1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by fAcEtIOUs:They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities. You know this country is going to shit when the protection of Constitution rights is equated with helping the "enemy".
The requirement of having a warrant to gather intelligence worked for years. There was no logical reason to suspend that requirement, especially when that warrant could be issued AFTER the actual surveillance.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by NetAdmin1:The requirement of having a warrant to gather intelligence worked for years. You have an anachronistic view of history. The executive branch has always had the power to conduct surveillance independent of any other branch (short of leading to a constitutional crisis if it went too far).
Former AG Gonzalez documented examples going back to President Washington.
The Constitution exists to protect us. We don't exist to protect the constitution to our own peril. It will never be a perfect balance. But, it never has. And we've done pretty well compared to where we would be if history had been as perfect as today's perfectionists insist that it was.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:You have an anachronistic view of history. For someone who is apparently in support of authoritarianism and rampant and unchecked government powers, I can see how you would believe that.
The executive branch has always had the power to conduct surveillance independent of any other branch (short of leading to a constitutional crisis if it went too far). Independent of, yes, outside the boundaries of the law or Constitution, or in a method contrary to the Constitution, no.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA | reply to amigo_boy
I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the government cannot do all the warrantless surveillance its wants, so long as a warrant is not required by the Fourth Amendment. If a warrant is needed they need to get one from a judicial officer. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by baj475:I do not think that anyone is suggesting that the government cannot do all the warrantless surveillance its wants, so long as a warrant is not required by the Fourth Amendment. If a warrant is needed they need to get one from a judicial officer. The fourth amendment doesn't spell out the criteria for what's a "reasonable" (warrantless) search. That's why there are so many opinions on the topic.
Mark |
|
baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
| "The fourth amendment doesn't spell out the criteria for what's a "reasonable" (warrantless) search."
True, but it does prohibit ALL unreasonable searches and seizures. {The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated} Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment never states that there is such a thing as a reasonable warrantless search or seizure. In addition, the additional language "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" suggest that all warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable. The idea of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures is of judicial creation. As you say, this leave lots of room for varying opinions. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by baj475:all warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable. Next you'll tell me a police officer has no authority to pat down someone caught in the act of bank robbery until he obtains a warrant under "oath or affirmation?"
You don't have a realistic view of the challenges of respecting individual rights and enabling government to serve the people and promote their general welfare (such as apprehending bank robbers).
One thing you should keep in mind is that the fourth amendment was a response to the creation of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution was a response (in 1789) to 12 years of living under the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation, and the Founding generation finding it ineffective. They wanted more government. They wanted government to have more power. Contrary to all the founding rhetoric just a dozen years earlier.
In context, the Founding generation were pragmatists. Not libertarians. They embraced "big government" like no other generation since them (relatively speaking). While they didn't want the new Federal government to become completely tyrannical. They certainly were willing to endure some tyranny relative to the nearly government-less world they lived in after the revolution.
The fourth amendment should be understood within that framework of enabling larger, more-effective government.
Mark |
|
|
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Since the officer witnessed the offense, sure he would have probable cause. However, an officer cannot just go walking from house to house looking for evidence that someone robbed a bank. They must have probable cause, and a warrant. The system offered them the ability to obtain a warrant up to 72 hours after tapping a conversation once probable cause has been obtained.
Do you really think that terrorists are using clear telecom systems for communications? Does it make you feel safe "thinking" they are really able to scour through all of that data and picking out useful info? Do you think the government will be able to communicate that data once it is actually found, as was the failure in the case of 9/11??? False security at it's finest.
Dream on....
cw |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by wentlanc:Since the officer witnessed the offense, sure he would have probable cause. I'll let you debate that with "baj475" who just said all warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable, quoting the 4th amendment's language that "probable cause" is necessary to obtain a warrant.
I'm with you. You need to direct your disagreement to the source.
Mark |
|
