21–30 of 268 posts
Cash and other legal property should not be seized without a warrant though.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…
I disagree with the author's attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read "The Modern Mercenary", by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts. Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state…
The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country is too disorganized to deserve the right to not have other countries airdropping their soldiers into it.
I disagree with the author's attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read "The Modern Mercenary", by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts. Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state…
Genuine question, because I have a casual interest here, but don't claim exhaustive knowledge - can you cite examples?
Kevin Brown in 2008 was arrested for carrying bomb-making components, but a later FBI report found that he was carrying no initiators, explosives, or explosive devices.
Am I missing any other cases?
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…
They get around it by claiming your house or car (or whatever) is guilty of a crime. Unfortunately, inanimate objects can't represent themselves in court.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…
The problem is that the courts have allowed cops to twist that "good reason" to the point where it is a blanket right to search anyone, any time, and steal their property. That's the abuse of what ought to be a relatively narrow exception.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances
[2] Note that this point isn't about gun control (whether you like or hate gun control). It's about someone who carried or used a gun while committing a crime, which is an entirely different beast!
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…
It shouldn't be legal, but thanks to the drug war and post-9/11 anti-terrorism politics, it's been enabled by federal legislation and rules. It needs to get challenged more in the courts on constitutional grounds, but this takes money and time, which the usual victims don't have.
Also, they (the police) further complicate things by making it a civil asset forfeiture case against the property and not a civil or criminal case against the rightful owner.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2014/09/12/time-for-c...
I disagree with the author's attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read "The Modern Mercenary", by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts. Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state…
Anyone can plan an attack on America in their kitchen. It sounds like you're describing a paramilitary group that can fly anywhere in the world, violate whatever sovereignty they please, bust in through the window, and what, just shoot people that they're pretty sure are up to no good? The principle of sovereignty is more important than placating America's paranoia, regardless of whether people think that a country i…
National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them.
It's not just America either. Ethiopia and Kenya would be much better off paying mercenaries that keep somalia's disfunction and terrorism at bay. You can fly in, bomb, invade, whatever, but eventually it becomes a politically unsustainable war.
Mercenaries are just an expense, and they know it.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…
But I've often wondered how this could stand up to constitutional muster. I believe one of the arguments is that the criminal case isn't against you, but the property that was seized from you. So if it wants to push the case, your seized $1000 can sue.