NSA Employee Spied on Nine Women Without Detection, Internal File Shows...

[Uncle Joe]

56. I was responding to your assertion that they just bypass the Constitution.

You open up an entire Pandora's Box when you advocate that, using your logic if Obama or the Democrats can do it, then by all means, A THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT CUT CUT ALL SOCIAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS, would be fully justified in doing so as well.

In regards to Habeus Corpus, the United States is not even remotely facing a war or rebellion along the lines of the Civil War, we're not even in a state of emergency.

Having said that there is a Constitutional remedy for such a situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States..."

The "Patriot Act" which came into being immediately after 9/11 by a Republican controlled Congress and George W. Bush has had its' own share of controversy.

The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since its enactment.

One prime example of a controversy of the Patriot Act is shown in the recent court case United States v. Antoine Jones. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. Through the years the case rose all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act directly put the suspects' Constitutional rights in jeopardy.

(snip)

The USA PATRIOT Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF.[218] They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",[219] and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court—their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it."[219] They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.[219]

For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[44] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[220] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[221][222]

(snip)

In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family,[224] Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, Judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[45][46]

Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of freedom of association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.[225]

Regarding the secret FISA Court, did you know that John Roberts appointed all 11 members?

Now if you want to go down an imaginary road, imagine if you will that

10 years down the road. The American Economy is in what is undeniably a depression caused by A THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT CUT CUT ALL SOCIAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS

there is a major uproar by the American People and this

THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS

labels their primary political opposition to be "terrorists" or "enemies of the state" and uses the invasive Big Brother powers of the secretive NSA surveillance state to blackmail, ruin, harass, arrest and even kill the people opposed to the THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS' policies.

You will always have nutcases like the one you just posted and the U.S. will have its' share of foreign opponets and enemies, much of it due to our making, but a nation "Superpower" of over 300 million people should have enough courage and faith in their own institutions to not let the tail wag the dog.

The Constitution for better or worse is our preeminent institution.