Should the police be bound by due process constraints when investigating terrorism?
370171
Of course.\n I think it is a terrible idea to trade off civil rights for an ILLUSION of security... no one in this country is even a tiny bit safer than we were before the so called Patriot Act, just more fearful.\n\nBesides that, if we surrender our freedom in an effort to thwart terrorists, they win without even trying.
397538
I don't really think that the police do not do enough by choice.  I think it is because the liberals are so concerned with the rights of the criminals, the police are seriously bogged down in rules and regulations, while the criminals just do whatever they want to.  They get accused of "harassing" "innocent" people "just because they are hanging with known criminals". Well, news flash - if you know someone is a criminal, you know they have hurt innocent people, and you are hanging with them and acting like it's cool with you, you are NOT innocent.  You are aiding the criminal.  Any time there is a car chase, the police, not the criminals, are blamed by the ignorant liberals who do not comprehend that the cops were doing their job chasing the criminal, and that the criminal was the one causing the danger by fleeing.
826821
It depends on your point of view. \n\nIf you believe the ends justify the means, then yes -  it would be an ideal solution. There's some correlation to some laws today. Terrorism laws in general. Most Americans accept or tolerate their emails/phone calls being recorded in the hopes of catching the .001% who might do harm.\n\nThere's a bigger philosophical issue, though. Is it truly a society free of crime or merely free of expression? The above scenario removes free-will from the equasion. People are forcibly prevented from thinking/doing what is deemed illegal. Without the ability to make mistakes, you elimate the ability to learn from your mistakes. If you can't even consider doing something, you can't weigh the consequences.\n\nAdd to that a lot of our laws and moral absolutes have exceptions. Would you steal bread to feed your starving family? Your example does not address the grey area of law. By criminalizing thought, you make everybody a criminal even if they haven't actually harmed another.\n\nHope that adds something,\nOdd
950754
no, it would just perpetuate an injustice.  encourage that person to report to the police and tell him what matters most will be that "the truth shall set us free."
696836
In essence, the rule says that any evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be admitted as evidence in the trial, unless one of several exemptions apply. The main controversy in this area is that guilty people can get off when there is no other evidence to convict. However, I think it is well worth letting a few guilty people go free to protect the rights granted in the constitution. If the rule did not exist, there would be little reason for the cops to follow the constitution, since their illegal evidence would still get the job done.
618096
Here is a report by Human Rights Watch on due process violations in Georgia. Should provide you with lots of sources:\nhttp://www.hrw.org/reports/pdfs/g/georgia/georgia2948.pdf#search='due%20process%20georgia'
251558
It established the requirement that an officer state the 'Miranda Warning' that you always see on TV, that makes the person he/she is arresting aware of their Constitutional rights.\n\nThe following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case.\n\n"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."\n\nThe following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody. A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.\n\n"You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?\nAnything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?\nYou have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?\nIf you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?\nIf you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?\nKnowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"
37534
I believe that the agents would need a warrant to search the house for drugs, meaning that they had to present evidence of probable cause to a judge to get the search warrant.  If they entered the house without a search warrant to look for illegal aliens (as you say), they should not be looking in spaces where a human could not hide.  If they found open drugs, their evidence might be tainted giving the defense an argument to supress the evidence at trial or appeal, a huge advantage.  However, the case must rest on the facts while protecting Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.  That's the job of the DA.
960124
I think that the term terrorist is being widely applied, and now is another excuse for the powers that be to flaunt our Constitutional rights.  \n\nI think that the US should respect and abide by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and not torture, nor deprive anyone of their due process.  As to the Guantanamo and other prisoners, we are at war, and it takes a while to process that many prisoners.  But justice should be meted out according to our own values and ethics.
28306
Warrants are still used for wiretaps between individuals within the country who may be aiding or abetting terrorists. Warrants are not required for contacts between terrorists outside the country and individuals within the country (who therefore may also be suspect).  Only Liberals seem to deliberately confuse the issue at every chance.  However that mearly tells us about the way Liberals think during a time of war.
1109670
If the investigation was about your daughter getting raped, or your family member dying in the twin tower collapse, or any other  criminal investigation, no.  Free speech is great, at a cost of a life, or for money isn't.  I hate to tell you the paper only covers it to make money, with no remorse to the repercussions it may have.
411646
No, the police can't legally stop you "just because"...there must be at least be something known as reasonable suspicion.\n\nHowever, I have almost no idea what your question is because of the way you wrote it.  Any chance you can turn it into something that makes a little more sense?
1034209
I believe that eliminating one of the highest ranking terrorists in the world was beneficial for humankind. BeachBum, you make some interesting points, but you need to look at the whole picture if you are to understand why killing Zarqawi was necessary. \n\nAmerica, for the most part, vehemently supports peoples’ right to stand trial when they are accused. And rightfully so. Even when the evidence is overwhelming, we still want the accused to have “due process” rights. You might argue that Zarqawi should be given the same right to due process. Clearly, there was an enormous amount of evidence against Zarqawi, including video footage of murders he committed with his own hands. So if we had multiple videos (that he released), of him sawing off the heads of his hostages, why not just bring him to trial to face justice? Almost undoubtedly, he would have been found guilty. \n\nThe reason why this was impossible is because Zarqawi made up his mind that he would never be captured. In fact, he announced that he always wore an explosive vest that he would detonate if he were about to be caught. So how do you bring that type of person to trial? You can’t just surround him and then handcuff him. He’ll blow himself up and take as many people out with him as he can. Even if we knew that he wasn’t wearing an explosive vest, do we have any reason to believe that he would come willingly? Or is it more likely that he would go out with guns blazing? Once again, Zarqawi publicly announced that he would never be captured: he would die first. How many people should die bringing this man to justice? \n\nYou may be able to understand this better if you think of an analogous situation that occurs regularly within the United States. When a criminal is armed with a weapon and is threatening people, he is often shot rather than being taken into custody. Obviously, it would be preferable to place the person under arrest, and to bring him to trial, but reasonable people understand that if a criminal has his hand on the trigger, and is posing a threat, it's better to take him out than to have a police officer or civilian killed.\n\nConversely, when a criminal doesn’t pose a serious threat, then he can be apprehended. Consider that Saddam Hussein was arrested and brought to trial. We didn’t find WMDs, but we did find mass graves of Saddam's political opponents, as well as mass graves with over 180,000 Kurds - so we knew Saddam was dangerous. If anyone ever ‘deserves’ to die for their crimes, then Saddam Hussein ranks near the top of the list. But rather than execute him on the spot, we brought him into custody because he didn’t resist. Over the past couple of years, Zarqawi was almost caught several times. All of the times he managed to escape, he got away with guns blazing. He'd have his driver or assistant give him cover fire while he slipped away. Zarqawi was not brought to stand trial because he refused to be captured, and consequently we did what we had to. Even though it wasn’t ideal, it was the only option he gave us.\n\nAlso as a side note, you seem to be confused about who Zarqawi was. You make claims about him targeting U.S troops because they are an "occupying power". But Zarqawi was a terrorist, who collaborated with Osama Bin Laden; he was not an Iraqi insurgent. Osama Bin Laden actually released a tape declaring that “Brother Zarqawi” was the official leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi released a tape calling for his followers to murder the Americans, the Shiites, and the “infidel Sunnis”. The “infidel Sunnis” are simply those Sunni Iraqis who support Democracy in Iraq. Zarqawi wasn’t even an Iraqi, he moved to Iraq to fight the “infidels”, which include all of the Shiites (remember that they comprise 80% of the Iraqi population), the “infidel Sunnis” (these are the people that are the “right” branch of Islam, but who support Democracy), and the Americans. So your underst
1046669
Nope-the police have to submit the information to a court. The court issues a warrant. The person is arrested.
1091419
The whole idea is to make sure that due process is served.  The laws and appeals processe are set so that people (for the most part) are not wrongly imprisoned.
453959
Probable cause. The officer sees, hears, or smells something suspicious. You have every right (or at least you used to) to refuse. Then they can arrest you for disobeying a police officer and search your vehicle anyway.\n\nsome legal examples:\n Law enforcement officers may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, and it is likely that, due to exigent circumstances, the vehicle will be unavailable for search by the time a warrant is obtained.  (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 )\n\nwarrantless searches of automobiles are justified only when two factors are present: probable cause to believe that the automobile contained contraband, and exigent circumstances associated with the automobile. (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 )\n\nIf consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use. (United States v Dewitt 946 F. 2d 1497)\n\nFor more info on roadblocks, see my link:
1032448
Youwould put all the power into the hands of one individual within one group. Your proposal would abolish accountibility and justice. \nWhat kind of people do you think would start to join the force if this ever happened? There are reasons why things are not done this way.\nAnd what do you mean by zero tolerance? The police rarely catch anyone in the act, most arrests are through detective work and they have to build a case. Where they catch someone red handed there is no problem with a conviction, so what is the point of this?\nDo you remember what happened on the Undrground recently, a plumber was shot in the head and then publically labelled as a terrorist. This despite the fact that he was surrounded and sitting still.