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

[stephen72.livejournal.com]

Hi I don't have anything important to say. I just wanted to have the pleasure of posting on your blog. I feel special now. Don't you?
Do you find cnn to be rather biased? I guess it's better than fox news though.
Time to make delicious tea.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

They're not preventing you from doing anything, just "investigating." No laws have been broken but that doesn't make it right.

[conuly]

It's really iffy territory. I'd say that anything that so blatantly violates the spirit of the constitution (and we're assuming that this part of the constitution is a good thing) needs to be smited.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

There's pretty well established case law on this. Just as the FBI was able to do it to John Kerry and Martin Luther King Jr., the courts have over and over said as long as the cops aren't explicitly saying, "You can't do what you're doing because we don't like it," then it goes.

You would think we had done away with cop intimidating tatics like this in the 1920s.

[conuly]

Well, there's not going to be a winning supreme court case against this THIS year....

[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.

[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!

[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."

[shavedapebaby.livejournal.com]

This is all part of the conservative drive to return America to the good old days. COINTELPRO... Tail Gunner Joe... the Sedition Act...

Thanks for the memories, John Ashcroft!

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I still don't see what the problem is here. There's nothing unconstitutional about what they're doing. The Miranda warnings totally don't apply here. The FBI is simply following well established procedure.

BTW, as far as people who say "something is unconstitutional"... It's not us who decides that - it's the court. If the court says something isn't unconstitutional, it's not. The constitution specifically gives the court that explicit power. You don't like what the court decides? Vote for people who agree with you.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

The Miranda warnings totally don't apply here.

I don't believe she's saything they do. They were only brought up once I went off on a tangent about not knowing the individual amendments and she commented that most people don't, although everyone can remember the Miranda warning (and I presume what went unsaid was "due to its over use on television.")

[conuly]

You don't like what the court decides? Vote for people who agree with you.

That doesn't make any sense. Judges are appointed, not elected.

And I do think that this constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. I really, truly do. I can decide for myself if I think it's constitutional, just so long as I realize that this matters not a whit in the making of public policy.

[stephen72.livejournal.com]

Hi I don't have anything important to say. I just wanted to have the pleasure of posting on your blog. I feel special now. Don't you?
Do you find cnn to be rather biased? I guess it's better than fox news though.
Time to make delicious tea.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

They're not preventing you from doing anything, just "investigating." No laws have been broken but that doesn't make it right.

[conuly]

It's really iffy territory. I'd say that anything that so blatantly violates the spirit of the constitution (and we're assuming that this part of the constitution is a good thing) needs to be smited.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

There's pretty well established case law on this. Just as the FBI was able to do it to John Kerry and Martin Luther King Jr., the courts have over and over said as long as the cops aren't explicitly saying, "You can't do what you're doing because we don't like it," then it goes.

You would think we had done away with cop intimidating tatics like this in the 1920s.

[conuly]

Well, there's not going to be a winning supreme court case against this THIS year....

[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.

[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!

[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."

[shavedapebaby.livejournal.com]

This is all part of the conservative drive to return America to the good old days. COINTELPRO... Tail Gunner Joe... the Sedition Act...

Thanks for the memories, John Ashcroft!

[stejcruetekie.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I still don't see what the problem is here. There's nothing unconstitutional about what they're doing. The Miranda warnings totally don't apply here. The FBI is simply following well established procedure.

BTW, as far as people who say "something is unconstitutional"... It's not us who decides that - it's the court. If the court says something isn't unconstitutional, it's not. The constitution specifically gives the court that explicit power. You don't like what the court decides? Vote for people who agree with you.

[eofs.livejournal.com]

The Miranda warnings totally don't apply here.

I don't believe she's saything they do. They were only brought up once I went off on a tangent about not knowing the individual amendments and she commented that most people don't, although everyone can remember the Miranda warning (and I presume what went unsaid was "due to its over use on television.")

[conuly]

You don't like what the court decides? Vote for people who agree with you.

That doesn't make any sense. Judges are appointed, not elected.

And I do think that this constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. I really, truly do. I can decide for myself if I think it's constitutional, just so long as I realize that this matters not a whit in the making of public policy.