> The whole point of a trial is to determine whether > a crime has been committed.
Nope. The point of the trial is to determine *who* committed the crime. By the time the trial starts, it's a foregone conclusion that a crime was committed by *someone*. The jury's task is to determine whether it was the defendant or not.
> How is that even legal ,a judge can not in a > ruling trump the Constitution , or so I thought.
It's legal because a person can waive their 4th Amendment rights and consent to searches by the government.
When it comes to probation and parole, the court is making the defendant an offer: "We'll let you out early in exchange for your agreement to waive your 4th Amendment right to be free of warrantless searches. If you decline to give consent to such searches, you're free to do so, but you'll have to serve your full sentence."
Most people want to get out of jail enough (or avoid going to jail in the first place) that they agree to the conditions.
> As for warrantless searches, the parents ought to > be doing that to begin with.
I'm curious how this "warrantless search" condition actually applies with minors. The kids might give up their 4th Amendment rights as a condition of probation, but the parents don't, and neither do any *other* kids living in the same house, so when the probation officer shows up, he can't really search the whole house-- just the one kid's room who is on probation.
Makes skirting the rules real easy. Just hide anything you don't want the probation officer to find in your brother's or sister's room, and keep yours squeaky clean.
> When discussing acts of war, usually agreements between the > major powers (and others) such as the Geneva conventions > are relevant.
It would only be relevant if one of the nations involved is one of those "major nations" of which you speak, or is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise the nation is not bound by either one.
> Is that actually what international law says, or just what makes sense?
There's no such thing as "international law". There's no International Congress or Parliament out there passing statutes which every country must obey.
There's only treaties and agreements between nations, and those differ from nation to nation. So what constitutes an act of war between Nation A and Nation B isn't necessarily and act of war between Nation A and Nation C.
> and any efforts targeting female toplessness > specifically will obviously (and correctly) be > hailed as sexist (and a possible violation of the > First Amendment).
Actually, it would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, not the 1st Amendment, since it would be the government treating women differently from men.
If the city banned *all* toplessness-- both male and female-- there would be no legal problem, which suggests no 1st Amendment concern, since if it was a protected speech issue, the constitutional violation wouldn't be cured by banning that speech by both genders.
> You don't risk a pilot. You don't risk the political fall-out of a pilot > being captured.
I can't believe you're advocating that only systems that put your own countrymen in *more* danger be utilized. That it's somehow unfair for the enemy not to have the opportunity to capture our own personnel.
How about armor on tanks and Humvees? That protects the soldiers, too. Is that an unfair advantage? Should we have to conduct our operations only using methods that put our service personnel in the most vulnerable possible?
> According to the guy's Twitter, they threatened to > tow the car because it was illegally parked.
That's one thing these media assholes need to be called to account for. They think just because they have a camera that none of the normal parking and traffic laws apply to them. They pull up on sidewalks, block driveways and alleys, even park on lawns.
They shouldn't tow them for not deleting footage, but they should certainly do it for all of that other crap.
I don't agree with arming these things, but why should one with just a camera require a warrant?
The cops don't need a warrant to fly over your property in a plane or a helicopter, and the cameras they can attach to those aircraft are every bit as hi-tech and intrusive as what you can put on drone. Sometimes more so, because those platforms are larger and can carry much more robust equipment than a little drone can.
It seems like this is another one of those tech panics over the fact that it's a drone, not what it's capable of actually doing.
I've never understood this in the military context, either. People clutch their pearls and get the vapors over drone strikes, except they don't necessarily question the legitimacy of the strikes themselves, but rather that they are done with drones. The implication being they wouldn't have much of a problem with it if the military used an F-16 or an F-22 jet fighter piloted by a person to deliver the same bomb to the same target to kill the same people. It's just doing it with a drone that gets their shorts in a twist. I don't get it. Who cares *how* the bomb reaches its target? If the target is legitimate, then whether it's flown there by a drone or a plane piloted by a person is irrelevant.
Same here. If the surveillance is legal with a helicopter, why should that legal analysis change merely because the pilot is at the other end of a signal instead of sitting in the cockpit?
> Vehicles used in actual wars are coming back > home to be deployed against civilians.
As none of the vehicles mentioned in the article seem to be equipped with any offensive weaponry (no mounted .50-cals, active denial systems, or anything like that), the only objection here seems to be the armor itself. And since armor is a purely defensive asset which can only be used to protect someone from being shot *at*, I'm not sure how it is being "deployed against civilians".
Is the objection that the armor makes the police too invulnerable? That it doesn't give the civilians a fair chance to fight back and hurt the cops if they feel it's righteous to do so?
Do we also object to the cops themselves wearing body armor? Is it just as objectionable for a cop to himself to be armored as it is for him to have a vehicle that's armored?
> Would Spain try to extradite me if I'm an > American citizen and posted from America?
They could try but the U.S would never allow it. It would be a simple matter to challenge any attempt to extradite an American citizen for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights in America. A first year law student could win that one.
The Constitution does not allow other countries to nullify all the guaranteed rights that were so thoughtfully put into place, and reach into our country and pluck our citizens away for exercising them.
> they could just go to an ISDS tribunal which wouldn't care about > sovereign immunity.
Sure, but that's only half the process. The other (and more important) half is collecting on the judgement.
The ISDS might not care about the Constitution, but any attempt to enforce its judgments will have to be done through the U.S. courts, which presumably will care quite a bit what the Constitution requires.
> The end result is that, once again, the US will just not follow through > with their part of treaty obligations.
Right, and in this case that's a good thing. No treaty should ever be given superiority over or allowed to undermine the Constitution itself.
> is Mark Zuckerberg really as bloody stupid as this, > thinking he can do this sort of thing and because > he gets away with it in the US, thinks he can do so > elsewhere?
Do what sort of thing? Get away with what, exactly?
You mean own a website/service and provide people with free use of it so long as they abide by the rules he sets up?
Look, Facebook isn't a public utility or anything. It's not essential for life-- I get by just fine without using the damn thing and have done for years-- and it's private property. The owners of that property have a right to set rules by which you can use *their* property. If you don't like their rules, piss off and use some other web site or service.
Is a "real name" policy a good idea from a business standpoint? Maybe, maybe not. But it's *their* business-- they constructed the site, paid for the servers, the bandwidth, the employees to run it, etc.-- so *they* have the right to make the rules for the people who use it. For FREE no less.