Constitutional Rights are God given to ALL MANKIND

[GaryC 7]

The patriot act also allows for searches of private property without notice to the property owner. Due process is also protected by the constitution.

You would have a greatly different view on the patriot act if you were asian or arab.

Only if they thought an attack was about to happen. As of yet, no one has been seached under that part of the act. If the athorities thought a WMD were about to go off that part gives them the right to go in without a warrent. Or would you rather let it go off while they were trying to get a judge out of bed to get a warrent?

And please don't play the race card. It is used when you have no real argument to begin with.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The patriot act also allows for searches of private property without notice to the property owner. Due process is also protected by the constitution.

You would have a greatly different view on the patriot act if you were asian or arab.

Only if they thought an attack was about to happen. As of yet, no one has been seached under that part of the act. If the athorities thought a WMD were about to go off that part gives them the right to go in without a warrent. Or would you rather let it go off while they were trying to get a judge out of bed to get a warrent?

Legislate through fear rather than need.

[GaryC 7]

The patriot act also allows for searches of private property without notice to the property owner. Due process is also protected by the constitution.

You would have a greatly different view on the patriot act if you were asian or arab.

Only if they thought an attack was about to happen. As of yet, no one has been seached under that part of the act. If the athorities thought a WMD were about to go off that part gives them the right to go in without a warrent. Or would you rather let it go off while they were trying to get a judge out of bed to get a warrent?

Legislate through fear rather than need.

You don't think there is a need? Then you don't understand the problem.

Tell me there isn't a need.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/rob_nothink.htm

Edited September 3, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The patriot act also allows for searches of private property without notice to the property owner. Due process is also protected by the constitution.

You would have a greatly different view on the patriot act if you were asian or arab.

Only if they thought an attack was about to happen. As of yet, no one has been seached under that part of the act. If the athorities thought a WMD were about to go off that part gives them the right to go in without a warrent. Or would you rather let it go off while they were trying to get a judge out of bed to get a warrent?

Legislate through fear rather than need.

You don't think there is a need? Then you don't understand the problem.

I understand the problem - that this specific threat existed long before 9/11.

Considering that government (regardless of the Patriot Act) can't keep track of terrorists using Yahoo and Hotmail email accounts, it makes me wonder who is more adversely affected by the legislation - terrorists or the general public.

Incidentally you should read the stuff I posted about the German constitution, one which was in a lot of ways superior to that of the US, but was dismantled and destroyed by two pieces of legislation that were deemed to be "in the national need".

[PsychoKat 0]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

You might thing it's not protected but it appears the the Supreme Court does not agree with you on this

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Damn those liberal judges eh?

[GaryC 7]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

You might thing it's not protected but it appears the the Supreme Court does not agree with you on this

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

You should read things before you post them. That was refering to domestic wiretapping. The NSA program involves international wiretapping.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

You might thing it's not protected but it appears the the Supreme Court does not agree with you on this

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

Thanks, Psychokat for that! Gary, actually this isn't an argument - the Bush Administration has convoluted the issue. They want to be able to wiretap free from any judicial permission to do so. The courts are saying that just like in the case of searching someone's house, you need a warrant, the President must first be granted a warrant. It's a matter of checks and balances. As long as there is that, I don't have a problem with the wiretapping under those conditions. Without due process though, then you're tampering with my Constitutional Rights and that's just plain wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its also interesting that something can be deemed "legal" or "illegal" simply by the fact that the government says so, rather than via any actual legal ruling. They rely on people's ignorance of the facts...

And we should apparently be more worried by Hollywood celebs making political speeches that they're "not qualified to give", rather than career politicians who make "legal denouncments" without (necessarily) any legal training or other "legislative authority". Seems like our priorities got #######-eyed somewhere

Incidentally did you know that Scott McClellan's (GWB's old spindoctor) brother currently runs the center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and used to be the Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration?

[jjjimmy 0]

Gary i have a question.Have you read animal farm or 1984?

I am not trying to be disrespectful i am truely curious.Because it is human nature to protect and always men with the intent of protection that are the first to buy into gov. taking things away in the name of safty.Thomas Jefferson once said that ...He who would give up liberty in the name of security would certainly lose both and deserves niether...

and if you watch the nnews you know that they recorded all our phone calls

[GaryC 7]

Gary i have a question.Have you read animal farm or 1984?

I am not trying to be disrespectful i am truely curious.Because it is human nature to protect and always men with the intent of protection that are the first to buy into gov. taking things away in the name of safty.Thomas Jefferson once said that ...He who would give up liberty in the name of security would certainly lose both and deserves niether...

and if you watch the nnews you know that they recorded all our phone calls

Yes, I read both of those years ago. As far as all of our phone calls being recorded goes, do you realize that there are billions of calls made every day? Do you really think that someone is actually listening to them? It would take millions of people working around the clock. That is just parinoid thinking if you believe that "big brother" is listening to everything you say.

I don't think we are giving up any of our liberties. We are protecting them from people determand to take them from us.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary i have a question.Have you read animal farm or 1984?

I am not trying to be disrespectful i am truely curious.Because it is human nature to protect and always men with the intent of protection that are the first to buy into gov. taking things away in the name of safty.Thomas Jefferson once said that ...He who would give up liberty in the name of security would certainly lose both and deserves niether...

and if you watch the nnews you know that they recorded all our phone calls

Yes, I read both of those years ago. As far as all of our phone calls being recorded goes, do you realize that there are billions of calls made every day? Do you really think that someone is actually listening to them? It would take millions of people working around the clock. That is just parinoid thinking if you believe that "big brother" is listening to everything you say.

I don't think we are giving up any of our liberties. We are protecting them from people determand to take them from us.

Do you think it's reasonable to require that the President of the United States asks for a warrant before doing any wiretapping, or should we grant him unchecked power?

[jjjimmy 0]

to answer your question ..no i dont believe they are listening to all those calls.Haveing said that what they listen to is not my beef.Unlike my libral partners i am trying to understand the other side It is my belief that men like you Gary are not evil people who want to take anything from us.the biggest mistake those on my side make is not understanding that men like you love this this country and thoughout history died to give us these rights but political climate never changes fast like global warming it happens over time.(im a libral you knew i had to get global warming in there)All i am trying to say is that tapping phone lines,even if you dont listen gives the oppertunitie to listen and is the first step down a road that maybe in a few years leads us to,ok maybe its ok to listen to some.This is not the right direction for our country and i dont think my decent qualifies me to be called an appeser.

[mybackpages 0]

The bill of rights is for Americans, not all of mankind. If other countries want to adopt it I would be all for that. As far as the Patriot act goes, I think it should be strengthend not repealed. It only affects those that want to harm us. It does not infringe on ANY rights given to us under the Constitution. I don't understand why people want to give rights to the terrorist. They don't deserve them because they are not Americans.

right about the Bill of rights applying to Americans, but there is the Universial Declaration of Human Rights...

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[GaryC 7]

Do you think it's reasonable to require that the President of the United States asks for a warrant before doing any wiretapping, or should we grant him unchecked power?

Neither, the NSA wiretapping program is very limited. Only in a very narrow set of circumstances is it used. The vast majority of wire taps are still using the FISA courts. It does not give "Bush" unlimited unchecked power. You have to remember that a lot worse was used by Rosevelt in WW2. Other presidents have done the same. Most of the objections come from people that don't like Bush and that is the sole motivation for some.