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.
For those who missed it...Newt Gingrich in the debate a week or two ago said that he supports the *expansion* of the Patriot Act. He wants to give it even more power. This guy is status quo and then some all the way.
Yup, and he is the leading by quite a bit in the polls at the moment. Wake up America!
There were warrantless wiretaps before the Patriot Act was passed. Warrantless wiretaps were being done during the Clinton administration.
True, and in the Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK administrations before Clinton, and in the Bush and Obama administrations after Clinton.
Project Echelon was part of the UK-US Security Agreement created in the early 1960s to monitor communications from the USSR. Since the end of the Cold War Project Echelon has been used to monitor communications from terrorist sponsoring nations.
Since the jurisdiction of the US Constitution only extends to the borders of the US, the Fourth Amendment does not apply once you are beyond those borders. Initially, Project Echelon involved tapping the Trans-Atlantic communication cable in international waters. However, as technology evolved, so did the scope of Project Echelon. Satellite, e-mail, and other forms of communication are also being monitored now.
None of this violates any part of the Fourth Amendment because none of the monitoring takes place within US borders. Conversely, none of the communication being monitored can be used as evidence against a US citizen in a US court, because it falls under the Exclusionary Rule.
True, and in the Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and JFK administrations before Clinton, and in the Bush and Obama administrations after Clinton.
Project Echelon was part of the UK-US Security Agreement created in the early 1960s to monitor communications from the USSR. Since the end of the Cold War Project Echelon has been used to monitor communications from terrorist sponsoring nations.
Since the jurisdiction of the US Constitution only extends to the borders of the US, the Fourth Amendment does not apply once you are beyond those borders. Initially, Project Echelon involved tapping the Trans-Atlantic communication cable in international waters. However, as technology evolved, so did the scope of Project Echelon. Satellite, e-mail, and other forms of communication are also being monitored now.
None of this violates any part of the Fourth Amendment because none of the monitoring takes place within US borders. Conversely, none of the communication being monitored can be used as evidence against a US citizen in a US court, because it falls under the Exclusionary Rule.
Whether the monitoring takes place outside US borders or not, the point is that the US government can be monitoring the conversation of a US citizen who is taking part in the conversation from within the United States, just because the US government thinks that the other party to the conversation may be, however fleetingly, associated with terrorists. If the association weren't tenuous, they'd be able to get a warrant for that wiretap from a judge by offering up credible reasons. The fact is that the Patriot Act gives the government much more leeway than is necessary.
Whether the monitoring takes place outside US borders or not, the point is that the US government can be monitoring the conversation of a US citizen who is taking part in the conversation from within the United States, just because the US government thinks that the other party to the conversation may be, however fleetingly, associated with terrorists. If the association weren't tenuous, they'd be able to get a warrant for that wiretap from a judge by offering up credible reasons. The fact is that the Patriot Act gives the government much more leeway than is necessary.
That is correct, but only if that communication is outside the borders of the US, and that communication can not be used as evidence in a US court because of the Exclusionary Rule. None of this violates the Fourth Amendment.
The USAPATRIOT Act gives law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. There is absolutely nothing within the law that violates any part of the US Constitution. Whether or not law enforcement actually upholds the law is another story altogether.
That is correct, but only if that communication is outside the borders of the US, and that communication can not be used as evidence in a US court because of the Exclusionary Rule. None of this violates the Fourth Amendment.
The USAPATRIOT Act gives law enforcement the tools they need to do their job. There is absolutely nothing within the law that violates any part of the US Constitution. Whether or not law enforcement actually upholds the law is another story altogether.
The communication can be ACROSS US borders, the communication does not have to be exclusively outside US borders. One communicant can be within US borders. Frankly, you don't think it violates the Fourth Amendment. I disagree. As a US citizen, I expect my communications to be private, and if the US government believes that those communications involve illegal activities, then they should seek authorization from the courts to monitor those conversations. Period.
One additional note, that most are unaware, the USAPATRIOT Act specifically states that the Fourth Amendment must be upheld, numerous times throughout the law. For any communication to be used as evidence of a crime in US courts, it must include a court-issued warrant specifically naming the individual that is to be monitored.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
True...but americans have it down to a fine art...winning is all that matters
Right here we see so many outraged at the PA who will gladly vote for a candidate who supports it...so as to be on the 'winning team'.
I can't really agree with that last statement Oz...a lot of us who voted for Obama did it to send a message to the repubs after G.W. to clean their house....but then they bring out somebody who made G.W. look like a brain surgeon..Palin,so the rest of the fence sitters voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils.
I actually believed for awhile that he would get something done...c'est la vie.
The communication can be ACROSS US borders, the communication does not have to be exclusively outside US borders. One communicant can be within US borders. Frankly, you don't think it violates the Fourth Amendment. I disagree. As a US citizen, I expect my communications to be private, and if the US government believes that those communications involve illegal activities, then they should seek authorization from the courts to monitor those conversations. Period.
Of course. I am not disagreeing with you. If the communication crosses the border of US, it can be monitored by government without violating the US Constitution. If the communication crosses US borders, the communication is no longer under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution according to the Fourteenth Amendment.
If the communication was monitored without a warrant, then it cannot be used as evidence. Which goes directly to the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Only evidence that was obtained under a court-issued warrant, or "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" can be accepted by the courts. If evidence was obtained in any other way, then the evidence is inadmissible. That is what the Exclusionary Rule is all about.
In Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) the Supreme Court held that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure "reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words".
Considering that "communication" now includes internet traffic, which could very easily be routed to international servers, it is not unreasonable to presume that all internet communication is being monitored, without violating the Fourth Amendment.
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.
