Um...

[conuly]

Isn't this illegal?

I'm sure there's an amendment about that... Let's see... *dredges up the 10th grade*

1. Speech, press, religion, assembly and petition
2. Bear arms
3. No quartering of soldiers in peacetime
4. No unreasonable search/seizures, "just cause"
5. No self-incriminating statements, no double jeopardy
6. Speedy, impartial jury trial
7. Trial by jury for civil suits >$20
8. No excessive bail, no cruel and unusual punishments
9. This list doesn't mean there aren't other rights
10. Rights not covered by the constitution are ceded to the states

Comments

[hlw.livejournal.com]

1. Freedom of speech, religion assembly and petition
This doesn't grant you the right to say anything. The standard of "Fire in a movie theater" remains.

2. Bear Arms What this has to do with the FBI's investigation is beyond me. Anyhow the argument here remains "A well regulated militia being necessary..."

3. No quartering of soldiers in peacetime Again, What this has to do with the FBI's investigation is beyond me.

4. No unreasonable search/seizures, "just cause" . Have these people been compelled to testify? Have they received subpoena's,? Have they been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify?

5. No self-incriminating statements, no double jeopardy. Have they been held in contempt of court [and subsequently jailed] for refusing to testify?, The 5 amendment is for self-incrimination. If given immunity from prosecution you cannot refuse to testify.

6-10 Once again, what does this have to do with the investigation?

Seems to me the FBI is between the rock and the hard place. Published reports indicate that there are anarchy groups looking to disrupt the convention. (see seattle and other places)

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<img [...] ">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i>1. Freedom of speech, religion assembly and petition</i>
This doesn't grant you the right to say <b> anything</b>. The standard of "Fire in a movie theater" remains.

<i> 2. Bear Arms </i> What this has to do with the FBI's investigation is beyond me. Anyhow the argument here remains "A well regulated militia being necessary..."

<i> 3. No quartering of soldiers in peacetime </i> Again, What this has to do with the FBI's investigation is beyond me.

<i> 4. No unreasonable search/seizures, "just cause" </i>. Have these people been compelled to testify? Have they received subpoena's,? Have they been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify?

<i> 5. No self-incriminating statements, no double jeopardy. </i> Have they been held in contempt of court [and subsequently jailed] for refusing to testify?, The 5 amendment is for self-incrimination. If given immunity from prosecution you cannot refuse to testify.

<i> 6-10 </i> Once again, what does this have to do with the investigation?

Seems to me the FBI is between the rock and the hard place. Published reports indicate that there are anarchy groups looking to disrupt the convention. (see seattle and other places) <img src="http://newmediaphoto.com/WTO/TG-WTO-05.JPG"">

If they take action they are condemned, if they don't and something happens they are crucified.

Gathering intelligence doesn't seem to be a bad way to approach this. I dont see anyone's individual rights violated.

[conuly]

*yawns*

If you were paying attention, you'd've seen that I was listing the entire bill of rights, regardless of appropriateness. Duh. I was also not defending any individual right. Please try again, and if you post any more pictures that aren't yours, prepare to have your comments deleted and yourself banned. I don't like bandwidth theft, not from people I don't even know.

[conuly]

Also, kindly take a minute to learn about the appropriate use of the apostrophe. If you are confused, please start using LiveJournal's spell-check feature.

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

I noticed! I noticed! :-)

[conuly]

Seriously. I'd thought it was obvious that I was just listing them all until I found the right one... but apparently not. Oh well. I suppose I am obscure sometimes. And you're no proof that I'm not :)

[literalgirl.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[eofs.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I thought that was what you were doing. And it was very interesting, since I only previously knew 1, 2 and 5.

[conuly]

That's all ANYbody knows. Very annoying.

But we can all recite the Miranda Warning:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say...

[eofs.livejournal.com]

In my defence, I don't need to know the ammendments to the American constitution ;0)

You know, US media has so firmly ingrained your version into my head that I simply could not remember what we get (never having had the experience ;0) "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence is you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court."

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

I dont see anyone's individual rights violated.

How about right to privacy? Right to peaceful assembly? You might think investigation isn't an impediment to peaceful protest, but those who remember what the McCarthy hearings were like know what "investigation" can do to a person.

[conuly]

Ah, but those rights not enumerated in the constitution don't count.

Oh wait...

YEAH THEY DO!