A True American!

[Massive Lee]

Well said, M.Lee.

Kind of Off-Topic, but it's a great BBC documentary that many more people need to watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ghtmares&hl=en

Just finished watching part 1. Very interesting perspectives on the islamist and neoconservatist visions. Thanks for sharing this great British documentary. The islamist perspective is scary. The Neoconservatist one is even worst.

Lee

[decay]

The islamist perspective is scary. The Neoconservatist one is even worst.

really?

i usually try not to resort to moral relativism, and i'm no fan of the neocons, but at least they don't advocate, yanno... beheading me...

[E30 Cabrio]

really?

i usually try not to resort to moral relativism, and i'm no fan of the neocons, but at least they don't advocate, yanno... beheading me...

It's our foreign policy that makes them behead people and kill thousands of innocent people...

That and the fact we're not Islamic fascists that won't convert to being such. :bow:

[Kilomph]

I'm glad somebody actually watched it! It's very eye opening, two and three are equally as surprising.

I love the bits in part one about the Neocons assuming that the Russians must have created undetectable weapons because they can't detect anything, absolutely hilarious.

[sticksdaman]

and here i thought these political threads went the way of the dinosaurs back in november..

[Massive Lee]

"Lies as reality"

[e30fiend]

The agents simply do not have the right to detain someone WITHOUT CAUSE OR REASON. Any argument about "but it's for the safety of our country! Just answer the question!" misses the point entirely. It's an extremely slippery slope when you start violating people's rights in the name of security.

What's next? Check points on every corner and police patrols randomly knocking on my door with no cause and demanding to know what I'm up to and where I'm from? Even if I WAS doing something wrong, you can't just violate people's rights in the name of security.

Not to mention the question the guard was asking is meaningless anyway. "Are you a US citizen?" Even if you weren't all you'd have to say is "Yes" and it looks like they'd just let you go. Waste.

Don't get me wrong, the intended purpose of such checkpoints is obvious. But again you can't go around stopping and questioning people WITHOUT RIGHT.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[Collin]

There is a clear violation of a CITIZEN's rights and it's the citizen's fault?

They have no authority to ask if he is a US citizen at this checkpoint. At the border, on a routine traffic stop, sure; but no US citizen can be denied passage in the US without probable cause. These men knew who he was and detained him, which is quite clearly illegal.

Protecting citizens by violating their rights is not protecting citizens. How can you people not be upset over abuse of power?

All true Americans should have a healthy distrust of the government, as the violation of rights is an extremely slippery slope, and a hard one to see coming.

Edit:

they stop ALL cars, and the dude would not answer the question
why is it wrong. if the guy answers the question, he drives on.

Because they have no legal right to stop anyone or ask the question in the first place. Again: the violation of a citizen's rights is not the fault of the citizen, but the fault of said citizen's government.

It's our foreign policy that makes them behead people and kill thousands of innocent people...

That and the fact we're not Islamic fascists that won't convert to being such.

It's the fault of 7th century Islamic Lawmakers that made crimes against god crimes against the state.

If you offend your god it is between you and your god. An offense to god is no offense to government, and that's the problem with islamic extremists, and why they hate us. We do not make our people accountable for religious offenses, only violations of clearly defined and ratified laws of man. Also, it's what makes us the best country in the world.

[Kilomph]

And finally, s'more sane people chime in. All good points, thanks for the input.

You guys should check out that BBC documentary, I think you'd like it.

[E30 Cabrio]

And finally, s'more sane people chime in. All good points, thanks for the input.

You guys should check out that BBC documentary, I think you'd like it.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc-admits-anti-american-bias/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

[Schniddy]

Because they have no legal right to stop anyone or ask the question in the first place.

Proof?


Also, I'll be watching that documentary tonight.

[decay]

...because if there is one true and shining example of a government providing freedom and liberty for it's citizens, it's the UK. so you should absolutely listen to what its mouthpiece TV networks have to say.

(Kilomph, THAT was sarcasm. before was irony. see the difference now?)

[Kilomph]

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/bbc...american-bias/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-BBC-News.html

Never did I say to take everything they said literally, but there's no doubt it's more accurate than most reports we get from our MSM. Oh wait, our MSM don't usually investigate what matters, they tend to stick with B.Spears.

[Collin]

Proof?


Also, I'll be watching that documentary tonight.

Edit: I'm sorry I posted the wrong US v Martinez, I wanted US v Martinez-Fuerte, which is here http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html

Only impermanent checkpoints with may be set up to question/detain people, and only when agents working the checkpoint have reasonable suspicion of unlawful intent. This permits for DUI stops, but not search and seizure checkpoints on the basis of criminal background or nationality; also border patrol falls under a completely different set of guidelines. That's why we have border patrol agents at the borders, something out of the jurisdiction of The DHS.

Clearly a permanent checkpoint was shown, no suspicion of unlawful intent could be proven as the agents know who the man holding the camera is. Which also makes their first and only question "Are you a US citizen?" a moot point.

[joshh]

Edit: I'm sorry I posted the wrong US v Martinez, I wanted US v Martinez-Fuerte, which is here http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html

Only impermanent checkpoints with may be set up to question/detain people, and only when agents working the checkpoint have reasonable suspicion of unlawful intent. This permits for DUI stops, but not search and seizure checkpoints on the basis of criminal background or nationality; also border patrol falls under a completely different set of guidelines. That's why we have border patrol agents at the borders, something out of the jurisdiction of The DHS.

Clearly a permanent checkpoint was shown, no suspicion of unlawful intent could be proven as the agents know who the man holding the camera is. Which also makes their first and only question "Are you a US citizen?" a moot point.

Yet the asshole couldn't just say "yes".