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.
The government was investigating foreign entities suspected of criminal activity. The government intercepted some of the conversations foreign entities had with Americans. YOU have not offered any evidence that American to American conversations were intercepted. I'm not the one who's blind. YOU are.
Are you serious? Then you think the Constitution created "People"? They were not people before the Bill of Rights confirmed what was already evident for individual freedom & liberty.
Words have meaning and if they wanted it to only be applied to Citizens, they would have used that word. They did elsewhere to define the difference. Now you want to apply it here and change People to Citizen?
The right to keep & bear arms, does not only apply to citizens. But I bet you think it does.
I'd love to see you post some actual evidence. So far, nada.
So, you feel no one's 4th Amendment was violated.
When I have posted over and over again, FISA confirmed it has since 2011.
There are logs of unmasking, and digging. Into the already unconstitutional data collection.
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.
The government seizure happens by the millisecond.
Where is the warrant to seize all Americans data?
The Trumpsters are an irrepressible lot. They remind me about the story of the boy happily mucking through the stalls thinking that with all that horsebleep there has to be a pony in there someplace.
Are you serious? Then you think the Constitution created "People"? They were not people before the Bill of Rights confirmed what was already evident for individual freedom & liberty.
Words have meaning and if they wanted it to only be applied to Citizens, they would have used that word. They did elsewhere to define the difference. Now you want to apply it here and change People to Citizen?
The right to keep & bear arms, does not only apply to citizens. But I bet you think it does.
I think that the Constitution applies to persons within or entering US juridictions. I think the laws regarding surveillance and FISA may have been abused, but were not wholly disregarded, and I have not seen anything that suggests that American to American conversations were recorded in regards to the Trump campaign conversations. Only conversations with foreign entities who were being investigated for criminal activities. You have not proffered a scintilla of EVIDENCE (something based in FACTS and not wet dreams) otherwise.
I think that the Constitution applies to persons within or entering US juridictions. I think the laws regarding surveillance and FISA may have been abused, but were not wholly disregarded, and I have not seen anything that suggests that American to American conversations were recorded in regards to the Trump campaign conversations. Only conversations with foreign entities who were being investigated for criminal activities. You have not proffered a scintilla of EVIDENCE (something based in FACTS and not wet dreams) otherwise.
Why play ignorant that you do not understand the words used in the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights?
Or are you a Communist and don't know it?
Every communication, of every member of the Trump team was collected on spread sheets. American to American and especially communications between trump team members together, back and forth. Bannon to Conway. / Jr. to Kushner / Trump to Pence / Sessions to Gulliani
Every communication, of every member of the Trump team was collected on spread sheets. American to American and especially communications between trump team members together, back and forth. Bannon to Conway. / Jr. to Kushner / Trump to Pence / Sessions to Gulliani
Only the communications of foreign entities with Trump campaign personnel were captured. While later subpoenas were needed to obtain records of communications between Trump team members. This is an actual fact because we know Mueller has been issuing subpoenas. If he already had those communications, he wouldn't have needed to subpoena them.
Only the communications of foreign entities with Trump campaign personnel were captured. While later subpoenas were needed to obtain records of communications between Trump team members. This is an actual fact because we know Mueller has been issuing subpoenas. If he already had those communications, he wouldn't have needed to subpoena them.
That is not true.
American to American within the campaign communications were targeted and captured.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...76400056758151
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.” Quoting Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Jones, Leon noted the breadth of information our cell phone records reveal, including “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”
Having determined that people have a subjective expectation of privacy in their historical record of telephony metadata, Leon turned to whether that subjective expectation is one that society considers “reasonable.” A “search” must ordinarily be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing in order to be “reasonable.” One exception is when there are “special needs,” beyond the need for ordinary law enforcement (such as the need to protect children from drugs).
“To my knowledge, however, no court has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion,” Leon wrote. “In effect,” he continued, “the Government urges me to be the first non-FISC judge to sanction such a dragnet.”
Leon stated that 15 different FISC judges have issued 35 orders authorizing the metadata collection program. But, Leon wrote, FISC Judge Reggie Walton determined the NSA has engaged in “systematic noncompliance” and repeatedly made misrepresentations and inaccurate statements about the program to the FISC judges. And Presiding FISC Judge John Bates noted “a substantial misrepresentation [by the government] regarding the scope of a major collection program.”
Significantly, Leon noted that “the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”
The NSA claims it can operate outside the restraints of the Fourth Amendment.
The NSA and its congressional apologists have argued that because its task is essentially to gather foreign intelligence for national security purposes only, and because the Fourth Amendment, which requires detailed language in search warrants particularly describing the person or place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized, only restrains the government when it is engaged in criminal prosecutions and not when it is on a fishing expedition for intelligence purposes, the Fourth Amendment does not restrain the NSA.
Yet, the plain language of the Fourth Amendment protects everyone in America from government intrusion in their persons, houses, papers and effects, whether the government is looking for evidence of crimes or of evidence of sophistry.
The NSA’s argument that the Fourth Amendment only regulates criminal prosecutions is nonsense. It never has seriously been made to or accepted by the Supreme Court, and it defies what we now know about the client list of the NSA.
That is not true.
American to American within the campaign communications were targeted and captured.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...76400056758151
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.” Quoting Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence in Jones, Leon noted the breadth of information our cell phone records reveal, including “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”
Having determined that people have a subjective expectation of privacy in their historical record of telephony metadata, Leon turned to whether that subjective expectation is one that society considers “reasonable.” A “search” must ordinarily be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing in order to be “reasonable.” One exception is when there are “special needs,” beyond the need for ordinary law enforcement (such as the need to protect children from drugs).
“To my knowledge, however, no court has ever recognized a special need sufficient to justify continuous, daily searches of virtually every American citizen without any particularized suspicion,” Leon wrote. “In effect,” he continued, “the Government urges me to be the first non-FISC judge to sanction such a dragnet.”
Leon stated that 15 different FISC judges have issued 35 orders authorizing the metadata collection program. But, Leon wrote, FISC Judge Reggie Walton determined the NSA has engaged in “systematic noncompliance” and repeatedly made misrepresentations and inaccurate statements about the program to the FISC judges. And Presiding FISC Judge John Bates noted “a substantial misrepresentation [by the government] regarding the scope of a major collection program.”
Significantly, Leon noted that “the Government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”
Thank you for pointing out abuse. But your google/scholar excerpt is not en pointe regarding the Trump campaign. Try again.
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.
