NSA "Scandal"

Dungheap said:
Let's assume a police officer in bad faith lies in an application for a warrant and executes the search warrant knowing full well that the application was based on lies. The officer has a warrant, approved by a judge. Does the search violate the 4th Amendment?
Click to expand...

just had a case like that on the local news this week......police had lied to a judge about a party just off campus and had gotten a warrant.....they went to the location and arrested twenty college kids on various charges including minor in possession of alcohol......the attorney for the minor discovered the lie and charges against all twenty were dropped by the judge, together with punishment for the officers involved and likely very intense scrutiny of all warrant applications for at least the near future.....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
This situation didn't just spring up overnight...the problem has existed since the Patriot Act was passed.

People who are upset with the perceived overreach going on now should have considered that back when they voted FOR the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

actually, here's an article about the "privacy" of emails dated before the Patriot Act was passed.....
http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2000/Fall2000/caftori-teicher.html/
What we write is not private even if it is never published or mailed [1]. Once we type, scan, or dictate information it is subject to being read by persons unknown to us. What is on our computer disks may be read locally and remotely. If we email a file it will likely be scanned and analyzed while in transit. Once the file arrives at its destination, as long as it is available to be read by the intended recipient it may also be available to others. The general conclusion is that Email is not private.
Click to expand...
 
Howey said:
Technology today requires a new set of standards. What the NSA is doing may not be morally right, it's legal and it's worked in stopping many breaches of our right to life by stopping terrorist organizations, homegrown and foreign, from killing us.


We can change the laws to ensure our essential liberty, just be prepared to lose some safety.
Click to expand...
Next, we will have Liberal posters on this Forum turning into the spying Lib feds, Conservative posters, mostly out of spite, because those Conservative posters are routinely ripping the Libs new asses, no pun intended. I can see it coming, no pun intended.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and the Supreme Court is obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

Except in our system of government, the supreme court is obviously and inherently right (hence the name "supreme") until either they themselves reverse their position, or congress passes a law which renders their position moot, or the constitution is amended.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Next, we will have Liberal posters on this Forum turning into the spying Lib feds, Conservative posters, mostly out of spite, because those Conservative posters are routinely ripping the Libs new asses, no pun intended. I can see it coming, no pun intended.
Click to expand...

I would not be at all surprised to find out that you are so fat, and so inadequately endowed, that you cannot even see yourself coming.
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Didn't like my answer? Well cry me a river.

The fact is, the situation we find ourselves dealing with is the culmination of 12 years of the Government utilizing the Patriot Act to gather intel in order to keep us safe.

The bottom line is, we have the BUSH administration to thank for the Patriot Act.

You're opposed to the Patriot Act?

Good for you...me too.
Click to expand...
The bush patriot act was temporary.
It ran out, expired.

Who signed it back into existence?

Was that bush?
Did bush make him do it?
The act was made temporary for a reason.
Obama wants it permanent.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Next, we will have Liberal posters on this Forum turning into the spying Lib feds, Conservative posters, mostly out of spite, because those Conservative posters are routinely ripping the Libs new asses, no pun intended. I can see it coming, no pun intended.
Click to expand...
no doubt. i'm sure that i've been reported a few times at least.
 
maineman said:
Except in our system of government, the supreme court is obviously and inherently right (hence the name "supreme") until either they themselves reverse their position, or congress passes a law which renders their position moot, or the constitution is amended.
Click to expand...
This is how you come across as begging for slavery. the government did not create our society or nation, we the people did. We the people created the supreme court, not to interpret the constitution, but to rule in cases of law from it. If the court is wrong, we the people have the right and the ability to nullify their attempts at tyranny. The same with congress. If they pass a law that is obviously unconstitutional (despite the bullshit opinion of the supremes 'assumption of constitutionality') we the people can still deny them their attempt at tyranny.
 
Of course we have remedies. We can throw the bums out of congress come election day, and we can petition our congressmen urging them to impeach members of scotus. Any other ideas start sounding a tad treasonous to me.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
jury nullification is treasonous to you?
Click to expand...
when juries disregard the law, it is definitely starting to sound that way to me... Yes. I want juries to decide whether a defendant has broken the law, and not decide, instead, whether they happen to like the particular law in question.
 
maineman said:
when juries disregard the law, it is definitely starting to sound that way to me... Yes. I want juries to decide whether a defendant has broken the law, and not decide, instead, whether they happen to like the particular law in question.
Click to expand...
that's insanity. again, begging for slavery. completely opposite of what the framers experienced and intended for this nation. Adopting a policy like this would set up scenarios like a total ban on abortions, then having people prosecuted and imprisoned for murder of an unborn because you don't think that juries should judge the constitutionality of laws.
 
007 said:
The bush patriot act was temporary.
It ran out, expired.

Who signed it back into existence?

Was that bush?
Did bush make him do it?
The act was made temporary for a reason.
Obama wants it permanent.
Click to expand...

The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by three bills.

The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005.

The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006.

In a vote on February 8, 2011, the House of Representatives considered a further extension of the Act through the end of 2011. House leadership moved the extension bill under suspension of the rules, which is intended for noncontroversial legislation and requires two-thirds majority to pass. After the vote, the extension bill did not pass; 277 members voted in favor, which was less than the 290 votes needed to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. Without an extension, the Act was set to expire on February 28, 2011. However, it eventually passed, 275-144

Who ran both houses of Congress in 05?

Who ran both houses on Congress in February of 06?

Who controlled the House of Reps in 20011?

As usual, 007 is lying his ass off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top