs don't make a right - I don't think anyone in Boston deserved this - anyone at all.That said, many are showing a remarkable lack of balls now that the action which so many of them gave money to fund on a much much bigger scale in Britain, has happened on a pissy little scale ammongst them. __________________________________________________* what you are heading towards is having a constitution which protects the powers, privileges and budgets of the military- federal-police state complex, and its love of dropping bombs and drone strikes on innocent bystanders - and the rest of you can go...If you are going to have that piece of parchment (I would argue that you (and the rest of the world) would be far better off burning it and going to the articles of confederation - but it certainly isn't my call) all of it applies equally and all of the time, or non of it applies.
Almost forgotWhile the city was under martial law (sorry "lockdown") and the columns of the unconstitutional standing army (paramilitarized cops) were filling in time between stops at dunkin donuts...http://joelsgulch.com/?p=5635I wonder how many unconstitutional warrantless searches they got away with under the cover of "crisis"
White Feminist Woman at Georgetown University working in the admissions department openly admitted that she REJECTED white men's applications simply because they were WHITE MEN.Brief: A female advisor in the admissions department at Georgetown University has been caught openly admitting that she committed the CRIME of discrimination based on people's race and gender in the application process.This has the potential to create a large scale lawsuit against Georgetown University, and with the momentum building at the rate it is building, seems very likely that will be the outcome.Below are the main links to all of the information regarding this news story and case.http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums2/tabid/369/forumid/232/threadid/6149/scope/posts/Default.aspxhttp://www.avoiceformen.com/georgetown-university-and-men/georgetown-university-in-a-cover-up/
There is no "Miranda right" as such.Miranda warnings are optional.Skipping Mirandizing only means that the statements so obtained usually won't be admissible in court (barring a few exceptions, like Real No-crap Necessity).But there is no "right" to be read the warning as such.(If they were, say, looking to apprehend potential Fellow Conspirators, well, it seems worthwhile to skip the Miranda warning about "you can totally not tell us a thing!" to get him to talk, I think.If he's a Jihadi, he'll probably want to confess anyway, after they Mirandize him, because he'll be proud of his actions.)
Which brings us back to 'So why are they so insistent that troops have to read them to the enemy?'I know, I know, I'm asking for an intelligent answer to this crap
Post a Comment