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.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,074,986 times
Reputation: 3937
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
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.
AND those courts had already been in place for decades and did just fine....The way I understand it they were just a formality,but a formality that kept the FBI et al from just randomly tapping their girlfriends phones and others just for chits and grins.
And he is suppose to repeal something the fools before him put in place? All that it wil do is give them another reason to attack him, "he does not care about protecting America" so why should he give more ammunition
Ummm,I do believe Obama opposed it BEFORE becoming POTUS....then he decided he liked it quite a lot.
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.
AND those courts had already been in place for decades and did just fine....The way I understand it they were just a formality,but a formality that kept the FBI et al from just randomly tapping their girlfriends phones and others just for chits and grins.
Exactly, and that is where one of those "checks and balances" comes in. What stops law enforcement from acquiring illegally obtained evidence are the courts. Knowing that evidence that is not obtained in the manner prescribed by the Fourth Amendment will not be admitted by the courts helps keep law enforcement honest.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,074,986 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
Still evil.
There were other choices....
Like who Oz? Paul ?
FAUX and the rest of the media sunk his battleship before it ever got floating and the RNC doesn't throw support or a dime behind.
My vote wouldn't have helped him a bit,but I was 100% sure that I would die before I voted for Palin.....the GOP crapped all over McCain by pushing that dimwitted fool on him.
I honestly think the RNC threw the fight on purpose because GW had it so screwed that no matter WHO got POTUS it would be impossible to fix...they let the Dems take a very easy victory for POTUS and threw their money into control the house/congress to pull the strings without taking the limelight and blame.
Same thing is happening this round...look at the stone cold idiots that the GOP is parading around.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,074,986 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Exactly, and that is where one of those "checks and balances" comes in. What stops law enforcement from acquiring illegally obtained evidence are the courts. Knowing that evidence that is not obtained in the manner prescribed by the Fourth Amendment will not be admitted by the courts helps keep law enforcement honest.
And in todays America that in itself is a 24/7 job and getting worse all the time.
And in todays America that in itself is a 24/7 job and getting worse all the time.
I will not dispute that. However, the behavior of law enforcement is not a reflection of the law. Do we blame the law against robbery every time someone gets robbed? Of course not. So why would we blame the USAPATRIOT Act when it is abused by law enforcement? That makes no sense to me. Particularly when it was, and still is, a very necessary law.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,074,986 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I will not dispute that. However, the behavior of law enforcement is not a reflection of the law. Do we blame the law against robbery every time someone gets robbed? Of course not. So why would we blame the USAPATRIOT Act when it is abused by law enforcement? That makes no sense to me. Particularly when it was, and still is, a very necessary law.
The needed laws were in place before the PA and worked just fine....GW had the intelligence on 9/11 prior to it happening and chose to ignore it.
Many federal intelligence and law enforcement agents have already came out with that...it was human error,not the lack of laws that allowed 9/11 to occur.
The ONLY common sense part of the PA was the sharing of intel between agencies which for Americans was a no brainer,but somehow the idiots in D.C. missed that little important fact.
The needed laws were in place before the PA and worked just fine....GW had the intelligence on 9/11 prior to it happening and chose to ignore it.
Many federal intelligence and law enforcement agents have already came out with that...it was human error,not the lack of laws that allowed 9/11 to occur.
The ONLY common sense part of the PA was the sharing of intel between agencies which for Americans was a no brainer,but somehow the idiots in D.C. missed that little important fact.
With regard to the attack on 9/11/01 that very well may be true, however, the USAPATRIOT Act was still necessary to eliminate the completely unnecessary bureaucracy that evolved over the decades. For example, prior to the USAPATRIOT Act in order to monitor the communications of a named suspect, law enforcement would have been required to obtain a separate court-issued warrant for every communication device used by the suspect. Which means that if a suspect used their cell phone, e-mail, fax, or posted on City-Data forum, law enforcement would be required to obtain a minimum of four court-issued warrants. That is ridiculous. There is no such requirement under the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement would still be living with this inane bureaucratic handicap had the USAPATRIOT Act not existed.
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.
AND those courts had already been in place for decades and did just fine....The way I understand it they were just a formality,but a formality that kept the FBI et al from just randomly tapping their girlfriends phones and others just for chits and grins.
