The Drug War vs the Bill of Rights

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Borque Oinquebama -- that one still baffles me.

Me too. How could he forget the "Hussein" in the middle?

Nevertheless, about the War on Drugs, he's right and you, Joe, are wrong.

Given your history for being consistently wrong, it doesn't surprise me that you take a contrary position to my own on this subject. Nevertheless, I have foresworn participation in all drug law discussions after a particularly nasty and mean-spirited thread a while ago. I would add, however, that you were one of the few rational and courteous participants in that thread. But you were still wrong.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Borque Oinquebama -- that one still baffles me.

The latter part is obviously just puerile insult. I suspect the first name was an attempt to write the word Baroque, but was mangled as the attempt did not rise above the level of the author's competence.

I'm still baffled. Gunga obviously wants to come up with something that is both insulting to Obama and original -- a Spottname, as the Germans would say. I can see how "Oinkbama" fits the bill, but why spell it "Oinquebama?" Does Gunga think that"oinque" is the French term for "oink?" And if so, why is that an appropriate epithet to stick to Obama? As for "Borque," I have no clue what's going on there. Although "Baroque" would be kind of humorous, it's not really much of an insult -- the folks at Gunga's level probably don't even know what it means. And "Borque" isn't an insult at all -- it's not even a word. Was he thinking of Ray Bourque? Or maybe Robert Bork? I think maybe Gunga had in mind the Swedish chef from the Muppets Show:

"Bork bork bork!"

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Might "Borque" be Gunga-French for Richard Bork? Bork, like Obama, came from the University of Chicago, and never thought much about gun rights. I can see how Gunga would consider him a traitor to his nation.

Or alternatively, Gunga might have been taught French by the wrong home-schoolers. That would be really embarrassing for me, being a supporter of homeschooling and all.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The DEA and the military watch these planes take off from small dirt fields.
They watch these planes fly low to avoid radar, and they know where they are gpoing.
Thats why they are so good at intercepting them on the ground.
I am saying that instead of waiting till they land, just shoot them down over the ocean and forget about them.

parados said

Quote:

I like the thought of sinking a couple of cruise ships because a passenger is smuggling in some cocaine bought when they docked in Cancun.

MM didn't think it through is an understatement.

That wasnt what I meant, and you know that.
I meant ships like this...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5938061&page=1

http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/coast-guard-interception-of-homemade-submarine/

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/chiquita/chiquita17.htm

A cruise ship passenger can be dealt with by local law enforcement.

Merry Andrew said...

Quote:

I have a much better idea, mm. Why not just kill all the potential drug dealers in their cradles? Be a little pro-active, hmmm? Why wait for them to commit a crime? But I like the direction of your thinking, mm. You're right up there with the rest of the deep thinkers.

Now you are being stupid.
I dont advocate killing babies for any reason.
I'm sorry to see that you do..

However, I do believe that those that live outside the law deserve no protections from the law.
If someone decides to prey on other humans, to rob, steal, kill, and take from others what they have legitimately worked for, then that person deserves no protections from the law.
If you ignore others rights, then you have none yourself.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I also agree with Gungasnake.

The War on Drugs and the War on Immigrants cause too much suffering with few benefits to show for the harm these efforts inflict.

0 Replies

Why are some of you exagerating the worst case scenario of MM's case ? Does that make you feel more secure about the fallacies of your own arguments ?

In many countires law enforcement officers are allowed to legally shoot at anyone who refuses to stop for the law. In the USA, it would require a Bill to shoot at drug smugglers. Perhaps a Shoot Warrant issued by a judge. Meantime, drug smugglers will risk imprisonment for fortunes in drug money and are definitely not going to stop on request. If they are caught, then the tax payer has to pay for their upkeep. Not very cost effective in a war that oozes money on the bad guy side.

For that matter, what is wrong with taking the war to the other ? One cruise missile to a drug lords mansion should do it.

Somehow, they have convinced the USA it is their problem for buying the drugs. This assumes no consumer protection and the innocence of the drug dealers at the source.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

However, I do believe that those that live outside the law deserve no protections from the law.

I believe that the US Constitution -- not to mention common sense and general opinion -- mandates that a court decide whether or not one "live[s] outside the law" prior to imposing sentence, particularly where that sentence (by your unilateral decision) is to be capital punishment. You might as well advocate killing babies; you are advocating the storm-trooper style killing of innocent people, because a person is presumed innocent until a court finds that person guilty.

3 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

and i believe a wise man once said

"to live outside the law, you must be honest"

dj(where are you tonight sweet marie)jd

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Factually, the US Constitution specifically protects the rights of people who live outside the law.

1) Cruel and Unusual punishment is only applied to people who have broken the law.
2) The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy protects people who have broken the law, as does the right to not incriminate yourself (innocent people don't worry about incriminating themselves).
3) The Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure protect people who have broken some law. Innocent people don't care about what evidence found in their houses is presented in court.

The whole premise of this argument is unconsitutional.

4 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Here is where we disagree, to a point.
If I were to mug a little old lady in front of a crowd, would it be fair to say that I violated her right to be safe, and that I chose to live outside the law that makes mugging illegal?

Also, do you therefore think that EVERYONE found "not guilty" in a court is truly not guilty?
You would have no problem if KSM or OBL were tried here in the US and found not guilty?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

2) The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy protects people who have broken the law, as does the right to not incriminate yourself (innocent people don't worry about incriminating themselves).

Actually, it says...

Quote:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Of course that last sentence has been ignored by state, local, and federal govts almost since the day it was written.

Quote:

3) The Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure protect people who have broken some law. Innocent people don't care about what evidence found in their houses is presented in court.

So then you would have no problem with the police searching your home without a warrant?

Quote:

The whole premise of this argument is unconsitutional.

Thats why I said it would take the govt having some balls and being willing to change the constitution.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

and i believe a wise man once said

"to live outside the law, you must be honest"

dj(where are you tonight sweet marie)jd

So THAT means, according to the "wise man",
that if u wanna be dishonest u have to live within the law; right?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

So then you would have no problem with the police searching your home without a warrant?

Of course I would.... but what makes you assume I am innocent?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Factually, the US Constitution specifically protects the rights of people who live outside the law.

No, it generally covers everyone, which includes people who have committed crimes. Criminals are not specifically excluded.

ebrown p wrote:

1) Cruel and Unusual punishment is only applied to people who have broken the law.

What the hell gives you that idea? People being held accused of a crime could be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

ebrown p wrote:

2) The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy protects people who have broken the law, as does the right to not incriminate yourself (innocent people don't worry about incriminating themselves).

Based on the history of the time, I suspect this was more in the line of preventing coerced confessions.

ebrown p wrote:

3) The Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure protect people who have broken some law. Innocent people don't care about what evidence found in their houses is presented in court.

Innocent people do care if jack-booted thugs break into their houses, however.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

If you ignore others rights, then you have none yourself.

Oh, the irony, considering some of the behaviors you've proposed in this thread.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

MM wrote:

The DEA and the military watch these planes take off from small dirt fields.
They watch these planes fly low to avoid radar, and they know where they are gpoing.
Thats why they are so good at intercepting them on the ground.
I am saying that instead of waiting till they land, just shoot them down over the ocean and forget about them.

Oh well, the eternal infallibility of law enforcement agencies is an established fact, n'est-ce pas? Given this keen, unfailing ability to perceive the evil-doers, even at a great distance, i see no reason not to rely upon their ability to carry out MA's plan, and just kill the nascent evil doers in infancy.

Wanna buy a bridge, hayseed?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Cruel and Unusual punishment is only applied to people who have broken the law.

Jesus, your idiocy knows no bounds. Cruel and unusual punishment is universally prohibited, period. The entire text of the eighth amendment to the constitution reads:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Perhaps, given your apparent low reading comprehension skills, someone should explain to you that that means absolutely no one shall be subject to cruel or unusual punishment.

Did you and Mysterman go to the same school?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well Setanta... reading posts from either you or Mysteryman is cruel and unusual punishment, so I concede the point.

((Sometimes I wonder if Mysteryman and Setanta are actually the same person))

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Do you know how much money drugs generates ? The drug Cartels makes more in one month than the entire yearly budget of the DEA. And money generates power. If Pablo Escabar could take on both Columbia and the U.S. thats power.

0 Replies

It was implicit in the philosophy of the Founders
that government had no jurisdiction to anything "for your own good."

Its only jurisdiction was to defend your rights
from violation by others; I wish that thay had made that explicit in the Constitution.
That woud have been fatal to the philosophy of the War on Drugs.

David

0 Replies

The Drug War vs the Bill of Rights

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know