Slippery Slope - Anything For Safety

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Slippery Slope - Anything For Safety
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Dec 2, 2011 2:49 AM
BGFalcons82;996821 wrote:Huh...just what some of us have been warning others about - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD1T61oTrR8&sns=fb

I'll bet you didn't know that a bipartisan group of senators wants to claim all of American soil is a battlefield and therefore subject to the rules of war. Can't say I'm shocked.
This makes the patriot act look like it should be included in the bill of rights.

The constitution is quite clear on this.

Article I Section 9 Clause 2:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

It can only be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion. But not just because of the aforementioned have occured. Only if they also pose a direct threat to public safety.

There is no rebellion or invasion going on. These senators are clearly operating outside of the constitution. To Obama's credit he says he will veto this. I don't think his grounds for doing so is it directly violates this clause of constitution.
Dec 2, 2011 2:49am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 2, 2011 8:34 AM
[video=youtube;iD1T61oTrR8][/video]
Dec 2, 2011 8:34am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Dec 2, 2011 9:16 PM
These fucking people, when will this shit stop?

Sen. Thomas Harken (IA), Rand Paul (KY), Thomas Coburn (OK), Jeff Merkley (OR), Ron Wyden (OR), Mike Lee (UT), and Bernard Sanders (VT).

Those are the names of the 7 Senators that have a fucking conscience. 3 Ds, 3 Rs, 1 I.

The rest of them are assholes.

Obama better fucking veto this.
Dec 2, 2011 9:16pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Dec 2, 2011 9:41 PM
Of course, there is NO such thing as the slippery slope, right? Everyone except a few on here have NO problem with the TSA, with government intrusion. Where will it end? How many rights must we give up? That bill is the biggest piece of shit I've ever seen, yet people will go right along with it because they are so scared of the fucking bogeyman that they want the government to protect them. Disgusting. All of you who had dads,grandparents, etc fight for our freedoms should go to your parents/grandparents and apologize for being such fucking scared pussies and shredding our Constitution.
Dec 2, 2011 9:41pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Dec 2, 2011 9:43 PM
Reps.
Dec 2, 2011 9:43pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Dec 2, 2011 11:19 PM
[video=youtube;80DbxSZ_FB8][/video]
Dec 2, 2011 11:19pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Dec 3, 2011 2:54 AM
I Wear Pants;998722 wrote:[video=youtube;80DbxSZ_FB8][/video]
although i dont think it should be completely illegal, in a youtube society it is a slippery slope. you will have people videotaping someone intentionally breaking the law in order to get the police to do something to them.

also, police dont want their techniques videotaped. believe it or not, criminals arent stupid and do study police tactics in order to attack them.
Dec 3, 2011 2:54am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Dec 3, 2011 3:06 AM
No, the slippery slope is not allowing it to be videotaped.

How do you seriously reconcile all this shit with yourself? How are citizens to have actionable evidence of police wrongdoing if it's a fucking felony to film police?

Like that one video shown in the clip where there were like 4-5 cops around a guy who was already handcuffed and they fucking shot him in front of a bunch of people. How should it be a felony to film that?

People should not be afraid of the police. But they are and it isn't an entirely irrational fear and that's a very sad statement about our country.
Dec 3, 2011 3:06am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Dec 3, 2011 3:25 AM
I Wear Pants;998828 wrote:No, the slippery slope is not allowing it to be videotaped.

How do you seriously reconcile all this shit with yourself? How are citizens to have actionable evidence of police wrongdoing if it's a fucking felony to film police?

Like that one video shown in the clip where there were like 4-5 cops around a guy who was already handcuffed and they fucking shot him in front of a bunch of people. How should it be a felony to film that?

People should not be afraid of the police. But they are and it isn't an entirely irrational fear and that's a very sad statement about our country.
i reconcile it because i see both sides. also, the dude in the video wasnt videotaping wrong doings, wasnt he videotaping a court hearing? if i am not mistaken, judges dont always allow stuff to be recorded, hence why you see drawings of court room stuff.

people arent afraid of the police. just you and the rest of the minority. however people do not like getting caught doing stuff they dont like doing. whether it be illegal acts, cheating on their spouse, or lying to their parents. there is a difference between that and being afraid of the police.
Dec 3, 2011 3:25am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Dec 3, 2011 3:47 AM
People are definitely afraid of the police. You won't find too many people that aren't more uncomfortable around them than not.

I still don't understand why you think police shouldn't be allowed to be filmed or recorded. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you espoused "what are you worried about if you don't have anything to hide?" viewpoints before? What are the police worried about then?
Dec 3, 2011 3:47am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 3, 2011 12:31 PM
FTR, I am not afraid of the police.
Dec 3, 2011 12:31pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Dec 3, 2011 1:08 PM
Thank god for the Pauls. Amendment that would have allowed the government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely was defeated. Outrageous that 41 Senators voted for this piece of shit, they should each and every one be voted out of office.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399
Dec 3, 2011 1:08pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Dec 3, 2011 3:29 PM
I Wear Pants;998836 wrote:I still don't understand why you think police shouldn't be allowed to be filmed or recorded. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you espoused "what are you worried about if you don't have anything to hide?" viewpoints before? What are the police worried about then?
That's the argument I was going to come with, along with "they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when acting in public". A police station or court room could be different, but there's no way it should be a crime to videotape a cop on the street.
Dec 3, 2011 3:29pm
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Dec 3, 2011 5:31 PM
I Wear Pants;998836 wrote:People are definitely afraid of the police. You won't find too many people that aren't more uncomfortable around them than not.

I still don't understand why you think police shouldn't be allowed to be filmed or recorded. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you espoused "what are you worried about if you don't have anything to hide?" viewpoints before? What are the police worried about then?
being afraid of the police and being uncomfortable around police are two different things. still i would say most people are not afraid of the police and less are uncomfortable around police.

and i like i said, i dont think videotaping police should be illegal, however i do see officer's safety put in jeopardy when people videotape the police like the are doing surveillance in order to learn police tactics. wouldnt mind seeing that illegal.
Dec 3, 2011 5:31pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Dec 3, 2011 7:13 PM
tk421;998960 wrote:Thank god for the Pauls. Amendment that would have allowed the government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely was defeated. Outrageous that 41 Senators voted for this piece of shit, they should each and every one be voted out of office.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399
Paul calls Senate’s bluff, kills terrorist detainee amendment
By Josiah Ryan - 12/02/11 02:37 PM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday — simply by asking for a recorded vote — managed to kill an amendment that would have clarified that the military can indefinitely detain enemy combatants.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), called the amendment to the floor, explaining it ought to garner the support of all senators because it would simply “clarify” that enemy combatants acquitted of crimes in a court can still be held in military detention until they are no longer deemed a threat.

Looking to spare vulnerable Democrats from an awkward vote on the controversial issue of extra-judicial military detention, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), with the assent of his Republican counterpart John McCain (R-Ariz.), attempted to swiftly pass the amendment by unanimous consent.

“I think that this can be accepted on voice vote,” Levin said, when Sessions finished presenting the amendment. “I have great problems with it, but I think there is probably a majority here that will favor it.”

But from across the chamber, Paul demanded a recorded vote on the amendment, which resulted in a resounding 41-59 defeat.

“I am going to ask for the yays and nays,” Paul said, surprising leaders.

Both McCain and Levin, who indicated moments before that they would agree to passage of the measure by unanimous consent, voted against it in that roll-call vote.

A Republican aid close to the process told The Hill on Friday that Democratic leaders including Levin had agreed to allow passage of the amendment, which they opposed, to dodge the roll-call vote, and that they had been assured by at least one high-powered Republican in the Senate Armed Services Committee that in the end it would be stripped from the final conference report.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196943-paul-calls-senates-bluff-kills-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

They all disgust me. You're right that we should all be thankful for the Pauls.
Dec 3, 2011 7:13pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 3, 2011 9:20 PM
Does Rand ever have plans to run?
Dec 3, 2011 9:20pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Dec 3, 2011 9:48 PM
WebFire;999649 wrote:Does Rand ever have plans to run?
I hope so, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Dec 3, 2011 9:48pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Dec 3, 2011 10:33 PM
tk421;999738 wrote:I hope so, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Likewise.
Dec 3, 2011 10:33pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Dec 3, 2011 11:14 PM
Rand Paul has baggage. He once worshipped the aqua buddha. He tied up girls and had them worship aqua buddha.
Dec 3, 2011 11:14pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Dec 3, 2011 11:23 PM
Everyone has baggage, the media just overlooks it if you have a D in front of your name.
Dec 3, 2011 11:23pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Dec 3, 2011 11:38 PM
I Wear Pants;998722 wrote:[video=youtube;80DbxSZ_FB8][/video]

Already had the charges dropped. Circuit judge said you have no expectation of privacy in public. Also said its ok to not allow taping in a police station or court but definitely not a felony...
.In September.

http://www.rcfp.org/node/98367

No idea why this video is just now making its rounds
Dec 3, 2011 11:38pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Dec 3, 2011 11:49 PM
LJ;1000059 wrote:Already had the charges dropped. Circuit judge said you have no expectation of privacy in public. Also said its ok to not allow taping in a police station or court but definitely not a felony...
Mulva;999162 wrote:That's the argument I was going to come with, along with "they have no reasonable expectation of privacy when acting in public". A police station or court room could be different, but there's no way it should be a crime to videotape a cop on the street.
re-elect Judge Mulva.
Dec 3, 2011 11:49pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Dec 3, 2011 11:49 PM
tk421;1000010 wrote:Everyone has baggage, the media just overlooks it if you have a D in front of your name.
Rand's one of the few good guys in Washington. I just remembered the "aqua buddha" thing being brought up by his desparate democrat opponent weeks before election day. An attempt to discourage conservative christians from voting for Rand. I believe the whole "aqua buddha" thing was nothing more than mild fun and games college hazing for the swim team.
Dec 3, 2011 11:49pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Dec 4, 2011 12:28 AM
Rand is a bit more bloodthirsty than his old man, but maybe he is just trying to fit in better with the party for when he runs in the future. Still, I think it will be too late if we wait for Rand. I doubt we have free elections anymore after another 10 or 15 years. We need to elect Ron, then worry about Rand later.
Dec 4, 2011 12:28am
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Dec 4, 2011 2:38 PM
Wow...that TSA bunch is as sharp as brass tacks thinking an 85 year old woman flying back to Florida is all about Allah Akhbar - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lenore-zimmerman-85-hurt-strip-search-tsa-agents-jfk-airport-article-1.986198#ixzz1fX0OjBnL

Really? Kids under 10 and 85 year old grannies in wheelchairs have a history of being known terrorists? Is there a point where common sense kicks in? Oh wait, we're talking about national security on the American battlefield wherein the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just guidelines today.
Dec 4, 2011 2:38pm