Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Warrant no longer needed for search of home, can simply arrest those who refuse.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Warrant no longer needed for search of home, can simply arrest those who refuse.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sup...QEh0ihSx6g4.99

    In another devastating blow to freedom, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police don’t need a warrant to search your property. As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence.

    “Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg wrote, “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.” Tuesday’s ruling, she added, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

    Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sup...KWFUK4foYoQ.99
    If you say no the the search the cops can now arrest you, once you're under arrest you can no longer refuse entry.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Chief Ten Beers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Posts
    129
    They try it at my house, and they will have a big problem on their hands.
    If you're not ashamed to own it, don't be ashamed to open carry it.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Concealed carry, where you HIDE the exercise of your right to carry arms.

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    sigh, journalist rebel rousing bovine manure...

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/op...sent-searches/

    facts your journalist failed to mention: quote

    The essential facts

    The Court’s opinion rehearses in some detail events that led the police to Fernandez’s apartment after a violent gang-related robbery and upon hearing “screaming and fighting coming from” inside. His girlfriend (Rojas) having opened the apartment door, Fernandez objected to any police search, standing on his doorstep and saying “I know my rights.” Not well enough, it turns out. Rojas was holding an infant and showed signs of bruises, so the police promptly removed Fernandez and arrested him on suspicion of domestic abuse as well as the knife-wielding robbery. When the police returned an hour later, Rojas gave consent for the police to search the apartment, and the trial court later found that consent to be voluntary. (Justice Ginsburg’s dissent says that there is “cause to doubt” the voluntary nature of her consent, and the facts are somewhat unsavory, with Rojas claiming the officers threatened to take her children.) Because Fernandez was no longer “physically present” and his removal was “objectively reasonable,” the Court ruled that Rojas’s consent to search the jointly occupied premises was valid, even though Fernandez had earlier made his objection clear.

    As today’s opinion candidly notes, a dictum in Randolph suggested that a co-occupant’s consent might not suffice if police removed an objector “for the sake of avoiding possible objection.” The majority notes, however, that the Court has generally rejected subjective motive inquiries. So, the Court explains, Randolph’s “dictum is best understood” to refer only to situations “in which the removal of the potential objector is not objectively reasonable.” Because the objectively reasonable basis for Fernandez’s removal here was not contested, his case does not fall within this reading.

    In the end, the practicalities of today’s ruling seem limited, because Justice Ginsburg is correct in noting that in most cases we care about, police will have either an exigency that permits immediate warrantless entry or probable cause that allows them to quickly obtain a warrant. Just last Term, in Missouri v. McNeely, the Chief Justice noted that “e-warrants” can be obtained in fifteen minutes or less. Thus, today’s decision is unlikely to make large waves in the deep ocean of Fourth Amendment case law.

    unquote.

    overal quite an interesting article on the subject. especially since it kills the manic journalist rhetoric...bottom line much todo about nothing.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 03-07-2015 at 03:20 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    sigh, journalist rebel rousing bovine manure...
    Thank you. This is one of the few times I think "+1" is justified.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152
    The proper citation is Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014)

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...es/12-7822.htm

    Held as applying quite narrowly to co-residents.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Anybody got a link to the actual opinion? While deeply suspicious that SCOTUS has knocked another loophole (or widened a previous loophole) in the already-devastated Fourth Amendment, I think I'd rather read the actual opinion and draw my own conclusions.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Anybody got a link to the actual opinion? While deeply suspicious that SCOTUS has knocked another loophole (or widened a previous loophole) in the already-devastated Fourth Amendment, I think I'd rather read the actual opinion and draw my own conclusions.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-7822_he4l.pdf

    You just have to threaten your wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, children, mother, father, mother in law and father in law from ever ever ever giving the police permission to search your house without a warrant or else......
    Last edited by color of law; 03-07-2015 at 11:03 PM.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Thanks!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures..

    See Elkins v United States( June 27 1960).

    The key here is "Unreasonable"...

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures..

    See Elkins v United States( June 27 1960).

    The key here is "Unreasonable"...

    My .02

    CCJ
    Written by smugglers. I think they had a different mindset than those who believe the modern redcoats are now the deciders of "reasonable".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    It must always be remembered that what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures..

    See Elkins v United States( June 27 1960).

    The key here is "Unreasonable"...

    My .02

    CCJ
    Warrantless searches were forbidden. All searches required a warrant. It was just that the 'police' at the time could write their own warrant while at your door.
    Now you have to have a a judge sign off on it.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Written by smugglers. I think they had a different mindset than those who believe the modern redcoats are now the deciders of "reasonable".
    +1

    The history behind the Fourth Amendment must also be remembered, which is to say the full context. There can be little denial that part of the outrage behind colonial warrantless searches was because some of the searched colonists were in fact hiding goods upon which they had not paid the customs taxes--they were mad because their law-breaking was exposed.

    But, another angle on that part of the picture was that the tax laws themselves were illegal--it was an Englishman's long-established right to be taxed only with his consent as represented by his parliamentary representative. (One of the reasons Charles I lost his head was because he tried to create taxes after having suspended parliament.) Thus, the colonists were indignant at warrantless searches in part because government used warrantless searches to close a loophole by which the colonists could circumvent illegal taxation.

    Another part of the outrage was the innocent people searched. And, the property damaged. And, the unbearable slights to manly dignity. Imagine the outrage at having your wife's intimate clothing articles rifled by a greasy-handed malcontent unable to find genuinely gainful employment? Imagine having to either unlock your innocent basement for the searcher, or refuse to cooperate in your indignity and thereby watch while the lock is smashed or the door shattered? Imagine having your private affairs and business secrets exposed to the eyes of a gossipy searcher looking through your private papers to ensure the tax stamp was paid on all your documents? Or, the desk drawers splintered when you manfully refused to cooperate in the violation of your affairs. All of which arose from taxes that were illegal and violative of your rights as an Englishman in the first place.

    It only takes a couple brain cells to recognize the government of that day considered those warrantless searches entirely reasonable. Government is definitely not a guardian of rights.

    The only possible legitimate explanation for the word unreasonable in the Fourth Amendment is to avoid listing out all the reasonable warrantless searches, emphatically not to give government room to distort things all to heck.

    Consent searches are court-created specious nonsense. A government-created loophole in the first place. In a moment of all-too-rare clarity, a member of the ruling gang nailed it when he wrote about consent searches:
    I must conclude, with some reluctance, that, when the Court speaks of practicality, what it really is talking of is the continued ability of the police to capitalize on the ignorance of citizens so as to accomplish by subterfuge what they could not achieve by relying only on the knowing relinquishment of constitutional rights. Of course, it would be "practical" for the police to ignore the commands of the Fourth Amendment if, by practicality, we mean that more criminals will be apprehended, even though the constitutional rights of innocent people also go by the board. But such a practical advantage is achieved only at the cost of permitting the police to disregard the limitations that the Constitution places on their behavior, a cost that a constitutional democracy cannot long absorb. Justice Marshall, dissenting, Schneckloth vs Bustamonte.

    Having created the loophole otherwise known as consent searches, the supreme judicial committee of the ruling gang widens the loophole in the thread-topic case. The last forty years of 4th Amendment cases include a long train of police dreaming up possible loopholes, attempting them, and the federal courts then ratifying them.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 06:26 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Warrantless searches were forbidden. All searches required a warrant. It was just that the 'police' at the time could write their own warrant while at your door.
    Now you have to have a a judge sign off on it.
    and as pointed out...e-warrants only take 15 min or less to obtain...

    as for verboten, also as pointed out...it is in the eyes of the beholder...

    further as pointed out, the article you posted was sensationalist journalist bovine rhetoric at its finest as well as much todo about nothing.

    tho kudos to citizen for the bkgnd on the 4th...again quite interesting information.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 03-08-2015 at 04:55 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    tho kudos to citizen for the bkgnd on the 4th...again quite interesting information.

    ipse
    Thanks.

    I would, though, urge you to reconsider "much ado about nothing."

    Consider, please. It took 725 years* of blood, smoke, and treasure to wrest rights from government, one little piece at a time, and even then it was incomplete.**

    I read recently that 6% of England's population was erased during the English Civil War to put an end to kings ruling by divine right. That was Charles I's claim--chosen and set above you by God. His tweak was to assert that while he was bound to follow the law (Magna Carta, etc.), no mortal man could judge him; he was only responsible to God for his law-breaking and rights-violating. His argument died when his head bounced off the scaffold at Whitehall. But, six percent of the population died getting to that point.

    Literally millions of Americans have been maimed, blinded, gassed, emasculated,*** and killed to defend rights since 1791.

    When one looks back across history at the price paid to obtain rights, the value of rights changes. The value of rights can be estimated by what it cost to obtain them. I absolutely do not want to see that price have to be paid a second time.

    Thus, I am outraged when a court says a warrant is not needed to search even the home of an accused wife-abuser in the absence of his ability to refuse consent.

    No. No! No!! NO!!! Rights are rights are rights are rights. I'm not backing up one fraction of an inch. It cost way, way too much in human suffering to obtain them. Every little piece of a right is precious: because the price paid to win it was precious.

    *Counting from the Norman Invasion in 1066 to the US Bill of Rights in 1791.

    **Using, for example, the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Government in our history cut off its incremental recognition at "its a fighting right", speciously claiming a right has to be invoked to be recognized. The example of the ancient Hebrew Sanhedrin (courts) expose the modern government lie. The Sanhedrin didn't screw around with whether the accused had been properly Mirandized. They didn't split unnecessary hairs about whether a person handcuffed in a police car was 'in custody'. They simply said nothing said by the accused could be used against him. End of discussion. That is full government recognition of a right.

    ***This is a dirty little secret of modern warfare, especially Iraq and Afghanistan. When a young man steps on an anti-personnel mine or booby-trap, the upward blast wrecks more than his foot. Too often, his testicles or penis, shredded, must be amputated. When you think about it, this is almost to be expected in an insurgency type of war where the enemy has neither aircraft, artillery, nor advanced communications and coordination. He has to rely on things like mines and booby-traps. And, of course, government dares not mention to teens and young men losing your sex life--that would dry up recruitment really, really fast.

    Google it. While the government does not discuss it; it can't keep it totally hidden in the internet age.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 06:37 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    your propensity to assure all share in your perspective is commendable at times.

    unfortunately the need for you to provide graphic details on a subject which had absolutely no relation to the discussion at hand except to promote some hidden agenda you felt necessary to promote without thought of the consequence to some reader who has lost or had a loved one seriously injured during the conflicts you felt necessary to interject in your post.

    throughout the ages, the conflicts fought have resulted in the loss of life. Each conflict has had its peculiar medical experiences used to save lives: whether from the civil war where medical people cut off limbs to save the individual's life to actions in recent battlefield medical tents to save a life. In some cases, it is the art of the practice of medicine w/o consequence to the patient's future quality of life upon return to civilian life. sometimes, just sometimes, the thought comes to mind to receive a life insurance check instead of enduring the lifetime of anguish.

    in the future, you might consider other reader's perspective before posting graphic details about their loved one's battlefield damage especially since the topic has no purpose to the subject at hand except to satisfy your itch!

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    your propensity to assure all share in your perspective is commendable at times.

    unfortunately the need for you to provide graphic details on a subject which had absolutely no relation to the discussion at hand except to promote some hidden agenda you felt necessary to promote without thought of the consequence to some reader who has lost or had a loved one seriously injured during the conflicts you felt necessary to interject in your post.

    throughout the ages, the conflicts fought have resulted in the loss of life. Each conflict has had its peculiar medical experiences used to save lives: whether from the civil war where medical people cut off limbs to save the individual's life to actions in recent battlefield medical tents to save a life. In some cases, it is the art of the practice of medicine w/o consequence to the patient's future quality of life upon return to civilian life. sometimes, just sometimes, the thought comes to mind to receive a life insurance check instead of enduring the lifetime of anguish.

    in the future, you might consider other reader's perspective before posting graphic details about their loved one's battlefield damage especially since the topic has no purpose to the subject at hand except to satisfy your itch!

    ipse
    Huh?!?!?

    The graphic details are used to support the price paid to win and maintain rights. A precious price indeed. The asterisk-ed information is to support the statement in the main text.

    Sorry if you think that was not cricket. I happen to think it was part of the price and won't be backing off from it. Whether government hides it from young men in order to avoid uninspiring their patriotism is beside the point. Plenty of young men believe the rhetoric about serving their country, bringing democracy to the world, etc. And, they paid a certain price.

    I know of no requirement to maintain a certain level of smoke-screen so as not to offend sensibilities. I would have been just as valid to describe in detail the horror of being boiled alive--(the price paid by poisoners in the absence of a right against cruel and unusual punishment.) Or, burned alive (right to religious freedom) Or, the penalty for high-treason: drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, hanged until half-dead, privy parts cut off (emasculated), intestines cut out and burned in front of the still-living person, beheaded, and then quartered (right against cruel and unusual punishment.)

    This isn't some ivory tower subject disconnected from reality. This is the reality. This is part of why the ****** rights really are so precious, why they really were so expensive to obtain.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-08-2015 at 10:25 PM. Reason: Verbiage
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    +1+1+1

    Gorramit, Citizen, I'm glad you're back.
    Last edited by PistolPackingMomma; 03-08-2015 at 09:49 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    the sensationalism is need to solely support your personal, political-biased premise and for no other purpose, but of course!

    just like your tirade out of the blue about treason and your perception of punishment therein.

    i bet you are just spinning like a top over Manning aren't you...and taxpayers paid for her transition...

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 03-08-2015 at 11:33 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    +1+1+1

    Gorramit, Citizen, I'm glad you're back.
    Thanks, PPM!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    the sensationalism is need to solely support your personal, political-biased premise and for no other purpose, but of course!

    just like your tirade out of the blue about treason and your perception of punishment therein.

    i bet you are just spinning like a top over Manning aren't you...and taxpayers paid for her transition...

    ipse
    Look, I'd rather have you as an ally for freedom and rights. But, if you're going to add in stuff that isn't there and attack me, so be it.

    Regarding Bradley/Chelsea Manning, I spun like a top when he/she was tortured with very long solitary confinement for exposing government's duplicity. As a wiser mind than mine remarked, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." Don't bother arguing about any damage he/she did. A very senior government official (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?) already testified to Congress that Manning's releases did no damage. I did not know tax-payers were milked for his/her transition. If true, I'll be spinning again--government has no standing to bilk tax-victims for gender/identity...ahem...transitions for its prisoners.

    So, what do you say we get back to discussing the 4A and the value of rights?
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-08-2015 at 11:47 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    please let's clear the air, where did i misspeak citizen...

    1. post 14 you brought up the injury details over the fourth amendment discussion which was completely off subject just to make your political statement of the quote: the price...blah blah, blah." unquote.
    2. post 16 you brought up the treason crap over the response to me after flatly stating you didn't a rat's arse (paraphrased) whom you caused grief to as you promoted your off subject political agenda.
    3. post 20 nowhere did i discuss damage alleged caused by PFC Manning, yet you felt the need to pursue that as well as her treatment, again apparently to further your political agenda.

    btw, the correct title for ms manning, besides PFC, is using the feminine pronouns and not try to degrade their status with using both the male/female pronouns as you come away looking quite uninformed ~ which we all know is not the case.

    sincerely wish you would look at your last recent posts in this thread and if you can honestly state, w/o hesitation & mindless bovine manure, you have not pushed the envelope by embellishing or sensationalizing with material you FEEL you needed to state for the pursuit of your own political agenda, then i will tender an apology.

    however, no where did you need to push the price of freedom by discussing specifics about battle wounds in that degree of detail; no where did you need to throw in the comments about smoke screen, boiled alive, and the other archaic punishments (tho surprised you left out rat torture) you listed for treason and your perception of punishment for the crime, and no where did you need to elaborate on PFC Manning's case from the JC perspective.

    while knowledgeable, you lack the capability of articulating the needed information for the membership w/o putting your own political agenda spin into the mix. therefore, for intents and purposes i might as well watch fox news for my information since it has as much bias and emotionalism in their reporting as you do.

    by doing so citizen you lose your credibility...so think about your course when you say quote: I happen to think it was part of the price and won't be backing off from it. unquote as your unnecessary rhetoric makes your comments as viable as those you distrust so much all the while this readership loses an invaluable contributor as we have to read between the lines of your posts to separate hyperbole from fact!

    ipse

    ps please do not confuse criticize for attack.
    Last edited by solus; 03-09-2015 at 12:44 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •