America's backward-ocracy: Decide first, debate later . . ., maybe

Never pass up an opportunity to emphasize the wrong point.

Not to miss a lesson from Iraq-WMD debate [debate after the decision is over], it is strange that the legal community is now talking about the first Amendment.
Ref

Mind you, this is after the right to remain silent has been denied for a Nevada Cowboy. Ref

Ref

Compare: This with this.

Technicaly, the second is correct; however the first is written for the layman. And the first was, well first. If it was "so obvious what teh correct thing to say was," why was the second post ... well, second and not first?

Originality points to the first one. Further, doesn't really matter "how you say it," supreme court already stripped away the right to absolute silence by requiring people to not provide information [identifying information] despite this violating the 5th Amerndment right to silence.

If "identifying infomration" isn't all that "big a deal", feel free to post your bank acount numbers. Law enforcement uses the "identifying information" to build private databases that are not subpoened per 803/Brady; these private non-incident report databases cant be tracked.

The Supreme Court took us back to the pre-Magna Carta days: Condoning adding more means to gather, collect, and suppress information unrelated to criminal activity, merely "suspicions" which are aroused not based on facts, but on simply law enforcement-prosecution objectives, having little to do with preserving the constitution.

Quit wasting your time debating the legal issues when the courts have already given a green light to law enforcmeent to undermine the Bill of Rights. What's needed are some credible methods to check the Judicial Branch when the Congress and Execuctive fail. ABA-laziness in re Guantanamo is a classic case in point. Credibility is with timing, not with how has the best legal argument.

Children, the horses have already left the barn.