Comment Re:When the cat's absent, the mice rejoice (Score 1) 286
I've got a question for you. Since your post wasn't really connected to anything in the thread, why didn't you just start a new thread?
I've got a question for you. Since your post wasn't really connected to anything in the thread, why didn't you just start a new thread?
Unfortunately what we tend to get is idiocy in the defense of liberty, and indifference to the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.
Many people on Slashdot would undue the Republic if they could, even though for many of them it would be by accident.
I find no small irony in you quoting Barry Goldwater.
You obviously don't understand what you read. The evidence wasn't thrown out on Constitutional grounds but based on statutory law, the Posse Comitatus Act.
This is the relevant part you missed:
Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
"Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration
----
Please stop just making shit up in order to twist a story into fitting your political agenda.
I have just demonstrated that isn't the case. Now can I ask you to do the same?
Part of the problem in these discussion is that so many people rely upon their "common sense," intuition, or psychic abilities to reveal what the law says. Unsurprisingly they often get it wrong, especially on matters of Constitutional law.
What is the topic of this story? - "Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?"
What was the example given? - ""There’s a current problem in biomedical research"
What did I post about? - Biomedical research, climate science, space science, unresolved issues, and funding allocation to explore breakthroughs or theories that might help get past those issues.
That was entirely a discussion of matters related to science. You're the one trying to drag politics into this.
It would be great if you could simply stick to the real Constitution instead of making up crap.
But I see crap is popular content, so I guess that hope is forlorn.
Under American law the military is extremely limited in the circumstances in which they can engage in law enforcement of ordinary criminal law against civilians. The evidence was thrown out because a military investigator found the material, not because it was an unconstitutional search. Quoting the 4th Amendment doesn't change that.
On the other hand you can't be relied upon to read the thread. Here is what he posted:
I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters,
Distinction without a difference.
That's a load of crap, and you are here to fortify it. Tell me "king neckbeard," is it insufferable to call child molesters "scum," or does that mean a military coup in the morning??
Do you have the mental agility to acknowledge that the child molesters are scum and government investigators shouldn't go outside their jurisdiction could both be true? Is there something contradictory in that???
I'm already starting to brace myself for your next insightful, on-topic post.
Could you provide a perspective on something that actually happened? Where is the 4th Amendment violation?
An "adult"? Are you speaking from experience? It appears that not just any adult will do. I suggest you try a tutor next time.
Disagreeing with one crime is no excuse for agreeing with another.
If you trouble yourself to read what I wrote you'll see that I didn't. But straw men arguments are the way of Slashdot, aren't they?
Yes, you are trying to be "funny." This isn't a matter of Constitutional law but ordinary statutory law passed by Congress. They don't need to pass a Constitutional amendment to change an ordinary law.
Now, on behalf of Mr Mencken, and all those who fight for human freedom, allow me to suggest you fuck off, and to remind you that just because there are a few scummy characters in the world, it still doesn't justify putting the entire state of Washington under surveillance, which is what happened here.
That is a straw man, I didn't suggest that the entire state of Washington should be under surveillance. I only commented on the application of "scum" as applying to child molesters, and that the investigator exceeded his jurisdiction. (Don't you agree with that?) So, kindly take your "suggestion" and apply it to yourself.
By the way, do you think you could find some evidence that Mencken would be ok with child molesters? Or do you think he might lean towards the sentiment expressed in another of his famous quotes?
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. -- H. L. Mencken
Don't be a putz.
his state of belief on "a universe created and watched over" by fairies. Oh look, the 'and' refers to the actions of the fucking fairies.
The actual phrase is:
I don't believe that the universe was created and is watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
He isn't stating that the universe was created by fairies as you imply. There are two things in that phrase that he doesn't believe in:
1) That the universe was created
2) (the universe is) watched over by an infinite number of tiny, invisible fairies.
Which still don't appear to exist.
A tedious straw man, nobody here is claiming that they do.
Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine
