Comments on: Baghdad Dispatch: Midnight Company

By: TheManTheMyth

TheManTheMyth — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:02:34 +0000

James you’re obviously not a lawyer. Your comment is indicative of the general knowledge and intelligence level of liberals, though, whether at home or abroad….

By: Gilbert Brahms

Gilbert Brahms — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 01:10:56 +0000

Well, the booze should have told our troops that they did not stumble upon a nest of jihadis–and on Friday night, even.

On a more serious note, many thanks to our friends at Iraq the Model. If we can keep the Democrats in Congress from going berserk, hopefully we can keep you free.

By: submandave

submandave — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:31:22 +0000

“Rosie would doubtless piss and moan about how ‘culturally insensitive’ the soldiers were for declining the food.”

Nah, Rosie just hates the thought of refusing any food. (Sorry, I just couldn’t help it.)

By: Peg C.

Peg C. — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:48:35 +0000

Mr. Fadil, thank you for a wonderful post and the view from your side. This is a huge struggle but nothing worth doing is ever easy. Nothing worth doing ever has success guaranteed or often even likely. Something our enemies seem to understand and our friends have forgotten…

I was also proud of you and your brother when President Bush referred to you in a speech last week. Stay safe!

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:51:47 +0000

The poster above is correct: consent to entry satisfies the 4th Amendment’s requirements for government entry. The 4th Amendment protects citizens against *unreasonable* searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has often said that “the touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness.” One hopes and expectst that the rules of engagement with respect to searches and seizures by the US military of occupied peoples considers it *reasonable* under those circumstances.

So I guess you can just suck it, Jimmy. You must pay more attention to school and less to your political porno.

And if these brothers from Iraq the Model don’t get a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the thing isn’t worth crap. You guys are The Best.

By: Sam Hall

Sam Hall — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:59:01 +0000

“James Babb :

So friendly searches are OK?

The US Constitution forbids warrantless searches by the federal government. It also forbids the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. These legal limits apply to the US Government anywhere.

What they are doing would be unthinkable at home and it’s worse abroad.”

Wrong. The US Constitution does not apply to the nation of Iraq.

President Lincoln had similar problems with the Democrats and the Media during the Civil war as Bush has now. He declared martial law and threw newspaper editors in jail if they didn’t toe the line. His actions stood up in court.

By: Squatch

Squatch — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:42:52 +0000

James Babb is one of the many reasons why I am no longer registered Libertarian. Since incoherence like his post seems to be the norm among Libertarians, I reluctantly switched to Republican when I updated my driver’s license. They love ideology. Reality? Not so much.

It’s been awhile since I’ve checked out Omar and Mohammed’s blog, so I’m glad to see they’re still around and safe.

By: interested conservative

interested conservative — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:15:45 +0000

James also forgot to mention Global Warming. Somehow, it’s involved as well.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:43:50 +0000

James,

Please cite the section in the IRAQI CONSTITUTION that pertains to searches and bearing arms..

By: SWLiP

SWLiP — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:39:31 +0000

James:

Actually, as described by Omar this search would have been entirely constitutional in the U.S. because it was consensual.

In any event, Coalition forces in Iraq are acting under the auspices of the sovereign government of Iraq. Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the actions of the government, or its agents, abroad. Do you really think that, for example, every house to house search in Europe during WWII should have been subject to the constraints of the Constitution?

So, your point was kind of, er, pointless, all around.