Like that would go over. Congress critters' power comes from the power to legislate. If your Congressman and Senator can send you into the poorhouse with a flick of the pen creating new regulations and taxes, then you are very likely to wish to curry their favor.
To limit the position's power you must limit the power of Congress. I don't think you'll get much traction on Slashdot arguing for a limitation on the Commerce Clause expansion of federal power that occurred during the New Deal. No, when the increase of power is to do "God's Work", it's ok. Slashdotters are, as a rule, rabid lefties who don't see the connection between their demands for social justice and out of control federal power emanating from the halls of Congress.
Why aren't emails considered papers and thus subject to the 4th Amendment?
Irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment is only implicated if the search violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in emails on a third party computer for the same reason you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with third parties. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when a third party can voluntarily hand over your emails, allow police to monitor the conversation, or tell the police about the conversation. That's why snitches wearing wires, like on TV, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
Could Earth possibly be any worse than Titan... or even Mars... in that case?
Yes, it could get much worse. A not-very-large rock hitting the Earth could liquify the entire surface of the planet. How's that for getting much worse?
Don't be a snotty asshole, little law student. You never considered the fact that I may be a licensed attorney, did you? You think because you managed to finish two years of law school that you can go on Slashdot and be a complete shit? You better post anonymously, fool.
Well, anonymous asshat, I suppose you not only can't read, but you don't understand the job of the Attorney General.
Number 1 - the AG's "opinions" represent the official legal opinion of the US federal government. Unlike your ignorant rantings, the opinion of the US Attorney General is given weight in a court of law.
Number 2 - "not standards of the law"? They are the legal opinions of the chief attorney for the US Government, opinions on what the law is and what it means, as analyzed and drafted by government attorneys in the USAG's Office. Saying they aren't "standards of the law", they're just "opinions" is like saying a lawyer's advice is meaningless and people should just go listen to nameless asshats like you on the Internet.
Number 3 - "not binding". I said that, dickhead.
So just to be clear - this anonymous coward is both reading comprehension impaired and does not understand what a legal opinion by an attorney is, and what the function of legal opinion of the US (and state) Attorney Generals are in our system of government. They aren't the binding legal statements of judges in a court of law. No freakin shit! That doesn't mean they have no weight. A judge sure is going to give the legal opinion of the USAG more consideration that the ravings of a dipshit like you.
I think we're talking past each other here. My argument is: citing to another circuit's case that had cert denied as binding authority for a proposition will get you nowhere with a court. Just because SCOTUS denies cert does not make that case authoratitive in any sense of approval by the Supreme Court. The parent was trying to say that because cert was denied, that implied approval. That's wrong.
Actually that would probably be your most frequently used cite. In fact, if you submit a memorandum of law to a court and don't cite anything but binding decisions, they'd think there was something wrong with you
Seriously? Because the appeals courts I write briefs for seem to disagree.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand. In other words, banning handguns does not violate the constitution, if SCOTUS thought the ban was unconstitutional surely they would have taken the case
Not necessarily. Not granting cert is not a statement of approval. The US Supreme Court is highly selective in the cases that it accepts. If you tried to cite that case, cert. denied, as authority in any other circuit you'd rightly be thought an idiot.
Ahh, OK. Yes, whenever the Bill of Rights refers to the people, it is designating individual rights. Not some sort of collective right, whatever that is. How does a collective have rights? Beats me.
What a 'well regulated' militia is. Probably has to be set up to defend nat'l safety
The militia at the Founding consisted of all able-bodied men capable of bearing arms.
According to the US Code, 10-13-311, the militia consists of organized and unorganized militia:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Note that the general public at large consisting of all able-bodied males 17 years to 45 years, are by statute part of the "unorganized militia".
And the US Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari. Which means that it is only precedent in the Seventh Circuit - Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin. Hardly the definitive statement on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
I don't know about him, but you sure seem pretty ignorant of how our system works. As the attorney for the United States, the USAG is tasked with rendering opinions and advice on the law for the benefit of the government and the public at large. The USAG's opinions are not binding precedent like a court, but they can be admitted in a court of law as evidence of reliance that a person believed they were acting within the law.
The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions for the convenience of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The authority of the Office of Legal Counsel to render legal opinions is derived from the authority of the Attorney General. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Attorney General was authorized to render opinions on questions of law when requested by the President and the heads of executive departments. This authority is now codified at 28 U.S.C. 511-513. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 510 the Attorney General has delegated to the Office of Legal Counsel responsibility for preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General, rendering opinions to the various federal agencies, assisting the Attorney General in the performance of his function as legal adviser to the President, and rendering opinions to the Attorney General and the heads of the various organizational units of the Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. 0.25.
Be that as it may, "the people" is never used in the bill of rights to refer to citizens collectively
It isn't? The "people" in the Fourth Amendment has been construed by the US Supreme Court to mean the class lawfully and voluntarily in the US and part of the national community. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I have no idea who the Framers would be referring to as "the people" if not the citizens of the United States.
Why is this even news to us? Of course current computers aren't ready for Vista. That's the selling point for OEMs. It's part of the endless upgrade cycle that keeps the OEMs in business.
Maybe with China, Japan, the US, India, and maybe even Europe dashing for the Moon, there'll be some good impetus to get a serious space program going. Competition is grand.
THE ONLY THING that would deprive you of this is committing perfidy by feigning surrender, sickness, or civilian status when captured
You obviously didn't read the whole Convention, just the parts that agreed with your perception. Note that the section you quoted from the Protocol Additional has a defining clause - to receive the benefits of a combatant you must be: 1. member of the regular armed forces of a State Party to the Convention, or 2. part of a militia or other group that is under the command and is responsible to a State Party, and that 3. is answerable to a discipline system that enforces compliance with international laws of war. AQ belongs to none of the above, not even the Arab Afghans during the Afghan war. Furthermore, if you look further down the Protocol Additional, you will see that spies and mercenaries are not entitled to the protections of the Convention, per customary international law.
This is further strengthened by reference to the actual Convention that I mentioned in my original post.
The Conventions aren't for the protection of insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans if they fail to abide by the laws of war or are outside the international system. International law applies to States, and the Conventions were intended to regulate the conduct and protect the regular armed forces and their auxiliaries of States Party.
But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress
Really? Because in the first section of the Act it defines an unlawful combatant and a lawful combatant, with a lawful combatant being defined exactly as in the Geneva Conventions. See section 948a(1)-(2).
So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection
The foreign terrorists were never protected by Geneva, because they were not the regular armed forces of a State party to the Convention, nor were they regularly constituted militias answerable as aux forces to a State party wearing insignia, carrying arms openly, complying with the laws of war, with a distinct and answerable heirarchy. As a matter of fact, under the laws of war any of the AQ Arab fighters caught in Afghanistan, for instance, could be summarily executed on the spot as spies/sabateurs.
The bill allows the President to declare a state of emergency and directly command federal troops and state National Guard to act without relying on a State Governor to declare an emergency and request federal troops, or act on their own to mobilize state National Guard.
Remember Katrina? Remember all the bitching on Slashdot about Bush not sending in the military right away to assist? That's because he couldn't. Now he, and any future President, can.
This is why I rarely bother with Slashdot or Digg anymore. They're all a bunch of deranged paranoid fanatics here.
Your dumbass-ness continues. The "which is good" part is even less relevant than the rest, because repeat - the Republicans had nothing to do with it. SO whether it was "good" or not is less than relevant. Which makes you a supreme idiot of the day.
This time around, they might have something; while the cynical part of me is, well, cynical, it appears they disrupted something pretty major
That "cynical" part is obviously mislabeled - it is your dumbass part. Because "the Republicans" had nothing to do with it. This was a British op. But it is nice to see that partisan ignorance is a full time job.
Maybe they don't realise that Google's engine is theirs. It belongs to them, they made it
Indeed. Why counsel argued that Google is a state actor is beyond me. Google is a 100% private entity. It isn't a utility, it isn't any sort of state monopoly, it in no way assumes traditional governmental functions, etc. I haven't read any of the pleadings (and frankly don't care) but reading that makes me believe counsel for the plaintiffs are just barking up a tree.
Slashdot Mirror
Lessen the position's power and profitability
Like that would go over. Congress critters' power comes from the power to legislate. If your Congressman and Senator can send you into the poorhouse with a flick of the pen creating new regulations and taxes, then you are very likely to wish to curry their favor.
To limit the position's power you must limit the power of Congress. I don't think you'll get much traction on Slashdot arguing for a limitation on the Commerce Clause expansion of federal power that occurred during the New Deal. No, when the increase of power is to do "God's Work", it's ok. Slashdotters are, as a rule, rabid lefties who don't see the connection between their demands for social justice and out of control federal power emanating from the halls of Congress.
Why aren't emails considered papers and thus subject to the 4th Amendment?
Irrelevant. The Fourth Amendment is only implicated if the search violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in emails on a third party computer for the same reason you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations with third parties. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when a third party can voluntarily hand over your emails, allow police to monitor the conversation, or tell the police about the conversation. That's why snitches wearing wires, like on TV, does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
"Didn't think it through" - as usual. If Linus hadn't said something, the Linux zealots would be yelling "yeah! stick it to the man!"
Could Earth possibly be any worse than Titan... or even Mars... in that case?
Yes, it could get much worse. A not-very-large rock hitting the Earth could liquify the entire surface of the planet. How's that for getting much worse?
Don't be a snotty asshole, little law student. You never considered the fact that I may be a licensed attorney, did you? You think because you managed to finish two years of law school that you can go on Slashdot and be a complete shit? You better post anonymously, fool.
Well, anonymous asshat, I suppose you not only can't read, but you don't understand the job of the Attorney General.
Number 1 - the AG's "opinions" represent the official legal opinion of the US federal government. Unlike your ignorant rantings, the opinion of the US Attorney General is given weight in a court of law.
Number 2 - "not standards of the law"? They are the legal opinions of the chief attorney for the US Government, opinions on what the law is and what it means, as analyzed and drafted by government attorneys in the USAG's Office. Saying they aren't "standards of the law", they're just "opinions" is like saying a lawyer's advice is meaningless and people should just go listen to nameless asshats like you on the Internet.
Number 3 - "not binding". I said that, dickhead.
So just to be clear - this anonymous coward is both reading comprehension impaired and does not understand what a legal opinion by an attorney is, and what the function of legal opinion of the US (and state) Attorney Generals are in our system of government. They aren't the binding legal statements of judges in a court of law. No freakin shit! That doesn't mean they have no weight. A judge sure is going to give the legal opinion of the USAG more consideration that the ravings of a dipshit like you.
I think we're talking past each other here. My argument is: citing to another circuit's case that had cert denied as binding authority for a proposition will get you nowhere with a court. Just because SCOTUS denies cert does not make that case authoratitive in any sense of approval by the Supreme Court. The parent was trying to say that because cert was denied, that implied approval. That's wrong.
Actually that would probably be your most frequently used cite. In fact, if you submit a memorandum of law to a court and don't cite anything but binding decisions, they'd think there was something wrong with you
Seriously? Because the appeals courts I write briefs for seem to disagree.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand. In other words, banning handguns does not violate the constitution, if SCOTUS thought the ban was unconstitutional surely they would have taken the case
Not necessarily. Not granting cert is not a statement of approval. The US Supreme Court is highly selective in the cases that it accepts. If you tried to cite that case, cert. denied, as authority in any other circuit you'd rightly be thought an idiot.
Ahh, OK. Yes, whenever the Bill of Rights refers to the people, it is designating individual rights. Not some sort of collective right, whatever that is. How does a collective have rights? Beats me.
What a 'well regulated' militia is. Probably has to be set up to defend nat'l safety
The militia at the Founding consisted of all able-bodied men capable of bearing arms.
According to the US Code, 10-13-311, the militia consists of organized and unorganized militia:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
Note that the general public at large consisting of all able-bodied males 17 years to 45 years, are by statute part of the "unorganized militia".
And the US Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari. Which means that it is only precedent in the Seventh Circuit - Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin. Hardly the definitive statement on whether the Second Amendment is an individual right.
The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
I don't know about him, but you sure seem pretty ignorant of how our system works. As the attorney for the United States, the USAG is tasked with rendering opinions and advice on the law for the benefit of the government and the public at large. The USAG's opinions are not binding precedent like a court, but they can be admitted in a court of law as evidence of reliance that a person believed they were acting within the law.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/opinions.htm
The Attorney General has directed the Office of Legal Counsel to publish selected opinions for the convenience of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government, and of the professional bar and the general public. The authority of the Office of Legal Counsel to render legal opinions is derived from the authority of the Attorney General. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Attorney General was authorized to render opinions on questions of law when requested by the President and the heads of executive departments. This authority is now codified at 28 U.S.C. 511-513. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 510 the Attorney General has delegated to the Office of Legal Counsel responsibility for preparing the formal opinions of the Attorney General, rendering opinions to the various federal agencies, assisting the Attorney General in the performance of his function as legal adviser to the President, and rendering opinions to the Attorney General and the heads of the various organizational units of the Department of Justice. 28 C.F.R. 0.25.
Be that as it may, "the people" is never used in the bill of rights to refer to citizens collectively
It isn't? The "people" in the Fourth Amendment has been construed by the US Supreme Court to mean the class lawfully and voluntarily in the US and part of the national community. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. I have no idea who the Framers would be referring to as "the people" if not the citizens of the United States.
Why is this even news to us? Of course current computers aren't ready for Vista. That's the selling point for OEMs. It's part of the endless upgrade cycle that keeps the OEMs in business.
Hey look! Democrats won and there aren't any "vote machine FRAAAUUUUD!" cries! What a coincidence.
Maybe with China, Japan, the US, India, and maybe even Europe dashing for the Moon, there'll be some good impetus to get a serious space program going. Competition is grand.
Making love and war are not mutually exclusive. Throughout most of history, you made war on your neighbors and stole their women.
The Vikings planted vineyards in Greenland. Kinda scotches the idea that it was never very hospitable, doesn't it?
THE ONLY THING that would deprive you of this is committing perfidy by feigning surrender, sickness, or civilian status when captured
You obviously didn't read the whole Convention, just the parts that agreed with your perception. Note that the section you quoted from the Protocol Additional has a defining clause - to receive the benefits of a combatant you must be: 1. member of the regular armed forces of a State Party to the Convention, or 2. part of a militia or other group that is under the command and is responsible to a State Party, and that 3. is answerable to a discipline system that enforces compliance with international laws of war. AQ belongs to none of the above, not even the Arab Afghans during the Afghan war. Furthermore, if you look further down the Protocol Additional, you will see that spies and mercenaries are not entitled to the protections of the Convention, per customary international law.
This is further strengthened by reference to the actual Convention that I mentioned in my original post.
The Conventions aren't for the protection of insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans if they fail to abide by the laws of war or are outside the international system. International law applies to States, and the Conventions were intended to regulate the conduct and protect the regular armed forces and their auxiliaries of States Party.
But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress
Really? Because in the first section of the Act it defines an unlawful combatant and a lawful combatant, with a lawful combatant being defined exactly as in the Geneva Conventions. See section 948a(1)-(2).
So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection
The foreign terrorists were never protected by Geneva, because they were not the regular armed forces of a State party to the Convention, nor were they regularly constituted militias answerable as aux forces to a State party wearing insignia, carrying arms openly, complying with the laws of war, with a distinct and answerable heirarchy. As a matter of fact, under the laws of war any of the AQ Arab fighters caught in Afghanistan, for instance, could be summarily executed on the spot as spies/sabateurs.
Don't try to be reasonable on Slashdot.
The bill allows the President to declare a state of emergency and directly command federal troops and state National Guard to act without relying on a State Governor to declare an emergency and request federal troops, or act on their own to mobilize state National Guard.
Remember Katrina? Remember all the bitching on Slashdot about Bush not sending in the military right away to assist? That's because he couldn't. Now he, and any future President, can.
This is why I rarely bother with Slashdot or Digg anymore. They're all a bunch of deranged paranoid fanatics here.
Your dumbass-ness continues. The "which is good" part is even less relevant than the rest, because repeat - the Republicans had nothing to do with it. SO whether it was "good" or not is less than relevant. Which makes you a supreme idiot of the day.
This time around, they might have something; while the cynical part of me is, well, cynical, it appears they disrupted something pretty major
That "cynical" part is obviously mislabeled - it is your dumbass part. Because "the Republicans" had nothing to do with it. This was a British op. But it is nice to see that partisan ignorance is a full time job.
Maybe they don't realise that Google's engine is theirs. It belongs to them, they made it
Indeed. Why counsel argued that Google is a state actor is beyond me. Google is a 100% private entity. It isn't a utility, it isn't any sort of state monopoly, it in no way assumes traditional governmental functions, etc. I haven't read any of the pleadings (and frankly don't care) but reading that makes me believe counsel for the plaintiffs are just barking up a tree.