Newtie vs. The First Amendment

[flaja]

How is it spying on 'you' when they only monitor calls incoming from terrorists overseas?

Terrorists from overseas have never placed a phone call to U.S. Citizens which have U.S. constitutional due process rights?

How exactly is their listening to terrorists calls infringe on my first amendment rights?

What about the PATRIOT Act:

Allows for the warrantless searches of the library and book store records of American citizens- in violation of the 4th Amendment.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates outside of the normal federal court system and operates in secret; its warrants are not public record. On May 17, 2002 this court released an opinion declaring that the FBI and Justice Department had “supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps…” And on December 16, 2005 the New York Times reported that the GWB Administration had been conducting surveillance operations against U.S. citizens without the knowledge of this the FISC since 2002. On December 20, 2005 James Robertson, a judge on the FISC resigned, apparently to protest GWB policy.

So don’t try to tell me that GWB has not, or will not violate the rights of American citizens. Because he has.

And what happens if the federal government can go to a secret court and supply false information in order to monitor the activities of certain people and an administration controlled by one political party submits false information to the court about the opposing political party and thus is allowed to put that opposing political party under surveillance? If you don’t have a problem with such a possible scenario, you area an absolute fool.

How are my 4th amendment rights violated?

Do you worry only about actual violations of your rights? Does the potential for their violation mean nothing to you?

 

[dilloduck]

No, ceding victory to terrorists is allowing them to continue their efforts and succeed in killing us.



We're not trying to sacrifice the Constitution, we are trying to preserve it.
You libs tend to forget a little passage in the Declaration of Independence-


We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I know it must irk you liberals to hear such words. You probably want the entire document to be burned because it has the word 'Creator' and is thus the rantings of right-wing theologians. But this is the foundation of which our nation and its laws were founded.



So suffient that 9/11 occurred eh? Standards that allowed thousands of people to die at the hands of terrorists allowed to penetrate and operate within the U.S. may be suffient standards for you, but the rest of us beg to differ sir.

I'm beginning to think that it's the old theory where it's better to let a million terrorists run around in the US plotting to kill Americans than to wrongly prosecute one innocent person. ( I'm still trying to figure out who and where all these oppressed innocent people are tho)

 

[theHawk]

Terrorists from overseas have never placed a phone call to U.S. Citizens which have U.S. constitutional due process rights?

I'm sure they have, why do you ask?

What about the PATRIOT Act:

Allows for the warrantless searches of the library and book store records of American citizens- in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Its not in violation if its a merited search.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates outside of the normal federal court system and operates in secret; its warrants are not public record. On May 17, 2002 this court released an opinion declaring that the FBI and Justice Department had “supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps…” And on December 16, 2005 the New York Times reported that the GWB Administration had been conducting surveillance operations against U.S. citizens without the knowledge of this the FISC since 2002. On December 20, 2005 James Robertson, a judge on the FISC resigned, apparently to protest GWB policy.

Well, good riddance to the judge. I'm glad our government was listening in on terror calls.

So don’t try to tell me that GWB has not, or will not violate the rights of American citizens. Because he has.

Thats just your opinion.

And what happens if the federal government can go to a secret court and supply false information in order to monitor the activities of certain people and an administration controlled by one political party submits false information to the court about the opposing political party and thus is allowed to put that opposing political party under surveillance? If you don’t have a problem with such a possible scenario, you area an absolute fool.

If the political party is receiving phone calls from known terrorists outside the U.S., no I wouldn't have a problem with it. We have a right to know if thats happening. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the right to wiretap any political party.

Do you worry only about actual violations of your rights? Does the potential for their violation mean nothing to you?

I'm just not worried about the rights of terrorists or anyone inside of America that is supporting them.

 

[Avatar4321]

If there is no evidence that GWB wants to torture people, why is there so much talk that he wants to torture people? And what about the practice of rendition, whereby GWB sends someone to a country where people are tortured?

Because liberal democrats have been bitching and moaning about it despite the lack of evidence so much that people take it for truth without ever looking into it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Living in a fascist state is your idea of what survival is?

How can we live in a fascist state while rejecting the idealogy of the left?

 

[Avatar4321]

What about the PATRIOT Act:

Allows for the warrantless searches of the library and book store records of American citizens- in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Excuse me, but why would searching library and book store records of anyone be in violation of the 4th amendment? The Supreme Court has already stated that when you dont have a reasonable expectation for privacy there is no fourth amendment protection. The information in both of these places are in the hands of third parties. By defition you dont have a reasonable expectation of privacy if its known to third parties. thats why police can and always have been able to request phone records without a warrant from phone companies. Because there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[glockmail]

Yet another bigot, this time one whose vocabulary no doubt is directly proportional to his intelligence.

I've never seen anything bigoted from William Joyce.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have to agree with Bully, Flaja and Jillian to a point --- why should ALL Americans be spied upon and have our private communications monitored? This smacks of Big Brother. Why increase the restrictions on the many because of the few? In any case, I'm sure the enemy would still find a way to communicate with each other both within the country and from outside the country. Monitoring everybody seems to me pretty much a backasswards approach anyway.

We already know who the enemy is. Why not just go after him? Profiling is the answer. Would you liberals be willing to do that in order to preserve your current freedoms? This way you won't have to be frisked before boarding a plane or worry about Big Brother watching which library book you checked out. Or is freedom from profiling an enemy some sort of Constitutional freedom we can't live without?

 

[dilloduck]

I have to agree with Bully, Flaja and Jillian to a point --- why should ALL Americans be spied upon and have our private communications monitored? This smacks of Big Brother. Why increase the restrictions on the many because of the few? In any case, I'm sure the enemy would still find a way to communicate with each other both within the country and from outside the country. Monitoring everybody seems to me pretty much a backasswards approach anyway.

We already know who the enemy is. Why not just go after him? Profiling is the answer. Would you liberals be willing to do that in order to preserve your current freedoms? This way you won't have to be frisked before boarding a plane or worry about Big Brother watching which library book you checked out. Or is freedom from profiling an enemy some sort of Constitutional freedom we can't live without?

Sorry--its discrimination----you have to give terrorists and crooks every opportunity to kill and rob you that there is----even if they just stand up and tell you what they're getting ready to do. Everyone must be presumed innocent until you are robbed and dead. Then they get every opportunity in the world to avoid punishment. Several times even.

 

[jillian]

I have to agree with Bully, Flaja and Jillian to a point --- why should ALL Americans be spied upon and have our private communications monitored? This smacks of Big Brother. Why increase the restrictions on the many because of the few? In any case, I'm sure the enemy would still find a way to communicate with each other both within the country and from outside the country. Monitoring everybody seems to me pretty much a backasswards approach anyway.

We already know who the enemy is. Why not just go after him? Profiling is the answer. Would you liberals be willing to do that in order to preserve your current freedoms? This way you won't have to be frisked before boarding a plane or worry about Big Brother watching which library book you checked out. Or is freedom from profiling an enemy some sort of Constitutional freedom we can't live without?

I have no problem with profiling that is done reasonably. I mean... we're not going to be looking at elementary school kids, but certain people in high risk groups (e.g., people who attend certain known radical mosques) are a fair target for surveillance... no different than targeting people who are known associates of organized crime families.

 

[dilloduck]

I have no problem with profiling that is done reasonably. I mean... we're not going to be looking at elementary school kids, but certain people in high risk groups (e.g., people who attend certain known radical mosques) are a fair target for surveillance... no different than targeting people who are known associates of organized crime families.

YES---Let's hear it for "reasonable profiling" !!

It'll be so easy to get everyone to agree on what "reasonable" is !:happy2:

 

[theHawk]

I have to agree with Bully, Flaja and Jillian to a point --- why should ALL Americans be spied upon and have our private communications monitored? This smacks of Big Brother. Why increase the restrictions on the many because of the few? In any case, I'm sure the enemy would still find a way to communicate with each other both within the country and from outside the country. Monitoring everybody seems to me pretty much a backasswards approach anyway.

We already know who the enemy is. Why not just go after him? Profiling is the answer. Would you liberals be willing to do that in order to preserve your current freedoms? This way you won't have to be frisked before boarding a plane or worry about Big Brother watching which library book you checked out. Or is freedom from profiling an enemy some sort of Constitutional freedom we can't live without?

I don't know how you people think the government is big enough to possibly spy on everybody. They only spy on the people they suspect. They don't just randomly monitor people out of the blue for no reason. If they know the phone number from where terrorists call into the U.S., they have the authority to listen in on it. We're not saying the people in the U.S.(even if they are not citizens) can't receive the call, or talk freely, we're saying that situation is a reasonable means for intelligence agencies to listen in. Its not a crime for the person to take the call, and they are not being charged with anything. Its simply for intellegence collection purposes, not for collecting evidence to prosecute someone in a court.

 

[flaja]

I don't know how you people think the government is big enough to possibly spy on everybody.

If the government can spy only on some of us, do you volunteer to be one of the ones that get spied on?

They only spy on the people they suspect.

And on what do they base their suspicion? The situation with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s rebuke of the FBI and DoJ for relaying false information to the Court in order to get warrants, proves just how far the government can and will go to target people the current administration (be it left or right) dislikes.

 

[Gunny]

YES---Let's hear it for "reasonable profiling" !!

It'll be so easy to get everyone to agree on what "reasonable" is !:happy2:

Would that be "reasonable" like Islam?

 

[theHawk]

If the government can spy only on some of us, do you volunteer to one of the ones that get spied on?



And on what do they base their suspicion? The situation with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s rebuke of the FBI and DoJ for relaying false information to the Court in order to get warrants, proves just how far the government can and will go to target people the current administration (be it left or right) dislikes.

An intelligence agency isn't going to spy on people that 'the administration' dislikes, they do it from intell gathered by their own people. You have absolutely no idea how anything works in the government.

 

[jillian]

An intelligence agency isn't going to spy on people that 'the administration' dislikes, they do it from intell gathered by their own people. You have absolutely no idea how anything works in the government.

Ever hear of J. Edgar Hoover?

From an interview with presidential historian Michael Beschloss:

The other way [Hoover] did it notoriously was to gather files on political figures and Presidents with a kind of tacit blackmail.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec01/mueller.html

I know exactly how it works in government. It's you who is apparently so naive that you think government wouldn't misuse power.

 

[theHawk]

Ever hear of J. Edgar Hoover?

From an interview with presidential historian Michael Beschloss:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec01/mueller.html

I know exactly how it works in government. It's you who is apparently so naive that you think government wouldn't misuse power.

rofl, yea, nothing has changed in the government since the Hoover days!

I didn't say there would never be any wrong doing within the government. Its just dumb to think that its their policy to do such things.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ever hear of J. Edgar Hoover?

From an interview with presidential historian Michael Beschloss:



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec01/mueller.html

I know exactly how it works in government. It's you who is apparently so naive that you think government wouldn't misuse power.

Yeah ive heard of him. Only difference is Republicans are in charge now.

 

[jillian]

Yeah ive heard of him. Only difference is Republicans are in charge now.

Er.... no, they're not...

And thinking that Repub pols are any more moral than Dem pols when this last Congress rubbed our noses in its corruption is kinda goofy. That's why power needs checks and balances.

 

[jillian]

rofl, yea, nothing has changed in the government since the Hoover days!

I didn't say there would never be any wrong doing within the government. Its just dumb to think that its their policy to do such things.

I don't think anyone ever said it's "policy" to misuse intel. It has to do with the potential for misuse. You understand that, right?