Absolutely no snark intended here, but

[busterbrown]

How do we monitor the religious fundamentalists who want to destroy our country without the use of electronic Surveillance?
And if a Federal Judge approves the surveillance (Probable Cause) how is that against the law?
Or should one just face the realization that we shouldn’t be concerned about such things as Security at the expense of the 4th...Kind of “Better Dead than Red"

[graham4anything]

1. easy- we don't. and it isn't. (and a SCOTUS decision in 2013 will rule it legal

which achieves TWO of the Bush/Paul agenda.

Tarnashing dems now for 2014, and making it legal forever.

[AgingAmerican]

2. The war on terror?

There never was a 'war on terror'. It was a money laundering operation.

[clarice]

3. how is that? nt

[AgingAmerican]

5. The "War on terror®" was an excuse to steal money

by the Bush administration. This was done by using the cover of war to obfuscate where the money was going and giving it only to GOP ran companies.

[asjr]

4. I'm not quite sure how to answer your question unless

we go back to the year it started. This was a Bush/Cheney operation with dozens of Republicans cheering them on. I didn't hear much about it until now. But you see, Barack Obama is president now and just about everyone we hear from are calling for his head. Bush/Cheney have many more reasons to have angered the citizens but now the citizens are outraged that someone out there will learn all about them under this president.

[busterbrown]

6. My feelings as well...

Plus its a good way for the supporters of Bush/Cheney to start the next two election cycles off.

[cali]

7. what the fuck? do you realize how completely political such monitoring would be?

I suppose you're gung-ho on monitoring Occupy as well.

[busterbrown]

8. So your telling me the 4th takes precedence over everything..

Thats an answer....Don’t have to go all "WTF” on everyone...
BTW.....I am a part of that movement..

[premium]

9. The Constitution takes precedence over everything,

you know, that piece of paper that GWB was so contemptuous of.

[cali]

10. I'm telling you that who gets monitored is political as much as anything else.

did you not know that?

And no, I'm not telling you that the 4th Amendment "takes precedence over everything"- whatever the blue fuck that means.

[busterbrown]

13. Kind of obvious its political...

Aren’t all wars political.?...Suggest you calm down this a.m.

[cali]

14. lol. do you think I give a shit what you suggest?

I don't. but as long as we're making suggestions, why don't you stop posting utter crap?

[Sheepshank]

16. so how were these people apprehended unless with surveillance?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/28/arrests-alleged-militia-activity-midwest/

WHEATLAND TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- Members of a rural Michigan-based Christian militia who believed a battle with the Antichrist was coming were plotting to attack police officers in hopes of fomenting a violent uprising against the government, federal prosecutors alleged.

Seven men and one woman believed to be part of the group called Hutaree were arrested over the weekend after raids in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The ninth suspect was arrested Monday night after a search in southern Michigan and was expected to be arraigned Tuesday.

FBI agents moved quickly against Hutaree because its members were planning an attack sometime in April, prosecutors said.

[tblue]

11. They're just as likely monitoring you.

They have already recorded that you posted on DU, that you're reaading it right now. Maybe you don't care. When Pres. Jeb Bush and Karl Rove have free access to what you do, will you still not care?

Stop freaking out about some boogie man. They use that to control you, to make you hand over your liberty and your rights. It's textbook.

And just because something is called legal doesnt mean it's right. Nuremberg taught us that. We all have a duty to resist immoral or unethical laws.

[unblock]

12. first things first. protecting american rights is more important than sometimes stopping bad guys.

if stopping bad guys were more important than protecting american rights, *the bill of rights would not exist*.

our founders didn't put that in there to make life easy for the government. the third amendment, not much relevant today, was a particular nuisance for the military. the british enjoyed sleeping in whatever house was convenient as they marched through the colonies, and we didn't want our military doing that. well, how did we expect our military to fight indians or the british if they couldn't count on a decent bed wherever they found one?

our founders decided that the military would just have to figure out a way. sleep outside, bring a tent, whatever. they knew it would hamper the military but they decided that it was more important to protect american rights.

same goes for other protections. sure, the need for warrants and probable cause and all that is an annoyance for the police, but they just have to figure out a way to get their job done while protecting american rights.



the notion that curtailing or eliminating rights makes the government more efficient is an tried and true argument used by dictatorships and repressive regimes throughout the world and throughout history. it is, dare i say it, un-american.


so, as a practical matter, terrorists plots get solved the same way other criminal organizations get busted. rewards for tip-offs, undercover infiltration, asking merchants about suspicious behavior (massive purchases of fertilizer, e.g.), wiretaps and searches with warrants where probable cause actually exists, etc.

in fact, no one has yet demonstrated (claimed, but not demonstrated) that this massive searching of non-probable cause data has produced anything of value in terms of stopping terrorist activity, and in particular, shown that it couldn't have been stopped otherwise.


moreover, terrorists are nothing if not adaptable. once they realized the way the government is spying they'll change their tactics, as they always have. they'll stop using the bad keywords. they'll stop doing anything of consequence via email, or at least they'll highly encrypt anything juicy. they'll start doing more single-person terrorist acts that don't require much, if any, spy-able communication.

then we'll be left with all the spying on innocent people and nothing useful for fighting actual terrorism.


finally, if a federal judge approves something, it is technically legal unless and until overruled by a higher court or at least a later court. then again, bad court decisions happen all the time, and in this case the problem appears to be that there is no strong representation for the public or for privacy considerations in this entire process. making the court involvement a bit of window-dressing more than proper oversight. the bottom line is that making something nominally legal doesn't make it right in principle.

[RainDog]

15. LOL. Just go to their Congressional offices and talk to them.

Who is trying to undermine women's rights in this nation?

The religious right wingers in legislatures (at the state and federal level.)

Rather than pretend that religious fundamentalists are working outside of our govt, how about dealing with the ones that are there?

What was it the Christian fascists said to Jeff Sharlet? Oh yeah, to paraphrase, it's okay to employ "Stalin" or "Hitler-like" tactics if it gets them what they want. (You can read the whole thing by googling "Jesus Plus One," from Harper's magazine.)

The biggest threat to America from religious fundamentalists is from Christians.

[BainsBane]

17. a warrant

in order to authorize any necessary surveillance, just as you would expect if you were suspected of a crime.

[randome]

18. Oh, God, I just know this thread is going to be full of snark but...

...I was right. busterbrown, you tried. Kudos.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[JaneyVee]

22. Yeah, but we also have to admit that nukes are kind of a game changer.

A nuke in a subway is way different from a car accident.

[Hatchling]

20. Even the religious fundamentalists have access to the 4th amendment!

As to no snark. Hah. Your entire post is snark and well intended.

[JaneyVee]

21. I'm getting really into the 21st Amendment myself.