sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... -

Author	All Replies
morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000	sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution... Warantless wiretap law = a big crap on the constitution. good job, House of Reps!
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 10:54:24 ·

N3OGH Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs kudos:1	said by morbo: Warantless wiretap law = a big crap on the constitution. good job, House of Reps! Look at it this way.. If the law is a big, steamy crap on the Constitution (I haven't read it, so I'm not making judgements either way), if/when it becomes law (still has to pass the senate) it will be challenged in the Courts. Now, a little caveat before I continue, since these threads almost invariable turn into a Red Vs. Blue shouting match, that's not the point of my comment. That said.. If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. -- Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 11:49:43 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	said by N3OGH: If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at. As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence." -- Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science... "Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 12:03:06 ·
heathcpe join:2002-03-19 Brandon, MS	reply to morbo So is our governement officially socialist now?
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 13:09:40 ·
guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA 1 edit	reply to bmn said by bmn: As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 13:35:33 ·
tsu9 join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL	reply to heathcpe It's getting awfully close to it, and beyond that, fascism. The past two days have been HELL on the Constitution.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 13:57:18 ·
macaholic Premium join:2003-08-31 Jackson Heights, NY	reply to bmn said by bmn: said by N3OGH: If you are of the belief that this type of activity is unconstitutional, this law passing could be viewed as a positive. Without a specific statute to pursue, it is much more difficult to mount a Judicial appeal. Now, someone can assert their Constitutional rights are violated by this law, and subject it to Judicial review. That's assuming you can prove that the wiretap used against you was indeed warrantless. With the amount of secrecy and cloak/dagger in law enforcement today, that type of information would be nearly impossible to get at. As well, the problem with this law is that it creates a situation where the government can troll for people, find them, get a warrant and then bust them. So in other words, without a requirement of judicial review and evidence to back a wiretap request, the government could randomly wiretap, see if you are doing anything they don't like and then they could go legit and get a warrant. They'd have a warrant in hand when you get busted, so it would be difficult to prove they didn't have one when they really got the incriminating "evidence." The Russians call it "Secret Police".... thats what Bush has in reality implemented...world wide. -- "You don't subject minority rights to a referendum." Justice Minister Irwin Cotler of Canada
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 14:06:44 ·
bmn ? ? ? Premium,ExMod 2003-06 join:2001-03-15 hiatus	reply to guitarzan said by guitarzan: As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc. said by guitarzan: Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change. And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils. -- Ann Coulter doesn't know jack about science... "Extremes to the right and left of any political dispute are always wrong." —Dwight Eisenhower
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 15:22:52 ·
ctceo Premium join:2001-04-26 South Bend, IN Reviews: ·magicjack.com ·AT&T U-Verse ·AT&T Midwest	reply to heathcpe The government has been at least partially socialist for decades. Mostly Republican up front, and slightly Democratic here and there (whenever it suits them). The new US Flag, and Name could be: R.U.S.T. Republic of United Socialist Totalitarians Flag Color : Rust, 3ftx3ft Square of Rusty Iron, w/ Tarnished Silver Star Inlays, and Stripes of Corroded Bands of Gold, and Platinum.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 15:42:43 ·
rachelsfx join:2004-09-27 Pensacola, FL	reply to morbo Name ONE of YOUR rights that have been violated? Just ONE! If Britain wasn't allowed to spy, a lot of planes would have blown up not long ago. The NSA has said it monitors calling trends for keywords terrorists use and if you happen to be one talking, I say off to Gitmo. If anything, Bush should get bashed for not securing the border with Mexico. Canada should get a kick in the rear for allowing anyone in their country. Build the wall on the Mexican border--with a mout full of crocs. Illegals from Mexico drain resources OUR citizens should be getting like free medical care. Illegals with criminal records kill and rape. Send them back. Why is that Mexican illegals in the USA send more $$$ back to Mexico than Mexico makes except for a corrupt few? One would think if Mexico cared at all about its people they would share all their oil wealth. No, they don't.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 17:09:58 ·
liquid0h join:2003-02-03 Hurlburt Field, FL	Woot! Hell yeah! If you have something to hide, maybe you shouldn't be here =)
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 18:01:39 ·
amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America Reviews: ·AT&T DSL Service	reply to rachelsfx Yes, in fact he should. It's far worse than not just "securing" the border, it's going in the totally opposite direction... why do you think they've been so quiet about it... "if Mexico cared at all about its people they would" ...not be so wishful of (legally or illigally coming to) our land... PLEASE take the time to read this story and others that are related... »southwestfarmpress.com/news/0921···orridor/ Just 1 little story about the agricultural impact of the NAFTA superhighway... or, have you not heard about that??? As for your question about what right(s) have been, or would be violated... read this and see if it make any sense to you: U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor held the program unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Separation of Powers doctrine, the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Title III) BTW, what good will this do for our rights??? Name one positive thing that this does to secure them. Thus, if we trample our own freedoms we've fought and defended, what good does it do? I fail to see how so many people cannot see that line of reasoning and at least debate it in a rational manner. Of course, I see the point that we should darn well keep tabs on suspected terrorists, and take action where need be to avoid an attack. I just don't see how giving up our freedoms, liberties, paid for with blood sweat and tears, is the answer.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 19:42:57 ·
Spudge_Boy join:2004-09-17 Orange, CA	reply to rachelsfx If Britain wasn't allowed to spy, a lot of planes would have blown up not long ago. The British got help from the CIA, WHO GOT WARRANTS.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 20:14:51 ·
guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA	reply to bmn said by bmn: said by guitarzan: As if the government has never engaged in that type of activity before? Nah, it's just official now. Oh, look its tea and crumpet time for the elected blue blood politicians. The old,that can't happen in America...just did Well, yeah, true, but before, you couldn't admit any of into court... Now that its a kosher modus operandi, its use is going to expand beyond the "war on terror(ism)" into other "wars", like the already lost "war of drugs," etc. I agree BMN. It will be used to combat any "war", they decide to declare "war" on. This is what gets my ire. The same Democrats wanting the Bush Admin.to take full heat for this, will be the same ones applauding and praising their fellow Democrats for having the foresight and wisdom to vote in favor of this legislation, once their guy is in office or holds the majority in either house. said by guitarzan: Wait until/if, the Democrat become elected With Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi. Law abiding citizens, you can kiss your 2nd Amendment rights away for good and forever. Or accept the fact one will need to become an outlaw to keep what rightfully belongs to you. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it. It would require a Constitutional change. And even if they do get elected, at this point, they are the lessor of the two evils. Not going to happen... Not enough support for it? I believed the move to ban guns, was not supported when Clinton and the Democrats decided to ban guns, yet it passed. There is/was no support for this current legislation... Yet it passed. Lets look at in your opinion, the "party of the lessor of two evils" Do you think for one second, the Democrats will repeal these legislative acts.? I say no and would offer to bet a hefty wager that I'm correct. If a Democrat gets elected to the Executive branch of office. Do you think for one second, there will be one big kissey smooch honeymoon and the political ills, will be healed.? I don't not, for one second, if anything this current political division. Will result in a widening of the political gulf. All this hatred shown to the Bush Administration, will certainly be remembered and will result in vile hatred of any Democratic Administration, it will be especially evident when the Democrats f&*k up the very first time. This is open for debate of course, IMO the Democratic politics ARE the sole cause as to why this Country is so divided today. It's only going to get worse. Humpty Dumpty could not be put back together again. IMO politics can't put the result of employed politics of our country back together again either. Its funny when the word revolt or revolution gets mentioned, because that means all of America is on the same page. We're far from it. IMO when one utters revolt or revolution. What I think they really mean is civil war, not a war against the government. That's just my $0.02 cents worth anyway. -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 23:09:56 ·
FLea973 Premium join:2001-02-27 Morristown, NJ	reply to Spudge_Boy said by Spudge_Boy: The British got help from the CIA, WHO GOT WARRANTS. CIA got warrants? 1) According to their FAQ, they don't need warrants to "investigate" Americans for terrorist/espionage just "senior approval" or in some cases a nod from either the Dir. of Nat. Intelligence or the Attorney General. 2) Aside from certain specific reasons it is a Federal crime for them to "investigate" Americans 3) Why would the CIA or ANY American intelligence agency need a warrant to spy on foreigners outside the USA? 4) By your statement quoted above, do you mean the only reason that the Brits cracked the case is because the CIA got warrants, spied on Americans who knew/funded/directed that operation? 5) Based on #5, What worries you more? .....a) there are Americans (or folks in America) complicit in that planned terrorist attack, that could have directly impacted you or someone you know? or .....b) that IF there were, the reason nothing has been said about them, they are still on the loose and the reason no one has stopped them from thinking up a new scheme, is because they are Americans not overtly doing ANYTHING to draw suspicion and thus indicate a warrant needs to be taken against them As far as them gaining the evidence THEN getting the warrant - there is always the old "Poison Fruit" case law that usually tosses all LEGITIMATELY gained evidence used in US trials if the reason the legitimacy was gained was obtained illegally (e.g. illegal wiretap evidence used to get a warrant for a wiretap/confession/etc) Of course you can always encrypt your email and what not, and send it anywhere in the world... but the second it hits a foreign router (even if not encrypted), it is perfectly legal (under US law) for the US government to take a look. : puts on tin-foil hat : For the conspiracy folks out there... If the US government REALLY wants to spy on US citizens in detail or en masse LEGALLY, they could always outsource the job to another nation like say Canada, the UK or Israel - hell, not only would it be easier, but it'd probably be cheaper : takes off tin-foil hat : What really chaps my hide about the big stink over the NSA "wire taps" and before that, under a different admin, the Carnivore program (do you REALLY think it was shut down????) is that 1) How many folks have stopped to think of the amount of storage space needed to retain that info? 3) Computers are doing 99.999...% of the work 2) It is most likely set up kinda like a router - mundane crap ignored - possibly interesting stuff is forwarded to another bank of processors that apply more detail algorithms that toss out even more then pass the remaining to decrypt if needed 3) then take the really questionable clear and the decrypted through another system that tosses out even more (probably 99.999...% of the decrypted stuff) 4) deposits the remaining data in the inbox of some overworked underpaid junior analysts who have to determine if it needs escalation. -- If the govt actually retained all of this WHY would they want ISPs to maintain comprehensive logs of everything? Either the government IS as incompetent at appears to be when faced with challenges (Katrina, border security, leaks, etc.) or it is so capable that it can anything without our knowing while believably appearing incompetent - if the last part is true, then we already are boned... Maddox has an interesting point along these lines... -- To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man... greetings
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-29 23:25:47 ·
matrix3D join:2006-09-27 Middletown, CT	reply to guitarzan I hate both of the major political parties, hence why I registered myself as an independent voter. When I say "this country needs a revolution," I mean it needs a revolution. Out with all of the old and in with something completely new... or at least start over again with nothing but the Constitution. That way all the ways it's been screwed up over the past two hundred plus years will just disappear.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-30 00:36:14 ·
matrix3D join:2006-09-27 Middletown, CT	reply to rachelsfx What kills me is what would happen to one of us if we were to sneak into Mexico illegally (like anybody would really want to, but that's a separate point). Anybody know what would happen? Off to prison with you, most likely never to be heard from again. I can't imagine the Democratic backlash if Bush wanted to implement that same kind of law in this country -- but we all know that would never happen. Bush has been a wetback-lover ever since he was the governor of Texas.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-30 00:39:21 ·
guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA	reply to matrix3D I see the point your making, because one can't trust politicians of either party. Sure politicians need to be held accountable for their actions. IMO looking at the bigger picture. Who is ultimately responsible for these politicians? The people who voted them into office, that's who. Years ago it was the North VS the South, today its coming to the blue VS the red and not a revolution against the government. I love my Country and form of government. That's not the problem. It's the people electing azzhats into office, is where the problem is found. -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm.
	to forum · permalink · 2006-09-30 10:41:18 ·

House Passes Warantless Wiretap Law > sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution...

sure! let's take a big crap on the constitution...