Why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ElFenix
The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

no, it doesn't.

Oh yes it does.

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.

Troll[/quote]

yay, personal attacks.

god this place sucks. no wonder i don't come here. you try to educate people and get sh!t on for it.

read terry v. ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

not only that, you can always consent to a warrantless anything.

and, guess what, technically surprise health code inspections and OSHA inspections and all sorts of other things are warrantless searches. and they're perfectly legal.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ElFenix
The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

no, it doesn't.

Oh yes it does.

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.

Troll

yay, personal attacks.

god this place sucks. no wonder i don't come here. you try to educate people and get sh!t on for it.

read terry v. ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

not only that, you can always consent to a warrantless anything.

and, guess what, technically surprise health code inspections and OSHA inspections and all sorts of other things are warrantless searches. and they're perfectly legal.[/quote]

From the ruling you cited:

However, the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, 'had reasonable cause to believe * * * that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action.' Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory 'stop' and an arrest, and between a 'frisk' of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. The frisk, it held, was essential to the proper performance of the officer's investigatory duties, for without it 'the answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible.'.

Clearly, there is a difference between frisking someone in order to protect yourself, and searching them as part of an investigation. The ruling makes that difference very explicit. One requires a warrant, the other does not. The ruling makes it clear that a warrant is required if a search is part of a full blown investigation.

I suggest YOU read the ruling further.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
Clearly, there is a difference between frisking someone in order to protect yourself, and searching them as part of an investigation. The ruling makes that difference very explicit. One requires a warrant, the other does not. If it a search is part of a full blown investigation -- the makes it clear that a warrant is required.

a search is a search. the court splits hairs to get the result it wants for good policy reasons, but it is obviously a search for weapons. the fact that it is limited doesn't make it not a search.

what about the other things? how about stopping the next 50 cars that pull up to a light, then running the drug dog around them? obviously that is a search for drugs, and perfectly legal under the US constitution if you say that the main purpose of stopping all those cars is a license/registration check or a DWI check.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a search is a search. the court splits hairs to get the result it wants for good policy reasons, but it is obviously a search for weapons. the fact that it is limited doesn't make it not a search.

Read the section I quoted again. It refers specifically to what we are talking about . It makes a clear distinction between a frisk(to ensure the safety of an officer) and a full blown search. Why would it do that? Because warrants ARE required for a search???? In no way does electronic surveillance endanger the investigating officers. This case does not apply.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

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 constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And isn't the government required to follow the law?

The domestic spying is done without warrants.

ummm....?

So why is it even a question that Bush's domestic spying is illegal?

The administration insists that it can break the law because we are in a time of war and that congress gave him this authority when they authorized him to use force against al Qaida. This is really all a bunch of baloney and this position is advocated by very few outside the administration.

The thing is that this "war" could easily last 20 or even 200 years. So a precedent that makes it okay for the president do surveillance without court oversight would be very far reaching.

How many people outside of the administration actually have questioned the legality? The only person I can think of is Sen Pat Roberts.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

On November 4, 2001, Congressman Robert Matsui spoke at the Library and Foundation. His topic was, Recalling the U.S. Internment of the Japanese. The following paragraphs from his speech remind us why the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II is an excellent example of lessons we should have learned from our own mistakes and why we have to keep watch over our own government to make sure we never go down this road to tyranny again.

This is a great and wonderful country, because what happened in 1987 is that the House, the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate passed legislation for a presidential apology for the internment for the surviving Americans of Japanese ancestry who were interned, plus compensation of $20,000 per survivor.

President Reagan signed the legislation, and I have to say that I brought the letter from the president, by that time President Bush, Sr. had signed the letter and given it to my father, who was 21 years old at the time of the internment, and he broke down and cried, and he indicated what a great country we had.

I have to say that it's very few countries that are willing to look back at its past and apologize for its act, or make amends for its act, as the United States had one. Hopefully as a country, that we learn from our mistakes of the past. That's why it's my strong belief and my strong hope that what happened to us will not happen to any other American or resident alien in this country, and certainly not to the Arab American community in America.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ElFenix
The constitution requires warrants for searches. Isn't that clear?

no, it doesn't.

Oh yes it does.

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.

Troll

yay, personal attacks.

god this place sucks. no wonder i don't come here. you try to educate people and get sh!t on for it.

read terry v. ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

not only that, you can always consent to a warrantless anything.

and, guess what, technically surprise health code inspections and OSHA inspections and all sorts of other things are warrantless searches. and they're perfectly legal.[/quote]

You have to understand that Meuge has a religious belief that where he detects ignorance he must apply arrogance to deal with it. Please do not question this belief or his capacity to determine what is ignorant. And you might want to take up gardening because their sh!t fertilizes mine.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a search is a search. the court splits hairs to get the result it wants for good policy reasons, but it is obviously a search for weapons. the fact that it is limited doesn't make it not a search.

Read the section I quoted again. It refers specifically to what we are talking about . It makes a clear distinction between a frisk(to ensure the safety of an officer) and a full blown search. Why would it do that? Because warrants ARE required for a search???? In no way does electronic surveillance endanger the investigating officers. This case does not apply.

Nope, must agree with Elfenix here. An example of a "full-blown search" w/o a warrant - Get caught driving a car w/o proper tag and registration and the police are able to do a "full-blown" search of your vehicle.

It happened to me. No warant was needed.

And I think you guys may be overlooking an important word in the provision: against UNreasonable searches.

Sounds like no protection afforded against reasonable searches

Fern

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a search is a search. the court splits hairs to get the result it wants for good policy reasons, but it is obviously a search for weapons. the fact that it is limited doesn't make it not a search.

Read the section I quoted again. It refers specifically to what we are talking about . It makes a clear distinction between a frisk(to ensure the safety of an officer) and a full blown search. Why would it do that? Because warrants ARE required for a search???? In no way does electronic surveillance endanger the investigating officers. This case does not apply.

Nope, must agree with Elfenix here. An example of a "full-blown search" w/o a warrant - Get caught driving a car w/o proper tag and registration and the police are able to do a "full-blown" search of your vehicle.

It happened to me. No warant was needed.

And I think you guys may be overlooking an important word in the provision: against UNreasonable searches.

Sounds like no protection afforded against reasonable searches

Fern

A reasonable search would be an officer entering a home if he heard loud screams. Wiretapping people with no evidence of wrongdoing or endangerment is unreasonable, because there's no evidence of wrongdoing. If there WAS evidence of wrongdoing, then a warrant could be issued. Since Bush can't be bothered to get a warrant, we have to assume that it's because he knew that he would never be granted one.

 

[JacobJ]

.

 

[Moonbeam]

Rome fiddled while Nero burned.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: shady28

This one has been completely blown apart for nearly a century now. One good example is income tax. No where in the constitution does it give the *Federal Government* the right to tax your income - only to tax *interstate and international trade*. Based on this amendment, the states should be the only ones with the power to tax your income or other goods. Obviously, we all pay income tax.

"U.S. Constitution: Sixteenth Amendment

Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax

Amendment Text | Annotations

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

I don't see how it is unconstitutional when it is in the constitution.

I do believe in "relativism" though, although I have never heard it called that. I always think about "Newspeak" from 1984. Since Bush took office, many words have changed their meaning. ie Treason = Using right to free speech to question the government, Cowardism = Fighting a war with little money, training and weapons against the most power military in the world, Patriot = Person who gives all right away to the government for a false sense of protection.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

The United States of America are not at war. Sending a "preventive" expeditionary force to Iraq does not count. 9/11 does not count. If we are at war now, we will be at war for a thousand generations.

Why don't you conservatives understand that the War on Terror is no different than the War on Drugs. It is an endless war. We cannot give the President war powers based on an unlimited situation.

Could someone please explain to me why they think the U.S. is in a state of war? The Cold War was a MAJOR emergency where at ANY minute 100% of the United States could have been destroyed. That situation was grounds for emergency acts... and even then in 1978, the government decided to ban certain types of spying because it was going too far.

The WORST thing that could ever happen in the War on Terror is one city gets nuked. That would be terrible, but is it worth destroying our entire country and the rule of law to prevent when we didn't even want to go that far in 1978 when facing 1000s of Soviet nukes?

Someone explain this to me.

Also, most of the people who want wiretaps seem to be conservatives who live in red states that would NEVER be targeted (they are too underpopulated). So tell me why you are even worrying?

 

[Adnan]

Why ?

Because times change, law need to be changed with the flow.

At the time these laws were made.

There were no suicide bombers.

While the laws are generally good. they just need to be altered to fit these days.

laws from 700 years ago also got changed.

Times change things. These lawas were written by men who barely had light or no light.

 

[Meuge]

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Adnan
Why ?

Because times change, law need to be changed with the flow.

At the time these laws were made.

There were no suicide bombers.

While the laws are generally good. they just need to be altered to fit these days.

laws from 700 years ago also got changed.

Times change things. These lawas were written by men who barely had light or no light.

There might not have been suicide bombers, but there were WORSE things. Like Sovet spies with nuclear warhead data and U.S. city targeting data.

Why do suicide bombers scare you pansies so much?

Why change 200+ years of GREAT government just because you are such cowards?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Extraordinary actions that have violated many provisions of the bill of rights have been upheld during times of war. A good example is the Japanese Internment during WWII which violated constitutional rights in many ways..but was still allowed by the Supreme Court.

This, of course, makes it all right. :disgust:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Adnan
Why ?

Because times change, law need to be changed with the flow.

At the time these laws were made.

There were no suicide bombers.

While the laws are generally good. they just need to be altered to fit these days.

laws from 700 years ago also got changed.

Times change things. These lawas were written by men who barely had light or no light.

I don't think anyone disagrees with your point that if a law become dated or obsolete, it should be re-written to suit the times.

But the Bush Administration hasn't done that. They were confronted by laws (on torture, on surveillance) that blocked them from doing what they wanted. And when they discovered that Congress was unwilling to change the laws to give the Administration the authority desired, the Bush and company just did what they wanted anyway, claiming (1) that Congress had already given them the desired authority and (2) that the President was above the law, and couldn't be handcuffed by acts of Congress in any event.

 

[piasabird]

I have always maintained we are not at war unless congress declares war.

 

[ahurtt]

I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
- G. Orwell

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
- G. Orwell

So what will happen if the structure fails?

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

lol.

This guy is like Stephen Colbert, but serious.

Let's take away free press and replace it with propaganda. That'll strengthen moral behind catching the terrorist. Come on, they did it in the past.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
- G. Orwell

So what will happen if the structure fails?

The same thing that happened in 1776... and 1861... or 1945.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I'm sorry but I just don't see what the big deal is. . .If somebody can present a feasible ulterior motive that the gov't has for wanting wire-tap conversations that doesn't involve catching bad guys, I'm all ears.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
- G. Orwell

So what will happen if the structure fails?

The same thing that happened in 1776... and 1861... or 1945.

Well things haven't quite gotten bad enough for me to think a repeat of any of those times is necessary just yet.