Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Government?

Former prosecutor admits wrongdoing during trial | News - Home (http://www.click2houston.com/news/judge-admits-texting-assistant-district-attorney-during-trial/-/1735978/20843250/-/urq4sqz/-/index.html)


It's not just the politicians either. Both of these people should be disbarred for life from practicing law.

So much government fail in one single Yahoo article, Yahoo! (http://news.yahoo.com/us-suspect-possibly-targeted-drone-attack-091333349--politics.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed. [so why is the administration wrestling at all, they don't even have a complete case]

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil[so drone strikes into a country who denies military action(and we are not at war with) is ok?] and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.[italicized comments are mine obviously]

The article goes on, and I am sure this guy probably means harm to US citizens, but it's a bit outrageous, with all the different ways the government has to get a guilty verdict if it wants one, that they aren't going to at the very least put him on trial in absentia.

iSideWith.com (http://www.isidewith.com/)

another poll site. I am sure it's been on here before, but here was my results if anyone else wants to post theirs. I certainly wasn't surprised by mine:

Parties you side with...
83%Libertarians
Libertarians
on foreign policy, domestic policy, social, healthcare, and education issues.

75%Green Party
Green Party
on foreign policy, domestic policy, immigration, and science issues.

74%Democrats
Democrats
on domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration, social, and science issues.

63%Republicans
Republicans
on environmental and education issues.

37%Socialist
Socialist
no major issues.

75% Libertarian: foreign policy, economic, education, health care, domestic policy, social issues;
70% Republican: domestic, economic, environmental, health care, education
57% Democrats: environmental, science
37% Green: foreign policy, environment, science
12% Socialist: foreign policy

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uOyAra6Z)

Fuck this government and our corrupt Supreme Court.

Republican 67% Economic, Domestic, and Immigration
Green Party 65% Social, Science, Environmental, Foreign and Education
Libertarians 64% Economic, Foreign and Immigration
Democratic 60% Foreign, Science, Envoronmental and Education
Socialist 54% Social, Science, and Foreign

Kinda all over the place.

Supreme Court ruling expands police authority in home searches - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uOyAra6Z)

Fuck this government and our corrupt Supreme Court.

Well, on its face, it's not beyond the pale. Essentially, if the sole occupant of residence says "Yes, you can search" than police have the right to make a warrantless search. All the individual need do is say, "No. You need a warrant" and the police have to leave - so it's not like they are being given carte blanche to conduct home searches.

With that said ... I disagree with the holding because it essentially allows someone else to waive my constitutional protections. If I say "No. You need a warrant before entering", why should any other resident be able to essentially negate my constitutional protections against warrantless search if I happen to step out to get a pack of smokes.

The potential for abuse is HUGE. Husband and wife at home, police show up with probable cause to arrest husband (someone down the street gets robbed, says guy - matching husband's general description - ran into/behind/around the home). Husband says "You can't search" police arrest him take him away. As they do so, they say to wife "Well, you saw what happened there, we'd like to take a look around - do you mind?". That's just one scenario, folks here can probably think of lots more equally reasonable ones.

Once a resident says "no search", that should remain in effect until rescinded by THAT resident OR a warrant is obtained.

chip, chip, chip .... Hear that sound? It is the protection of the rights of the innocent slowly being removed in order to provide expeditious safety for the cowardly.

Well, on its face, it's not beyond the pale. Essentially, if the sole occupant of residence says "Yes, you can search" than police have the right to make a warrantless search. All the individual need do is say, "No. You need a warrant" and the police have to leave - so it's not like they are being given carte blanche to conduct home searches.

With that said ... I disagree with the holding because it essentially allows someone else to waive my constitutional protections. If I say "No. You need a warrant before entering", why should any other resident be able to essentially negate my constitutional protections against warrantless search if I happen to step out to get a pack of smokes.

The potential for abuse is HUGE. Husband and wife at home, police show up with probable cause to arrest husband (someone down the street gets robbed, says guy - matching husband's general description - ran into/behind/around the home). Husband says "You can't search" police arrest him take him away. As they do so, they say to wife "Well, you saw what happened there, we'd like to take a look around - do you mind?". That's just one scenario, folks here can probably think of lots more equally reasonable ones.

Once a resident says "no search", that should remain in effect until rescinded by THAT resident OR a warrant is obtained.

chip, chip, chip .... Hear that sound? It is the protection of the rights of the innocent slowly being removed in order to provide expeditious safety for the cowardly.
Wow, I am actually defending the gov't and you are knocking it. I know it's cold but I didn't think it's that cold!

I really don't see this is an unreasonable chipping away of protection (which amazes me to say the least).

Since in this case at least, they left and then came back, it was not like they ignored the statement not to search, but when they came back they re-visited the issue. Suppose they had not arrested the man, he cleaned everything up, and they came back, he certainly could have said go ahead. Since she was a resident there (that is pure assumption), she was acting in that same manner. That she didn't clean things up was stupidity but I don't think it was the police acting in an act of bad faith, or against constitutional protection.

Especially in the case of married couples, which this was not, you have great leeway in terms of what you can do for the other person. Allowing a search of common property would seem to be one of those things.

St. Louis County mother furious after being arrested for consoling son | KMOV.com St. Louis (http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Mother-arrested-at-school-for-consoling-son-in-local-classroom-251349481.html)

What the fuck is wrong with our country when shit like this happens? How can a person like this be in charge? Why isn't she fired immediately and replaced with somebody with common sense?

If you keep telling yourself how "free" you are, you are in denial.

St. Louis County mother furious after being arrested for consoling son | KMOV.com St. Louis (http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Mother-arrested-at-school-for-consoling-son-in-local-classroom-251349481.html)

What the fuck is wrong with our country when shit like this happens? How can a person like this be in charge? Why isn't she fired immediately and replaced with somebody with common sense?

If you keep telling yourself how "free" you are, you are in denial.

That's pretty inept of the principal. I wonder if there was some petty motivations here, reading between the lines of the following sentences:

She was taken to the police station on trespassing charges but Williams said she is a known parent. In fact, she met with the principal on Wednesday about a separate issue.

I agree that the principal ought to be reprimanded, but she won't be because she followed the rules regardless of the common sense that you want her to use.