Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nor does the Fourth Amendment require government to jump through all those unnecessary hoops and red-tape.
It does. I don't think you understand why the rights were created. They were not created to protect the government but just the opposite.
Quote:
The Fourth Amendment exists to protect our inherent right to be free from unreasonable government searches and seizures. If law enforcement can demonstrate probable cause, and specifically names a suspect as the Fourth Amendment requires, then they should be granted a court-issued a warrant to tap all forms of communications made by that suspect. It is the suspect that gets the warrant issued against them, not each communication devices used by the suspect.
Sorry, the courts do not know who else might be caught in any investigation and is there to protect the rights of others also. Where they might rule it valid for one type of communication another type might involve violating someone else's rights and the courts need to review that.
As we are plainly seeing, we can not trust the government to do the correct thing.
Quote:
National Security Letters are not warrants, nor were the issued by the courts. Both are required to be in compliance with the Fourth Amendment. So what has the ACLU done in the last 9 years since their 2004 suit? Where are all these unconstitutional provisions everyone keeps imagining?
Part of the problem is the secrecy. We are just now learning what the government is doing. One can not sue to stop what one does not know is happening.
I posted the link where even those in the government have thrown up red flags and had the courts step in and rule certain things unconstitutional. If the ACLU had an idea of these things they would have likely brought the suits.
It does. I don't think you understand why the rights were created. They were not created to protect the government but just the opposite.
Rights are not created, they are inherent. The Bill of Rights exist to both acknowledge and to protect those inherent rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Sorry, the courts do not know who else might be caught in any investigation and is there to protect the rights of others also. Where they might rule it valid for one type of communication another type might involve violating someone else's rights and the courts need to review that.
As we are plainly seeing, we can not trust the government to do the correct thing.
Have you ever read the Fourth Amendment?
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.
Two separate branches of government are involved, probable cause must be articulated and a specific individual(s) must be named. Anything else that law enforcement discovers that is outside the scope of the court-issued warrant cannot be used as evidence. This is called the "Exclusionary Rule."
That places the onus on the government to not only know what they are looking for, and why, but they are also restricted to using only that evidence, if found, and nothing else.
As I mentioned in a prior post, it is not the law that is the problem, but rather those administering the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Part of the problem is the secrecy. We are just now learning what the government is doing. One can not sue to stop what one does not know is happening.
I posted the link where even those in the government have thrown up red flags and had the courts step in and rule certain things unconstitutional. If the ACLU had an idea of these things they would have likely brought the suits.
Then I commend those government employees for pointing out the flaws of the law's implementation. You cannot write every law with the idea that government is going to go out of its way to violate that law. Every law would be tens of thousands of pages long. As flawed as it may be in these times, we have to go under the premise that the Executive Branch will faithfully execute the laws as Congress intended them. Obviously that will not always be the case.
Rights are not created, they are inherent. The Bill of Rights exist to both acknowledge and to protect those inherent rights.
Same thing. They were enacted to protect the individual. Not make it easier for the government to step on these rights.
Quote:
That places the onus on the government to not only know what they are looking for, and why, but they are also restricted to using only that evidence, if found, and nothing else.
As I mentioned in a prior post, it is not the law that is the problem, but rather those administering the law.
Any law that tries to avoid oversight will be abused.
Quote:
Then I commend those government employees for pointing out the flaws of the law's implementation. You cannot write every law with the idea that government is going to go out of its way to violate that law. Every law would be tens of thousands of pages long. As flawed as it may be in these times, we have to go under the premise that government will faithfully execute the laws as Congress intended them. Obviously that will not always be the case.
These flaws would not have happened if the actions would have had to be brought before a court in the first place.
Same thing. They were enacted to protect the individual. Not make it easier for the government to step on these rights.
Inherent and created are not the same thing, not by a long shot. Government creates privileges, not rights. Privileges can be also take away by government, but not inherent rights. For example, the privilege of Habeas Corpus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Any law that tries to avoid oversight will be abused.
The oversight is built into the Fourth Amendment, only the courts can issue a warrant and only if there is probable cause. With regard to the USAPATRIOT Act specifically, I agree that any secrecy is opening the door for abuse. However, when it concerns National Security secrecy is sometimes a requirement. The FISA courts in particular tend to be a rubber-stamp for the Executive Branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
These flaws would not have happened if the actions would have had to be brought before a court in the first place.
Flaws in implementing laws are always possible, or intentional, and I agree that if there was not the secrecy involved, those flaws in implementation would have become apparent much sooner.
Flaws in implementing laws are always possible, or intentional, and I agree that if there was not the secrecy involved, those flaws in implementation would have become apparent much sooner.
So in the end we agree. Blanket laws that allow the government to spy on people are a bad thing. Anything they do should have to go through a court.
I would be willing to wager that all those who want to repeal the USAPATRIOT Act have never read the law. Nor do they comprehend the consequences if the USAPATRIOT Act is repealed.
You are probably correct. Nevertheless, I oppose expansion of our bloated powerful government's power on general principles. For me to support it, you would have to prove that it does not expand our government's power to spy on citizens or in any way invade our privacy.
And if it does none of that, then why is it needed? What gap in our government's power to fight terrorism was missing before this law?
After I read the law, several times, searching for anything that could be construed unconstitutional, I could find nothing. In numerous places the USAPATRIOT Act repeatedly cites the Fourth Amendment saying that it will be obeyed at all times. Within the jurisdiction of the US there are can be no warrant issued except where there is probable cause.
Those are pretty much useless words. We all know that the Fourth Amendment is subject to interpretation and many of us believe it is violated by government every day (example: DUI Checkpoints).
So having the government confirm that the government is obeying the Fourth Amendment is totally useless.
Yes, I read the law several times. The reason the USAPATRIOT Act was needed was because law enforcement was broken. Prior to the USAPATRIOT Act it required a separate warrant for every communication device used by a suspect. If law enforcement wanted to tap a suspect's home phone, cell phone, office phone, fax, e-mail, Internet access (social media, forums, etc.) they were required to obtain multiple warrants. Which is complete stupidity, and not in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.
Now, under the USAPATRIOT Act, only one warrant is required for all communication devices a suspect may use, as it should be.
.
That's quite naive. We didn't need a 400 page law to do what you just said. That change could be made with a one page law.
Wake up!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
