Congress pisses all over the 4th Amendment

[lummy 4]

Quote

Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen who has had their rights violated?

Sure, here's one


http://www.katu.com/news/local/18108104.html

This is one of the few cases that is proceeding. The plaintiffs have to show there was actual damage for the case to move along but can't prove it because the government has the State Secrets act. The act allows the govt to not turn over evidence showing they were illegally wiretapping.

Basically a catch 22

Quote

Coppolino said that the only way a victim of a warrantless wiretap could sue is if the government acknowledged the eavesdropping. Coppolino and other federal officials have steadfastly refused to confirm or deny investigators wiretapped Al-Haramain. Coppolino said to do so would harm national security by disclosing spying techniques.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I would not want to register my guns and I would fight the passage of that law.

So as long as the constitutional violation isn't of personal interest, it's just fine. Got it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

" If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned.".

Oooh, Hitler and Stalin used that line too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

I would not want to register my guns and I would fight the passage of that law.

So as long as the constitutional violation isn't of personal interest, it's just fine. Got it.

No, you missed my point all together. So is it safe to assume that all the anti-gun folks on this site don't support the constitution since they don't support the 2nd. Using your logic we could make that conclusion.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[mnealtx 0]

Echelon, Carnivore...this aint nothing new.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

So is it safe to assume that all the anti-gun folks on this site pay no mind to the constitution since they don't support the 2nd. Using your logic we could make that conclusion.

I think most anti-gunnies support the 2nd, just differ on where to draw the line. But yea, there are some who would remove it. Either way, I doubt many would want to just leave the 2nd in place and ignore it such as is being done to the 4th.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

Echelon, Carnivore...this aint nothing new.

Oh, well, someone else did it first, so that makes it OK

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

" If you have nothing to hide you should not be too concerned.".

Oooh, Hitler and Stalin used that line too.

"He who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin


This was released this afternoon
Obama's Statement on FISA

Quote

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."

In an interview today on Bloomberg's "Political Capital with Al Hunt" , Sen. Reid said he would attempt to remove the amnesty provision in the bill.

Quote

Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to "express their views."

"I'm going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity," Reid said in an interview to be aired this weekend on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt."

"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try."

That effort should be helped by Obama's opposition to the provision. His support of the remainder of the bill is disappointing, but that would be in large part offset if he can help kill immunity.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I do have to say one thing, if they did lose immunity I'm not sure what would ever happen. Due to national security they would bury all the evidence and no one would be able to show damages for a civil case. Would they be able to do a criminal and who would they chase after?

A SCOTUS ruling on this would be our best option but with a 5-4 ruling on Habeas Corpus I'm not sure they would rule correctly anymore.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Echelon, Carnivore...this aint nothing new.

Oh, well, someone else did it first, so that makes it OK

I don't recall saying that, Professor.... in contrast that to the "CDIF" and "But the Republicans are WORSE" defenses that YOU use.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would not want to register my guns and I would fight the passage of that law.

So as long as the constitutional violation isn't of personal interest, it's just fine. Got it.

No, you missed my point all together. So is it safe to assume that all the anti-gun folks on this site don't support the constitution since they don't support the 2nd. Using your logic we could make that conclusion.

No, you missed the point.

If you have nothing to fear from the government having legal authority to tap your calls/mail, then you have nothing to fear from gun registration either.

History, otoh, shows otherwise. Citizens have great reason to fear both.

Fortunately, it's not that hard to use PGP if you want to for email.

[billvon 3,008]

>No, you missed my point all together. So is it safe to assume that all
>the anti-gun folks on this site don't support the constitution since they
>don't support the 2nd.

In a way, yes. It doesn't matter whether it's the 2nd amendment or the 4th. If you don't support the constitution you don't support it, whether or not it annoys you personally.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, I am ABSOLUTELY against any unwarranted government intrusion. As I have explained, the thought that, "if you've got nothing to hide then what do you care" is wholly inconsistent with the dignitary nature of the 4th Amendment.

My concern is, "What did one expect these companies to do?" When government agents come to you and ask for information, there is typically an issue with the person approached in wondering, "Should I be objecting?"

"Hey. I'm not gonna do that." The person typically believes that in an official investigation the person will be protected.

Here's another issue for you - let's say you get a subpoena from the government. Would you comply with it? Subpoenas typically are NOT issued by courts. But there is a penalty for noncompliance.

Unfortunately, I see issues like this all the time. Just because the feds want you to do it it doesn't make it legal. But - how is a business owner supposed to decide what is what?

It doesn't make it right. But the longer I practice, the more I see things that make me believe that there are situations wherein people unwittingly get caught up in stuff for which they had no intent, and trusted what should have been trustworthy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen who has had their rights violated?

You are kidding me, right? Under the guise of the Patriot Act plenty of rights have been violated.

During an organized and approved war protest, Chicago Police arrested large crowds of the peaceful protesters. One was my ex's friend and we were unable to locate him nor was his lawyer. He was being held as a domestic terrorist and denied access to his lawyer under the Patriot Act. They eventually let him go without any notice or paperwork completed.

All that was done, was in accordance with the orders of Mayor Daley, and his Chief Of Police.

Daley is an extremely liberal Democrat, he has also torn up Meigs Field, against a Federal Court Order, and Violates the rights of every Chicagoan, as well as many of those who reside in Cook County.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Here's another issue for you - let's say you get a subpoena from the government. Would you comply with it? Subpoenas typically are NOT issued by courts. But there is a penalty for noncompliance.

Call my company's lawyer and ask first. Then get a second opinion. I'm not going to expose myself or my company because some power hungry idiot with a badge is demanding information from me. I've personally been issued a subpoena from another company while at work for professional reasons, and we have had cops show up and demand information. In each case we just said you have to wait till our lawyer advise us. Then again, I'm personally not scared just because someone flashes a badge at me.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

All that was done, was in accordance with the orders of Mayor Daley, and his Chief Of Police.

Daley is an extremely liberal Democrat, he has also torn up Meigs Field, against a Federal Court Order, and Violates the rights of every Chicagoan, as well as many of those who reside in Cook County.

You know that people were arrested that were not part of the protest? People who were downtown shopping and just walking by and happened to be on that block, including people who live in that area. My ex's friend was trying to leave because the protest wasn't going according to what he believed. There was no warning from the cops and he, along with bystanders that were trying to leave the area, were stopped by CPD and told to wait.

I know Daley quite well and I haven't voted for him in years.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

All that was done, was in accordance with the orders of Mayor Daley, and his Chief Of Police.

Daley is an extremely liberal Democrat, he has also torn up Meigs Field, against a Federal Court Order, and Violates the rights of every Chicagoan, as well as many of those who reside in Cook County.

You know that people were arrested that were not part of the protest? People who were downtown shopping and just walking by and happened to be on that block, including people who live in that area. My ex's friend was trying to leave because the protest wasn't going according to what he believed. There was no warning from the cops and he, along with bystanders that were trying to leave the area, were stopped by CPD and told to wait.

I know Daley quite well and I haven't voted for him in years.

That hardly surprises me.

You should hear the stories related to me by some Tactical Officers in the CPD.

The look on their faces speaks volumes.

They are expected to toss the Constitution aside, that does not please them at all.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

You should hear the stories related to me by some Tactical Officers in the CPD.

The look on their faces speaks volumes.

They are expected to toss the Constitution aside, that does not please them at all.

That's pretty much been the standard in Chicago for years. Growing up I got to hear stories from family members that were cops, and now a good portion of my high school buddies carry a badge and tell me the same thing.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,008]

>this aint nothing new.

John Adams, 1777:

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

Senator Kit Bond, 2008:

"When the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do."

We've come a long way in ~230 years.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen who has had their rights violated?

You are kidding me, right? Under the guise of the Patriot Act plenty of rights have been violated.

During an organized and approved war protest, Chicago Police arrested large crowds of the peaceful protesters. One was my ex's friend and we were unable to locate him nor was his lawyer. He was being held as a domestic terrorist and denied access to his lawyer under the Patriot Act. They eventually let him go without any notice or paperwork completed.

All that was done, was in accordance with the orders of Mayor Daley, and his Chief Of Police.

Daley is an extremely liberal Democrat, he has also torn up Meigs Field, against a Federal Court Order, and Violates the rights of every Chicagoan, as well as many of those who reside in Cook County.

And this is why this issue is important. You can't even trust politicans of power who claim to believe in civil rights. The point of the Constituion and the Bill of Rights is to hold such people in check. It doesn't work if we decide the protections aren't important for those who have nothing to hide.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_hi_te/scotus_internet

You break a law for me, I'll help you break other laws....or so it goes with the Bush Administration.

Quote

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court intervened Monday in a lawsuit by an Internet service provider accusing AT&T of anti-competitive practices.


AT&T had asked the justices to step into the dispute over wholesale prices AT&T charges for high-speed service to Internet service providers who then compete with AT&T for retail Internet customers.

AT&T says it is under no obligation to deal with the Internet service providers and that the lawsuit should be thrown out for failing to state a valid legal claim.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, LinkLine Communications Inc., buys high-speed service from AT&T, combines it with other services and then sells Internet-access service that compete against AT&T.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against AT&T, saying the telecom company was setting its wholesale prices so high that the Internet service provider could not compete with the low prices AT&T charged in the retail market. The appeals court said that federal courts have recognized such price squeeze allegations for six decades.

The Bush administration had urged the Supreme Court to take the case as AT&T requested.

The case is Pacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications Inc., 07-512.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mnealtx 0]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199804/ai_n8784707

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,008]

47 posts before a CDIF from Mike. You're slacking! People will start to think you don't hate Clinton any more.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

47 posts before a CDIF from Mike. You're slacking! People will start to think you don't hate Clinton any more.

How many posts was it before the "IABF", pray tell?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,008]

>Of the over 250,000,000 americans, can you even name one citizen
>who has had their rights violated?

Hey! What do you know? Fearful people traded their rights for perceived safety - and lo and behold, the government was not quite as trustworthy as some conservatives thought they would be! Today in the news:

========================
Report: U.S. spied on Americans' intimate conversations abroad

By Pam Benson
CNN National Security Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress is looking into allegations that National Security Agency linguists have been eavesdropping on Americans abroad.

The congressional oversight committees said Thursday that the Americans targeted included military officers in Iraq who called friends and family in the United States.

The allegations were made by two former military intercept operators on a television news report Thursday evening.

A terrorist surveillance program instituted by the Bush administration allows the intelligence community to monitor phone calls between the United States and overseas without a court order -- as long as one party to the call is a terror suspect.

Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

David Murfee Faulk, a former U.S. Navy Arab linguist, said in the news report that he and his colleagues were listening to the conversations of military officers in Iraq who were talking with their spouses or girlfriends in the United States.

According to Faulk, they would often share the contents of some of the more salacious calls stored on their computers, listening to what he called "phone sex" and "pillow talk."

Both Kinne and Faulk worked at the NSA listening facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. They told ABC that when linguists complained to supervisors about eavesdropping on personal conversations, they were ordered to continue transcribing the calls.

NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel said the agency's Inspector General has investigated some of the allegations and found them "unsubstantiated." Other accusations are still being looked at, she said.

The NSA operates in "strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations," she said. "Any allegation of wrongdoing by employees is thoroughly investigated" and if misconduct is discovered, "we take swift and certain remedial action."

CIA Director Mike Hayden, who was the head of the NSA when the terrorist surveillance program began, has always maintained that private conversations of Americans are not intercepted and if it should happen inadvertently, the name is removed from the record.

"At NSA, the law was followed assiduously," said Hayden's spokesman, Mark Mansfeld. "The notion that Gen. Hayden sanctioned or tolerated illegalities of any sort is ridiculous on its face."

Author Jim Bamford was the first to interview the two former NSA linguists for his new book, "The Shadow Factory," which will be published next week. Bamford told CNN the accounts from the whistle-blowers demonstrate the NSA was listening to the private conversations of Americans, transcribing them and keeping them.

"They don't delete them," he said.

Bamford has written two other books on the NSA and was a party to an unsuccessful ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The ACLU issued a statement on Thursday saying the allegations show that the government "misled the American public about the scope of its surveillance activities."

The ABC report "is an indictment not only of the Bush administration, but of all of those political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who have been saying that the executive branch can be trusted with surveillance powers that are essentially unchecked," said ACLU official Jamell Jaffer.
==========================

So unless you don't consider US military personnel US citizens, I think we are seeing an awful lot of people's rights being violated.