I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

elton john

“I mean, it’s interesting. Wingers are not only incredibly, mind-bloggling stupid, but functionary illiterate at well. I wonder if he types with his feet, or can manage the use of simple tools?—-quoted from drindl — November 21, 2005 @ 11:15 am

and by the way…i haven’t researched this topic but, if i have a warrant to search a location suspected to be the site of an illegal activity and at the search site there are individuals present, it does not seem unreasonable to search those individuals reasonably suspected of being associated with those involved in criminal activities…ex. why not shove all the contraband down the daughter’s pants and have her walk down to meet “uncle criminal” in the parking lot.

the left…protecting the “civil” ? rights of criminals and terrorists at everone else’s expense…stealing our paychecks..taxes.. “we are a rich country and as such..we antiamericans have a “civil” right to your wallet to fund programs to destroy our national integrity” thats human rights activism

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/functionary

Comment by snookered — November 21, 2005 @ 10:36 am

No, Just liar.

If you have specific complaints with the way this story has been presented, tell us exactly which facts or details were left out and how they distort the story and back these points up with proper citations.

Meanwhile, the original post is entirely correct that Bob Novak is liar or an idiot in this case and tomaig in comment #3 is entirely incorrect. From the description given by the court, Mary and Jane Doe were certainly subjected to a strip search by any reasonable definition of the term.

I thought it was neo-cons who lacked nuance. It doesn’t suit us. All it does is create inadvertent propaganda. Remember, removing details is how “Curveball”, and “mobile biological agent factories” were sold to us.

This was long before modern law and the Patriot Act where law enforcement just decides who they think is guilty, then does a search as a fishing expedition to try to get some evidence to back it up. Not to mention simply using the search itself as a threat to its intended victims. The search of a person or property has become an act of destruction and humiliation in itself. Thus the threat of such a search is used to try to get citizens to give up their rights.

So here’s the real 4th amendment, as a relic of the time before our free nation became a police state.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Actually, the legal definition of “strip search”, according to the Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary is “a search for something concealed on a person conducted after removal of the person’s clothing.” Doesn’t have to involve probing of the orifices or other “inappropriate touch.” You may want to examine the term, “intimate search” or “body cavity search”, as you’re confusing those with “strip search.”

All that’s necessary to qualify a search as a “strip search” is the process of exposing the body by removing clothes to facilitate a search for items concealed on the body.

So, yes, Novak lied. They were both strip searched.

How funny you’d say such things, when republicans during the Clinton administration contradict themselves and you. Republicans are the party of opportunism, hypocrisy and hate.

Orin Hatch:

“[The filibuster is] one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.” (Congressional Record, October 4, 1994)

“[T]he Senate can and should do what it can to ascertain the jurisprudential views a nominee will bring to the bench in order to prevent the confirmation of those who are likely to be judicial activists. Determining which will become activists is not easy since many of President Clinton’s nominees tend to have limited paper trails… Determining which of President Clinton’s nominees will become activists is complicated and it will require the Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning of nominees’ jurisprudential views.” (Address of Senator Hatch before University of Utah Federalist Society chapter, February 18, 1997)

“While the debate about vacancy rates on our federal courts is not unimportant, it remains more important that the Senate perform its advice and consent function thoroughly and responsibly. Federal judges serve for life and perform an important constitutional function without direct accountability to the people. Accordingly, the Senate should never move too quickly on nominations before it.” (Congressional Record, June 22, 1998)

Senator Don Nickles

“I think it’s important that we not undermine the capability of a significant minority in the Senate to slow down some legislation that may be detrimental to our country. When you get 41 Senators, there’s usually something wrong or there wouldn’t be that [level of] concern.” (Daily Oklahoman, November 29, 1993)

Senator Christopher Bond

“On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster.” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 11, 1993)

Senator Richard Lugar

“…clearly the thing that distinguishes the Senate as a legislative body is unlimited debate… a traditional aspect that most Senators have felt very important for 200 years.” (Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Floor Deliberations and Scheduling Hearing, May 18, 1993)

“It is a function of our Constitution that minorities are protected in many, many ways… so a little time passes so, in fact, the public might be informed of what the issues are and may weigh in and people may change their minds.” (Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Floor Deliberations and Scheduling Hearing, May 18, 1993)

Senator Jeff Sessions

On March 8, 2000, cloture petitions were necessary to obtain votes on the nominations of both Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. This was after Republican opponents repeatedly delayed action on them – for over four years in the case of Mr. Paez. Senator Bob Smith openly declared he was leading a filibuster and described Senator Sessions as a member of his filibuster coalition.

Senator Arlen Specter

On the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General:

“And there have been threats of filibuster. And if John Ashcroft is as bad as the witnesses on this side of the table have characterized him, as bad as the senators have characterized him – if he’s that bad, they know how to stop him.” (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, January 18, 2001)

Senator Specter was asked if Senate Democrats should filibuster the Ashcroft nomination. “Well, that’s exactly right. If John Ashcroft is as bad as they say he is, then they ought to use whatever means they can to defeat his nomination.” (CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, January 21, 2001)

Senator Rick Santorum

On the nomination of Henry W. Foster, M.D. to be Surgeon General:

“Based on what is known, as well as what is not because of Dr. Foster’s lack of candor, I am not convinced that he has the potential to unite the country by addressing the broad range of health-care issues facing the nation. It is for this reason that I will vote against cloture on the nomination and against Dr. Foster if a confirmation vote comes before the Senate.” (The Philadelphia Tribune, June 23, 1995)

Former Senator John Ashcroft

On the nomination of David Satcher, M.D. to be Surgeon General:

“Ultimately, a senator has the right to notice and to full debate on the issue. And that’s what a hold guarantees. I think the Senate deserves an opportunity to debate and understand these issues and the purpose of my placing a hold in this process is to make sure that we have an opportunity for that debate to be fully and thoroughly conducted.” (Federal News Service, January 20, 1998)

Former Senator Bob Dole

Former Senator Dole defended the filibuster as a way “to protect the rights of the minority. It’s not just a Democratic tool when Republicans are in charge or a Republican tool when Democrats are in charge.” (USA Today, November 23, 1994)

Former Senator Bob Smith

On the floor, former Senator Smith, citing the Fortas, Rehnquist and other filibusters as precedents, said, “It is not a new path to argue and to discuss information about these judges. I do not want to hear that I am going down some trail the Senate has never gone before by talking about these judges and delaying. It is simply not true. I resent any argument to the contrary because it is simply not true.” (Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

Former Senator Jesse Helms

Saying his rights as a U.S. Senator “were trampled on” by the Democratic Senate majority and the Clinton Administration, former Senator Helms and former Senator Faircloth began a filibuster to block approval of the nomination of North Carolina native Walter Dellinger to be an assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. Former Senator Helms framed the debate in terms of the Senate’s tradition of protecting “the rights of the minority, even a minority of one or two.” (States News Service, October 6, 1993)

Former Senator Nancy Kassebaum

“I’m a believer that the filibuster is important as a tool for the minority…” (The Times-Picayune, August 7, 1994)

Former Senator Simpson

“The rap they give us is our use of the filibuster as a check on government controlled by one party, that that’s somehow acting in bad faith. That is an incredibly simplistic view. Republicans were duly elected too. The voters elected us. I know, sad to believe, based on the principles we believe in. We ought to have the right to have those principles judged by the American people.” (Federal News Service, October 8, 1994)

“Well, come on, if the president wants to see less frequent use of the filibuster, I suggest that he and the members of his party consider the idea of greater consultation. We are ready to work. Talk to us honestly.” (Federal News Service, October 8, 1994)

Former Senator Malcom Wallop

“What makes the Senate such a wonderful institution is what also makes the Bill of Rights such a wondrous document. Like the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Senate’s rules sometimes serve to frustrate or thwart the whims and passions of a free and democratic society. That is a virtue, my colleagues, not a vice.” (Senate Rules and Administration Hearing, March 10, 1994)

“No majority is permanent – and no minority, either. This, therefore, is the essence of America’s unique concept of liberty: it is vital that the minority has the right to be heard and that it is protected against the tyranny of a majority of one.” (Senate Rules and Administration Hearing, March 10, 1994)

“The Founding Fathers had a specific scheme in mind in order to protect minority rights, and the filibuster is essential.” (States News Service, October 26, 1994)

Ahem…pot…kettle…black.

Both the Dems AND the Republicans deserve to hang from ropes for what they have done to the military.