You kinda got it bass-ackwards from how it’s supposed to work.
See, in the American system, you first get the warrant then make the arrest. Making the arrest first and then getting the warrant to fit the arrest is what one would expect from one of the former Communist bloc countries.
And you are being willfully obtuse.
At the end of WWII, the U.S. did not get a collection of international judges together to draw up charges against the German and Japanese leadership, then go knocking on doors to arrest them. The leadership was taken as part of the war effort (often as prisoners of war) and held until such time as an international court decided to charge or release them with crimes associated with the war.
In the same fashion, (and as already pointed out in the posts to which you responded with errors), Hussein was captured as a POW by U.S. forces. At the time the the U.S. handed (nominal) sovereignty over to the Iraqis, they had drawn up criminal complaints against Hussein for which he is currently being held.
“Supposedly related” only in the sense that lies were told by the administration to create a false impression that there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaida and another false impression that Iraq had any designs on launching attacks that it knew would bring overwhelming retailiation, not in the sense that there was a genuine connection.
There’s where you run off the track, RS. Non-US citizens don’t have Constitutionally protected rights, and the US is under no obligation to enforce them outside of the States. I’ll also bet that Saddam wasn’t read his Miranda rights, either. Doesn’t mean he gets off on a technicality (see, because he wasn’t arrested under our system).
My favourite trainwrecks are the ones the driver keeps reversing the train before accelerating once more into the burning, mangled wreckage…
Excuse me for being dense, but what is your point? You say you were against the invasion, what’s your view on the matter? I ask this because it appears from this vantage point that you’re all over the board.
And Hamlet’s post is not “semantics”. It is the actual way a search warrant search works. If something, it could be drugs or kiddy porn orwhatever, is found in plain view, then it can be used as evidence and the homeowner arrested. There are other rules about what can be used as evidence, but that’s the question you asked.
Just because you ask a “supposedly” rhetorical question and the answer you get doesn’t suit you doesn’t mean that you can ignore it.
He disagrees with the last person who has posted. He then invents some semi-related position that he imagines John Kerry to hold, backs this with some quotes that say no such thing, and attacks him for it.
Don’t over-analyse…
Care to adress any of my points, or even my hypothetical John Kerry answer, or are you simply intent on carrying out personal attacks designed to distract from the us about the fact that you can’t prove your point?
Or if not, as you can’t seem to come up with a valid rebuttal or find your ass with both hands and a flashlight, wanna try your luck in the pit where I don’t have to be polite?
And, as you have compared Hussein with the German and Japanese leaders of WWII, what “crimes associated with the war” was Saddam taken into custody by United States forces for?
Again, making the arrest first, and then drawing up charges to fit the arrest, just doesn’t seem right.
You don’t get any argument with me there. Like I said, I was against both the Gulf War and the current War with Iraq.
Actually, I didn’t get anything bass-ackwards. You asked for cites and I gave them to you. Either learn to use Google yourself or stop insulting the person who looks it up for you.
And you’re wrong, not only for the reasons listed above (which are all accurate). If a cop sees you shoot someone, he arrests you. He doesn’t wait for a warrant. That comes later.
Sigh. Please learn to use Google or stay out of GD. Please?
Possible violations of the Geneva Conventions
Also, note that he was a POW, all you have to do to get “arrested” for that is fight against the US.
Why’s that, because I support Bush over Kerry? There are other issues besides the War on Iraq to consider.
It became semantics when Hamlet, and now you, added the qualifier, “found in plain sight” with regards to a warranted search. So, how about if the kiddie porn is found in a drawer while conducting a warranted search for an unlawful firearm?
Well, I had this great post all written up, but Zakalwe beat me to it. Thank goodness for preview or I would have looked almost as silly as Razordull.
Zakalwe - Love the cop analogy - that was the exact one I was going to use.
Of course, it’s all irrelvant, as Saddam was not charged with a crime while in US custody. He was held, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, as a POW. The only people who tried or charged Saddam during that time was the press. The justification for this is to prevent the military leader of an armed movement fighing the US from remaining in command, and is totally justified both militarily and judicially.
Stunningly witty, as usual. I think he was asking the question I know I am - what the hell do you really think?
Now you’re just being dense. If an officer sees something criminal, unrelated to the original warrant, during a lawful search, then that can be brought in charges against the individual. If I am a cop searching a house for guns, and I find child porn in a drawer whilst legally exercising a warrant, that gets added to the charge sheet. I can’t imagine that a drawer would be excluded from a house search. By then, I would think the person would already be in custody, as search warrants aren’t too often given out unless there is great cause already.
What Hamlet is talking about, is if I am a cop with a warrant to search a house, I might (or might not; depends on the wording of the warrant) have the right to search the suspect’s car, or if I did, I couldn’t use what was found there in a criminal trial as evidence.
Hey **RazorDull ** - the option is still out there… wanna give me a go?
Nothing in your statement suggests a meaning for “supposedly” other than “it is supposed that.” If irony were your intention you failed to make that clear.
Razorsharp could have saved everyone a lot of time by writing in his OP, “I support Bush over Kerry, I’m glad Saddam’s gone, and I don’t care what arguments you have against the Iraq war because I don’t want to hear 'em.” …because, really, that’s all we’ve gotten in this entire thread.
It isn’t much of a “debate” when the writer of the OP does the equivalent of running around with fingers in his ears singing “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU BUSH ROOLS KERRY DROOLS!”
Yes, in that situation, you are correct. If a policeman witnesses a crime, or for that matter any private citizen who witnesses the commission of a crime, can arrest or detain the criminal.
Now, if a citizen complains to the police that his neighbor stole his stereo, the policeman cannot arrest the neighbor, there first has to be a warrant issued.
If the officer can make the case that searching the drawer was a logical, reasonable thing to do while searching for unlawful firearms… then the find is good and the homeowner can be charged (at least in Maryland).
If the officer is looking for Stinger Missiles however, looking in the drawer may not be a reasonable search.
Yeah, that one was easy to handle. Simple, really.
You need to bone-up on the 4th Amendment, it may come in handy someday. Oh, that’s right, you’re from England. That’s too bad.
Child’s play, Boy, child’s play.
You’re right, there are extenuating circumstances. I’ll stand corrected.
Well… I don’t think he does… because he’s correct…
Sometimes I like banging my head against the brick wall of ignorance, but sometimes I get annoyed with the wet sound it makes and give up. Since my head still has a bit of hardness left in it, I will try one more time…
Right, you’re quite the Constitutional scholar. I forgot. How silly of me. And just as an FYI I am an American - I just happen to live in England. Not that that matters - most of my neighbors know more about Constitutional law and international politics than you ever will.
To quote the Fourth amendment: from the National Archives
Of course, anyone who knows anything about constitutional law, especially someone of your vaunted knowledge of all things Constitutional, recognizes that the reality of the law being implemented is in it’s interpretation by the Supreme Court, not simply in the (often vague, definitely dated) language of the Constitution.
So here’s what a quick google search has to say about what constitutes an illegal vs a legal search, and what the limitations of such a search are:
findlaw
And, shockingly, you’re wrong yet again. Of course, a bit of googling might have helped you from making this mistake, but c’est la vie!
From Findlaw:
(bolding is mine)
Still, all of this doesn’t address your original point - that us ‘libruls’ should support letting Saddam out of his cage. That Saddam Hussein was held as a POW by the US military, and has never been charged with a crime by our justice system, shouldn’t enter into it. And that the body in question holding Hussein is in fact and Iraqi court and therefore he is not subject to US law shouldn’t matter either.
Of course if he was held by a US court, he could probably count on you and your formidable legal and international expertise to help get him out of jail, right? Since you didn’t support the invasion and all, you obviously think he should be released, right?
Yes, you are. Now go back into the sand box, the big people want to talk.
Amendment IV - 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.
Nothing vague and dated in that language. Pretty straight forward.
Now, the line that you bolded for some reason…
doesn’t address the issue in question. (Having a search warrant for a specific illegal item and finding a different illegal item not mentioned in the warrant)