These words no longer apply

[Cyrano]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.

I guess this isn't as "sacred" as the II Amendment/Commandment.

Sorta looks like the "terrorists" are getting just what they want.

[Gregorian]

1. It's not the terrorists. It's the authoritarians who are getting just what they want.

Witches, communists, drug users, terrorists- those are all handy excuses for those who want power and money.

[Catherina]

8. The authoritarians are the real terrorists

[Gregorian]

24. That is great.

What's odd is that I found it a bit frightening. And I also found that I sound just like him. Weird. Aside from the accent, that could have been me. Yay! Guys in taxis. Guys like me on a mountain bike. We're the majority. We're the good ones who want to see happiness and healthy people.

[Catherina]

25. I know exactly what you mean

Solidarity

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. So true!

[Skidmore]

2. You are aware that there are exceptions under which a search and seizure may be conducted

without a warrant, aren't you?

[Cyrano]

3. Seems to me there are about

three hundred million exceptions in the U.S.

[Skidmore]

4. My point was that there is no absolute even when it comes to articles

in the bill of rights. Rights have exceptions or are delimited under the law. I get a little tired of the melodrama. Let's get real and deal with the facts of circumstances. One of the inconvenient facts is that work needs to be done to repeal or rework the Patriot Act and the FISA law in Congress or ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS and will not be accomplished by just hyperventilating on the internet.

[Cyrano]

5. Okay, I'll get real.

The fact is that nothing is going to be done to revise the FISA laws or repeal the Patriot Act.

[Skidmore]

6. I think there could be something done if people would quit

handwringing, be less invested in creating heroes, and start focusing on reality. What you get may not be perfect but we do need to arrive at a concensus in the country about what is needed for national security and personal security.

[woo me with science]

7. I know!

All the people recklessly drawing attention to these issues are interrupting the process of their quietly fixing themselves!

[bvar22]

9. That is just laughable.

What we are arriving at is an authoritarian Surveillance State
whose sole purpose is to protect the Wealth & Privilege of the 1%Elite from unhappy peasants.

I watched pale, old white man, conservative, authoritarian Lindsey Graham state to the cameras that he is very pleased with the direction we are heading.
I thought to myself,
Well, YOU would be, wouldn't you."

Grabbing up the little bit that isn't nailed down,
Protecting their Loot,
and Pulling up the Ladders.


[font size=4]Now THIS is Bi-Partisan Consensus
Hahahahhahahahaha ![/font]

[Skidmore]

11. Well we won't know until we try, will we?

[bvar22]

12. We've already been there and done that.

There have been cultures and nations that placed State Security and allegiance to Political Party above civil liberties, individual freedom, and democratic values.
It ended badly.
Historically, that ALWAYS ends badly.


"Those who don't know history
are destined to repeat it."

[Skidmore]

13. I don't recall saying anything about political parties.

At some point left and right need to find a pont at which we fann work together. Why isn't this that issue. I am not interested in excuses to seek purity but functionality. We need to learn from the teabaggers and drop the insistence that everyone meet a test to participate but use some of their strategies to be heard and insist on answers and solutions.

[bvar22]

23. I won't work with ANY Party...

...that seeks to curtail Civil Liberties and Constitutional Protections in the name of "increasing security".
Since BOTH Dominant Political parties are now working together to push in that directions,
it WAS appropriate to include "Political Parties" in my post.

Let me repeat:
Historically, this ALWAYS ends badly.

[sabrina 1]

15. What would those exceptions be? I know what they are but your comment indicates that you may

not know, which is why I asked.

[Skidmore]

16. And why should you assume that?

My point was that the right is not unlimited and I shouldn't have to pass a quiz to make that point. All of this NSA stuff can still be subject to review by the courts in the future and expanded or limited per that review. I don't claim to be a lawyer but have trained as a paralegal and am fully aware that the law can be reviewed and changed as well as upheld depending on the arguments used and the judgement of the court.

[sabrina 1]

17. The 4th Amendment has never been changed, that would take a Constitutional Amendment and probably

many, many years of debate. Which means no innocent person can be the target of an investigation because no court will issue a warrant without PROBABLE CAUSE.

So what was the probable cause that was presented to get a warrant for the blanket surveillance of millions of Americans? That's all we want to know. What have I been accused of that made it okay for my telephone company to track my calls?? It's a simple question.

[Recursion]

10. Whom you call and are called by isn't covered by the 4th amendment but by statute

Similarly, whom you email and which Internet servers you visit is, per the Supreme Court for the past 30 years, not protected by the 4th Amendment.

If data beyond that is being collected (which there is no evidence of, though that's not to say it's not happening), the 4th Amendment is being violated.

If the call history data is being improperly accessed (and there are indications it is), then the NSA and FBI have committed a few billion torts over the past decade. That should be interesting.

[sabrina 1]

18. How do you define 'improperly accessed'? If some stranger is collecting data on when and to whom

I make phone calls, it would take more than just me calling someone. They would have to be watching me. If I found out someone was doing that, I would report them.

If the government is spending time and money to do this, that is going beyond people making calls. When the government demands people's phone records from their telecoms, they are going beyond 'accessing information that is readily available'. Why would they this? Even a mafia suspect's calls are not accessible to the government without law enforcement requesting a warrant and to get such a warrant they must produce evidence of 'probable cause'. So, are millions of Americans suspected of something criminal, has there been some kind of 'probable cause' presented to justify a warrant to access their phone activities? That's all we want to know.

[xchrom]

14. Du rec. Nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. The "terrorists" being those who hold power over us "lesser" people.

[davidn3600]

21. The courts have pretty much let that amendment die

It seems the government wins every challenge to that amendment.

[woo me with science]

22. If by "terrorists," you mean corporatists,

then I agree.

K&R