hugo

It's a religion for dumbasses.

You're a fuckin' dumbass.

We can hope they recognized Jesus as their savior.

They ain't Americans..who cares?

Isreal gives the Palestinians the Gaza strip...their reward.... rockets being launched into the pre-1967 border of Isreal into civilian populations.

Actually, Isreal has been prevented by its allies from engaging in the final solution used everywhere when cultures collide. There are more Palestinians (sic) now then there were in 1948.

There were no Europeans in Australia befure the 17th Century. So fuckin' what?

The decision: Affirmed. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule does not require suppression of evidence found in a search. Pp. 2–13. (a) Because Michigan has conceded that the entry here was a knock-and-announce violation, the only issue is whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for such a violation. Pp. 2–3. (b) This Court has rejected “ndiscriminate application” of the exclusionary rule, United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 , holding it applicable only “where its deterrence benefits outweigh its ‘substantial social costs,’ ” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357 . Exclusion may not be premised on the mere fact that a constitutional violation was a “but-for” cause of obtaining the evidence. The illegal entry here was not the but-for cause, but even if it were, but-for causation can be too attenuated to justify exclusion. Attenuation can occur not only when the causal connection is remote, but also when suppression would not serve the interest protected by the constitutional guarantee violated. The interests protected by the knock-and-announce rule include human life and limb (because an unannounced entry may provoke violence from a surprised resident), property (because citizens presumably would open the door upon an announcement, whereas a forcible entry may destroy it), and privacy and dignity of the sort that can be offended by a sudden entrance. But the rule has never protected one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests violated here have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable. Pp. 3–7. © The social costs to be weighed against deterrence are considerable here. In addition to the grave adverse consequence that excluding relevant incriminating evidence always entails—the risk of releasing dangerous criminals—imposing such a massive remedy would generate a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule, and claims that any asserted justification for a no-knock entry had inadequate support. Another consequence would be police officers’ refraining from timely entry after knocking and announcing, producing preventable violence against the officers in some cases, and the destruction of evidence in others. Next to these social costs are the deterrence benefits. The value of deterrence depends on the strength of the incentive to commit the forbidden act. That incentive is minimal here, where ignoring knock-and-announce can realistically be expected to achieve nothing but the prevention of evidence destruction and avoidance of life-threatening resistance, dangers which suspend the requirement when there is “reasonable suspicion” that they exist, Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385 . Massive deterrence is hardly necessary. Contrary to Hudson’s argument that without suppression there will be no deterrence, many forms of police misconduct are deterred by civil-rights suits, and by the consequences of increasing professionalism of police forces, including a new emphasis on internal police discipline. Pp. 8–13. Justice Scalia, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, concluded in Part IV that Segura v. United States, 468 U. S. 796 , New York v. Harris, 495 U. S. 14 , and United States v. Ramirez, 523 U. S. 65 , confirm the conclusion that suppression is unwarranted in this case. Pp. 13–16. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Roberts, C. J.,and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. about us help

No Europeans were in North America in Sept of 1492. So fuckin' what?

Another perspective: Victimhood: The Palestinian Disease By Charles Krauthammer WASHINGTON -- It was another one of those pictures that goes instantly around the world. A young Palestinian, wailing in wretched sorrow, grieving over her dead father, stepmother and five siblings, killed by an explosion on a Gaza beach. Then came the blame. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (he's the moderate) immediately called the killings an act of Israeli "genocide'' and, to dramatize the crime, legally adopted the bereaved girl. The sensational coverage and sensational charges raise the obvious question: Why would Israel deliberately shell a peaceful family on a beach? The Israeli government, clumsy as ever, seemed to semi-apologize by expressing regret about the deaths, implying that perhaps they had been caused by an errant Israeli shell targeting a Palestinian rocket base. But then a few days later, an army investigation concluded that it was not Israel's doing at all. First, because the shrapnel taken from the victims (treated at Israeli hospitals -- some "genocide'') were not the ordnance used in Israeli artillery. Second, because aerial photography revealed no crater that could have been caused by Israeli artillery. And third, because Israel could account for five of the six shells it launched at the rocket base nearby, and the missing one had been launched at least five minutes before the one that killed the family. An expert at a local chapter of a human rights group disputes the Israeli claims. OK. Let's concede for the sake of argument that the question of whether it was an errant Israeli shell remains unresolved. But the obvious question not being asked is this: Who is to blame if Palestinians are setting up rocket launchers to attack Israel -- and placing them 400 yards from a beach crowded with Palestinian families on the Muslim Sabbath? . For Palestinian terrorists -- and the Palestinian governments (both Fatah and Hamas) that allow them to operate unmolested -- it's win-win: If their rockets aimed into nearby Israeli towns kill innocent Jews, no one abroad notices and it's another success in the terror war against Israel. And if Israel's preventative and deterrent attacks on those rocket bases inadvertently kill Palestinian civilians, the iconic "Israeli massacre'' picture makes the front page of The New York Times, and the Palestinians win the propaganda war. Answer: This is just another example of the Palestinians' classic and cowardly human-shield tactic -- attacking innocent Israeli civilians while hiding behind innocent Palestinian civilians But there is an even larger question not asked. Whether the rocket bases are near civilian beaches or in remote areas, why are the Gazans launching any rockets at Israel in the first place -- about 1,000 in the last year? To get Israel to remove its settlers, end the occupation and let the Palestinians achieve dignity and independence? But Israel did exactly that in Gaza last year. It completely evacuated Gaza, dismantled all its military installations, removed its soldiers, destroyed all Israeli settlements and expelled all 7,000 Israeli settlers. Israel then declared the line that divides Israel from Gaza to be an international frontier. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory ever. And what have the Palestinians done with this independence, this judenrein territory under the Palestinians' own control? They have used their freedom to ... launch rockets at civilians in nearby Israeli towns. Why? Because the Palestinians prefer victimhood to statehood. They have demonstrated that for 60 years, beginning with their rejection of the United Nations decision to establish a Palestinian state in 1947, because it would have also created a small Jewish state next door. They declared war instead. Half a century later, at the Camp David summit with President Clinton, Israel renewed the offer of a Palestinian state -- with its capital in Jerusalem, with not a single Jewish settler remaining in Palestine, and on a contiguous territory encompassing 95 percent of the West Bank (Israel making up the other 5 percent with pieces of Israel proper). The Palestinian answer? War again -- Arafat's terror war, aka the second intifada, which killed a thousand Jews. This embrace of victimhood, of martyrdom, of blood and suffering, is the Palestinian disease. They are offered their own independent state. They are given all of Gaza. And they respond with rocket attacks into peaceful Israeli towns -- in pre-1967 Israel proper, mind you. What can Israel do but try to take out those rocket bases and their crews? What would the U.S. do if rockets were raining into San Diego from across the border with Mexico? Now look again at that terrible photograph and ask yourself: Who is responsible for the heart-rending grief of that poor Palestinian girl?letters@charleskrauthammer.com © 2006, The Washington Post Writers Group Only real scumbags deliberately place their own children in danger.

I could care less about the Isrealites or the Palestinians. The question should be what interest of ours is it who wins the ongoing civil war between the two factions. Isreal may have been a valuable Cold War ally. They are now simply an entangling alliance that George Washington ( often referred to as the first GW) warned us about.

The worst mods of all time are on http://www.myusm.com

The poll question is absurd because Carholics believe the 666 number refers to a Roman emperor, most likely Nero. It is Protestants who make a big deal of the beast.

Them damn Sunni's.

It would have been a twenty if you had said I was damn good lookin' also. I'm gonna have to send feck a better pic.

Liberals always try to attack corporations. What they always ignore is the fact corporations are a creation of the big government they love. There is nothing preventing individuals from pooling their assets and forming a socialist organization in a libertarian society. Sadly, us libertarians will not be left alone in a socialist society.

Please, live in the real world. Sadly, we do have problems that come with a diversified population. Whining minorities who blame discrimination for all their problems, thus leading to sloth, crime and poverty, being a prime example. There were not children starving to death in America in the 30's when there was a depression (thanks to poor monetary policy) and hardly any safety net. Corporations provide jobs. Jobs provide money to spend on food. If money has to be given away it is better to give it to a corporation than a welfare slut. There is a reason there are still some people who refuse charity. Dependence on charity destroys an individual. Institutionalized charity destroys societies. America is the world's economic superpower because we are less socialist than our western rivals. We protect private property rights thus increasing investments and increasing the size of the pie. PPP United States (2005) $42,000 PPP Sweden (2005) $29,800 If you're lazy move to Europe. If you don't mind hard work the US is the place to be. It's fucking funny when I was 14 I knew to use a condom, so did everyone else. The government did not have to spend a single dollar to teach us that and there was no AIDS back then. We are pretty close to first when it comes to not allowing institutionalized theft.

Bin Laden is a Sunni Muslim. Al-Queda is primarily a Sunni organization.

You are clearly an idiot.

The only other choices are unsuccessful people and big government assholes. Give me the big business guy.

Joe,you're trying to change the subject. The fact the government wastes money in one area does not excuse wasting money in another area. Nothing propagates poverty and crime like our welfare system. Before welfare 25% of blacks were born out of wedlock. Now 69% are. This is the primary cause for the high crime and poverty rate among black Americans. A simple economic law: you subsidize something you get more of it. Single mothers should not be subsidized. There are a few legitimate disabilities that prevent someone from holding a job...very few. If someone is blind, or crippled, private charity can take care of them much more efficiently. There is a reason we used to call illegitimate children bastards and why that word is now considered the equivalent of a curse word. Thomas Sowell says it best:

The swaying buttocks sounds interesting.

You are avoiding the subject. It matters not why Arabs are attacking America, in the short term. The fact is some are. Only lunatics and Arabs are not convinced 9/11 was an attack initiated by Islamic fanatics of Arab descent. In the long term we should make significant foreign policy changes. In the short run we need to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks and racial profiling is a good tool. I really could care less if Canadians get stopped at our border.

It was in the same article that referenced the polar bear attack.

Don't cry me a river about you being oppressed because racial profiling occurs. If I am on an airplane and they search some 85 year old woman while ignoring 25 year old Arab passengers, in the name of political correctness, I am going to laugh out loud. If we have a war with Mexico I would expect to be occassionaly inconveinanced if I lived in, or was visiting, Mexico. It would be a legitimate defensive act by Mexican authorities. Even you prefer to call these terrorists freedom fighters. Do you really think the 9/11 hijackers were freedom fighters? If that sentiment is common in the Arab-American community there is a damn good reason to racially profile.