This is Why I Stopped Crossing the Border Into the US

[Doug1]

 I have no reason to cross the border.If i do it will be to leave where i am and not to visit where i am not.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.

" it is our intention to assure those who carrying out their duties relying in good faith upon the legal advice from the department of justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, said: "President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable."

Echoing the president, the attorney-general, Eric Holder, reiterated that there would be no prosecution of CIA operatives working within the guidelines set by the Bush administration."It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the justice department," Holder said.


The ACLU described the legal basis for torture as spurious.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration



If the defense that "I was just following orders" wasn't considered a defense fot the Nazi's at the Nurenberg Trials...how then can it be considered to be a valid defense now

Maybe its because the Nazi's were not in control then, as the modern day Nazi's now.

Regards...

[jadaro2600]

Assholes work on feedback mechanisms - they lust for it.  IF those cops were assholes, and the priest was being an asshole, then the whole situation is going to turn out to be asinine.

It's debatable whether he was able to assert his 4th amendment rights - he refused to answer questions, it's debatable that he thought he was under arrest.

If he thought he was under arrest, then he didn't have to say anything.  ..but he had to act like he was under arrest.

If one of those questions was, are you a citizen, do you have identification?  and he refused to answer it ...then there's a problem ascertaining whether or not he even has 4th amendment rights.

..btw, if this is why you stopped crossing the border, where the heck are you?  And where the heck are you that you have any more rights or are where there are any more protections than here.

If there are no protections here, then where is there that there are any period?  Canada? ..that's a big fat joke.

The fact of the matter is that there are thousands and thousands of people that cross both ways over the mexican border, mexican border guards are just as high-strung and southern border patrol officials.

I think it's laughable that they use dogs for an excuse; after everything I've read that you've posted lately, It seems like they don't need probable cause anymore.  All they have to do is start the search, start the arrest, and things become and after-the-fact case against you.

Everything can be nullified by a jury, a prosecutor, or the judge - the due process is about discretion.  The due process begin as soon as arrest begins, ...it's taken many supreme court ruling for enforcement and the judiciary to realize this,

but if there is a right to habeas corpus for the citizens ( which was suspended for people whom the government think are terrorists ( another joke at an activist's expense), as well as for non citizen's ) ...the the due process starts with the acts which cause the probable cause, so, it is the initiators of those acts which invoke the right to the due process.   This would be the aresting persons and the arrested.

Citizens may make arrests.  Law enforcement may make arrests.  When a citizen makes an arrest, it is usually due to action between the two.  When law enforcement makes arrest, it's on behalf of the people.  Arrests aren't made on behalf of the government, per se, it is usually on behalf of the people, the people ARE the government.  Rarely will a citizen legally make the arrest, they'll call an officer to do it while holding them there.  In the mounds of paper work, there is rarely a non-law enforcement citizen that completes the process of arresting someone.

Since law enforcement, military, and government workers are afforded certain protections that civilians are not, it can be argued that we are not equal under the law.

If two people fight, and one is an officer, undercover, etc, the officer can attempt to have the other thrown in jail for life.  This protection is not afforded to the other person.  This is not equal treatment under the law.  And this is not equality.

SO, in this guy's arrest, it's the people vs him, but in this guy's case, it him vs the people, the state of, or the agency of ..etc.

Once he invokes his right to habeas corpus, which he got, then the situation unravels during arraignment, where the judge decides how things are going to play out.  If he never sees a judge, then things never play out - this is how they've gotten away with detaining prisoners without trial; they simply let their condition as a terrorist or whatever continue to deteriorate so that, at some point, ..these people look so despicable, that any judge or jury will find them unfit for society.

This guy didn't fight back, he asserted himself in what he believed were his rights.  The officers arrested him using their bureaucratized methods of probable cause because they're likely ignorant of the time-factor involvement.

There was no probable cause, at least, it sounds like, until they created it adding elements of fact to the situation.

this goes back to my statement.  "You farted, you must be arrested as a bio-terrorist."  when five minute ago, there wasn't any bad smell.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Frankly I got lost your lengthy logic/explanation.

I believe was the question was...are you saying it was the fault of the victim ?

A simple yes or no was all that was required.

Regards...

[Cap-Z-ro]

And who knew that Iraq was crawling with Baptist pastors ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLNripI3ufw&feature=player_embedded

Regards...