AndyBoyd

officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling. ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. Hey, Mark, how's things going? Hope you and Holly are well. I know you are a conservative guy, but are you really in favor of the police asking "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers? All due respect, but you may want to think that one through a bit. The historical context of government officials asking random individuals for their "papers, please" is a little unsettling to many of us, even some conservatives, I'd guess. I get asked for my papers everytime I get pulled over already, my license, ins card and sometimes even vehicle registration. I can not even get back into the country without my passport, I have no problem having illegals getting the same treatment. Your original proposal was that police officers should ask "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers. I understood that to mean that you were arguing that the police should ask "everyone" they run into for their papers -- people walking down the street, crime victims, witnesses to crimes, people minding their own business, etc. Are you now modifying your original proposal or did I misunderstand you?

Fair enough. Hard to argue with that example. I suspect, though, that things will not be quite so clear in the majority of situations, and there will be problems as cops as well as courts will struggle to define RS in the immigration context.

Thanks for the synopsis of the law. I still haven't seen an answer to Dave's question, what would give rise to reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant? Especially if the cops can't use race or natinal origin. What would they use to make that determination? And what does "lawful contact" mean? Can a cop detain a victim of a crime, say a mugging or even a rape, in order to determine the individual's immigration status? Suppose someone asks a cop for directions? Is that individual now subject to interrogation by the cop regarding his or her immigration status? Is this really how we want the cops to act in America?

officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling. ask everyone they come in contact with to see their drivers license, if they don't have one there is a good possibility they are illegal. Hey, Mark, how's things going? Hope you and Holly are well. I know you are a conservative guy, but are you really in favor of the police asking "everyone they come into contact with" for their papers? All due respect, but you may want to think that one through a bit. The historical context of government officials asking random individuals for their "papers, please" is a little unsettling to many of us, even some conservatives, I'd guess.

officers have been stopping people under reasonable suspicion for years. There is case law in your state defining what that means. This is a power play meant to put egg on the face of immigration, or make them do their jobs. What would constitute reasonable suspicion of someone being here illegally? Blues, Dave Dave's question hits the nail on the head. This Op/Ed piece by Stephen Chapman asks this question, and suggests there are no good answers. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0429-chapman-20100429,0,6182155.column Gov. Brewer has stated that she will not allow racial profiling. Fine. But then how are cops supposed to generate a "reasonable suspicion" that someone may be an illegal alien? Does everyone with a foreign accent get detained? This law will likely prove unworkable in practice. If you read the article, it indicates that even the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the law, purely on the practical grounds Dave has raised. Leaving the political arguments aside, I don't see how this law can work without essentially forcing cops to engage in racial profiling.

If you are looking for a better end-of-times type movie, check out The Road. Or read the book by Cormack McCarthy. Just don't expect a happy Hollywood type ending. As far as Hurt Locker, I thought it was a great movie. Yes, I am sure some of the scenes were unrealistic. It was a Hollywood movie, not intended as a documentary.

"Our right to embrace Christ is no less than their right to embrace a perverse lifestyle." Right on. Slayer rules. http://www.musica320.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ci.jpg

"This is what happens in war and America needs to take note that this is what we unleash. This is especially a war in which we absolutely cannot just barrel through with guns blazing. We as a voting country decided that Iraq would be better off with our military intervention. If we're going to make that type of call then we need to be the one taking the risk that a given group is actually carrying cameras, wood, or tent poles and NOT open fire. This is a unique situation. It's not WWII." Right on the money. +1

If both sides are civilized and value human life, this might be possible. However should one side use human shields and children as soliders the other side can't stick to their rules and expect victory. Holding onto the moral high ground is never an easy thing in any situation, much less in war. I respectfully disagree with the idea that because our enemy behaves badly in war, we must do so as well. If we can't win the fight honorably, maybe it's not worth winning.

Not nitpicking at all. I fully agree with you. It is a matter of weighing the moral options. "Is the result of not goign to war a greater moral hazard than not going to war?" Because this is always a subjective determination there will always be room to argue. But yes, I agree. For example, I do not think we had a reasonably justifiable reason to be there. I agree. The war was morally good. The carpet bombing of Dresden, the firestorming of Tokyo, etc., were examples of atrocities and immoralities committed in furtherance of the "moral good." It's why war is immoral, because though a moral end is achieved, it is generally considered immoral what is done to achieve that end." Quote We can make a distinction between jus ad bellum, the right to wage war, and jus in bello, the limits of morally acceptable wartime conduct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war I'd argue that it is possible to have a good war from both points of view. A country could go to war for a morally good reason, and fight in a morally acceptable manner. In other words, it would have been possible for us to fight WWII without firebombing Dresden and Tokyo. If I understand you, you are arguing that even in a war fought for good reasons, it is inevitable that atrocities will occur, thus war is by definition immoral. I'm arguing that wars can be fought for good reasons, and fought in a morally acceptable manner. War does not have to be immoral, although it can easily slip into immorality if the participants are not extremely careful. And this is what ties into the OP's concerns. These American soldiers seem to have been somewhat careless in their actions, and innocent people paid the ultimate price.

"It's war. War is, by definition, immoral." I apologize if it seems like I'm nit-picking your post, which I found generally thoughtful and perceptive. But if an action is immoral, doesn't that mean we shouldn't do it? If war is by definition immoral, doesn't that mean that people should not wage war? I would argue that some wars are morally good and some are not. America's involvement in WWII is usually cited as the classic example of a morally good war. So as not to create too much thread drift, I'll toss out my two cents on the issue at hand. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the military. It is clear that innocent civilians will get injured and killed in war, and that the frequency and severity of these occurrences might be an important part of our calculation as to whether the war in Iraq is a good one or not. I wish our soldiers had been more careful in this situation. These guys seemed awful eager to start shooting, and they obviously were not fully aware of what they were shooting at. And innocent people are dead as a result, which is always a tragedy. It is the second round of shooting that bothers me the most. I am not sure I see the need to light up the van again when there had apparently been no outgoing fire from it. Some posters have indicated that this was the equivalent of combat or battle. I admit I have never been in the military, but doesn't that usually mean the other side is shooting back?

Could you attach a copy of the order? Thanks!

Do you ever take a break? Do the words "give it a rest" mean anything to you?

The First Amendment does not cover every conceivable form of speech, as another poster has pointed out. Threatening or harassing speech can cross the line into criminality. The question is, should a bunch of kids be held criminally responsible for behavior that goes on in every school in the USA? It seems these kids went way over the line. But the fact that most of them are being charged as adults means those arrests are on their record forever, even if they are ultimatelty acquitted.

Six of the nine students are being charged as adults. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/03/bullying

Update to an old thread: nine students involved in the bullying that lead to Phoebe Prince's suicide have been charged with crimes, including stalking and criminal harassment. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001376-504083.html Everyone seems to agree that bullying is a bad thing. The question is, does severe bullying rise to the level of a criminal offense? Do these kids deserve to have a criminal record that will follow them for the rest of their lives, and maybe even go to prison over this? My instinct is to say yes, this is what they deserve. Curious as to what other folks might think.

If I lived in Cal., I would vote in favor of decriminalization. Here is a good op-ed piece about the issue from the Chicago Sun-Times. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/2129118,CST-EDT-HUNT30.article For those not inclined to read the whole article, the author argues that (1) taxing marijuana could bring approximately $1.4 billion (with "B", folks) into Cal.'s bankrupt state coffers, (2) legalization would "be a body blow to the drug cartels" in that legal access to pot would put the smugglers out of business (at least the pot smugglers), (3) prosecuting simple marijuana possession cases does nothing to lower the crime rate, and (4) pot is less harmful that tobacco and alcohol. These seem like pretty solid arguments to me.

My apologies if this is a dumb and/or naive question, but is that pic for real? Is there actually a restaurant somewhere selling that? Talk about a heart attack on a plate!!

This is rural Mississippi, near the Alabama border. Bible Belt area. The reaction of the school is sad but unsurprising.

These athletes should not, in my opinion, be sanctioned or punished for their celebration. I played hockey for over 30 years (in local recreational leagues), and I can say with certainty that the nature of that celebration was not unusual. It would have been smarter, however, to keep that party in the locker room, away from the cameras if possible. I am very surprised the coaches and Canadian Olympic officials let this happen. Now, the attention has moved from the accomplishment of winning the gold medal to a controversy over the celebration. That is a shame, and it was preventable by keeping it in the locker room. Just to repeat so I don't offend our Canadian friends -- I have played the game, and I have had parties like that after big wins. I have no problem with the celebration. But on the Olympic stage, that party needed to stay in the locker room.

Lamb of God kicks ass. That scene is from their "Killadelphia" DVD. If you are a metal fan, you need to buy the DVD. And yes, the skydiving scene is from Mesquite. An old jumping buddy of mine was one of the jumpmasters. He said the LoG guys were very cool. Their music is strong stuff, and it is not for the faint of heart.

I view this from a political science perspective. you're viewing this as a lawyer who didn't agree with their policy. And I dare say with more emotion. Is the "political science" perspective the one where you have all your facts wrong?

I don't see it this way. Lawyers make opinions that are overturned by the Supremes all the time. In San Francisco, the city government often knowingly does unconstitutional acts, which eventually get shut down by the state Supreme Court (gay marriages, handgun ban). Do we move to disbar the city AG or impeach the mayor for this political decisions? These attorneys gave the Bush Administration the justification they needed to proceed. The Court then said, "nope." That's how it works. This entire exercise now is political retaliation, a tit for tat process that has been going on since the first Bush Administration, or slightly earlier to Bork. Nailing the lawyers because you're pissed at Bush is a bit petty. It's time to move on. Allow me to correct a few misunderstandings. First, the Supreme Court reviews the decisions of other judges, usually those of federal appellate courts, but sometimes the Supreme Court reviews state Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court does not review the "opinions" that "lawyers make." Second, DOJ attorneys have significantly different responsibilities than city council members or city mayors. Third, states have attorneys general, not cities. Fourth, and most importantly, the legal memorandums written by these DOJ attorneys were not reviewed by the Supreme Court. This was an internal investigation by the DOJ itself. You are of course free to disagree with my views. Lots of people do. But you are making arguments about things that you clearly do not fully understand.

Wow, this thread really blew up over the weekend after I added my 2 cents. I won't wade into the debate on whether waterboarding is torture, or whether the U.S. ought to be torturing people. My problem is with the conduct of these Justice Department attorneys. DOJ attorneys were and are charged with the extremely serious responsibility of giving the President the best possible legal advice they can, but in this situation, they bent and twisted the law in order to fulfill a political purpose. In other words, they used the law to give the President and his administration the legal leeway to do what the administration already wanted to do. These attorneys completely and utterly failed to do their jobs, which is to give the President sound and objective legal advice. And for that, they were rewarded with presitgious positions at Berkeley and the 9th Circuit. No matter what your stance is on torture, that is absolutely appalling.

The fact that one of these individuals is a professor at a highly-ranked law school and the other is a federal appellate court judge is an embarassment to the entire legal system.