Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (291411)	6/16/2006 6:35:34 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578148

You have to wonder about the motives of a leader who has divided a nation and the world with his policies. Message 22550915

To: TimF who wrote (291411)	6/16/2006 8:57:55 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578148

re: I don't like the idea of routine no knock (or other notice, I don't think it has to literally be a knock) entry in to private homes. I don't think it should be the policy to do so except in certain special situations. The point is, it the evidence obtained in the "illegal" search can be used as evidence in court, then there is no restraint on government behaviour. From the article: Since 1914, the Supreme Court has held that, except in rare circumstances, evidence seized in violation of the Constitution cannot be used. The exclusionary rule has sometimes been criticized for allowing criminals to go free just because of police error. But as the court itself recognized in that 1914 case, if this type of evidence were admissible, the Fourth Amendment "might as well be stricken." The court ruled yesterday that the evidence could be used against Mr. Hudson. It seems to me that the libertarians and the ACLU should be on the same side of this issue. And I think many "pure" libertarians are. John