bush supporters don’t even know what that means. their motto is “give me security or i will pee on myself!”

Ignoring Jake the Fake.

Another brick of a sound Democracy is restored!

Thank you very much Judge Marrero.

The Oath and affirmation is what constitutes the warrant, and in US law no searches can be executed without a warrant unless probable cause can be shown that a crime or criminal occurance was visibly in progress.

Read the 4th amendment carefully.

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.

As long as the search is “reasonable” it’s on. It says that probable cause is required for a warrant, but it does not say that a warrant is required for a search. The only thing that requires it is legal precedent.

it’s just an extra form to fill out and a little extra ink on the rubber stamp and away we go

bwahahahaha

Pttttttttt!

I’m not the one who meekly surrendered to bin Laden by stupidly invading and occupying Iraq, that’s your glorious leader, W, the bin Laden lackey himself

But since you idolize the bin Laden “freedom hating” lackey W, that tells everyone just whose side you’re really on, and it ain’t the US, our Constitution or our troops

And since I was born in this country, and have never lived anywhere else, then your “you’re not an American” analysis is as faulty as your non-logic and hollow rhetoric

So not finishing off al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban and bin Laden is, logically, fighting terrorism how again?

Allowing those entities to regroup and now retake formerly NATO held territory in Afghanistan is, logically, fighting terrorists how again?

Allowing those entities to regroup in Pakistan which, unlike Iran, has an actual nuclear arsenal, sympathetic elements highly placed in the military and intelligence services, and which just tested a nuclear payload capable missile is, logically, fighting terrorism how again?

You terrorist appeasing surrender monkeys really have nothing positive to contribute to the US, if you hate our Constitution as much as bin Laden Lackey W does, then find some place more to your liking, where religious extremists call the shots, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia

Actually, I take back that “nothing positive to contribute” crack, as an easily-debunked, rhetorical punching bag, you’re top-notch, Grade A1 material

Comment by Dean CT — September 6, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

What?

Comment by shayne — September 6, 2007 @ 1:12 pm

—————

HEyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Or else….

Comment by Dean of Noctural Emissions. — September 6, 2007 @ 2:15 pm

Tha’s just flat out silly and meaningless.

Sorry, then, that just proves you are an ignorant f*ck who can do nothing but attack others and cannot even prove your own claims.

The ACLU has even defended Republicans. They defend individual rights, left or right.

Now we know, you are just hot air

That is still not what I asked for CT
obviously you only get your opinions from reading the opinions of “unreliable reichwing sources”

Last Time…..Show me the rulings by the judge and the source, that show this judge as an activist judge.

This president, on the other hand, has the fight of terrorism fully in mind.

Comment by Dean CT — September 6, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

Right, that’s why W meekly surrendered to bin Laden by invading and occupying Iraq, because W’s supposedly fighting terrorism

It’s good that a Chickenhawk bin Laden appeaser like yourself isn’t in Iraq, the US troops already have enough enemies without worrying about bed-wetting, Barney Fife’s like yourself shooting them in the back

W said the terrorists “hate our freedom”, then goes about raping and subverting the US Constitution at every possible opportunity

Yep, bin Laden and W, multimillionaire brothers in arms and ideology