The 4th Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

[Orwell]

Forget Democrats and Republicans. It's clear by now they don't care and only say they do to get elected. Do your own OBJECTIVE research and get involved. Be conscious there are those who do everything in their power to keep us divided as our privacy is constantly diminished, and know that we are unstoppable when we are united.

This is the nuts and bolts of Freedom. Party or politics has NOTHING to do with it!

You and I agree again. The 4th Amendment is not a partisan issue - it is the backbone of our society.

But I have to ask: did my post yesterday prompt this one?

No I made this one first. Thanks for participating

Ah. I see. Gee, thanks?

[Phatscotty]

Forget Democrats and Republicans. It's clear by now they don't care and only say they do to get elected. Do your own OBJECTIVE research and get involved. Be conscious there are those who do everything in their power to keep us divided as our privacy is constantly diminished, and know that we are unstoppable when we are united.

This is the nuts and bolts of Freedom. Party or politics has NOTHING to do with it!

You and I agree again. The 4th Amendment is not a partisan issue - it is the backbone of our society.

But I have to ask: did my post yesterday prompt this one?

No I made this one first. Thanks for participating

Ah. I see. Gee, thanks?

I am very happy to see that we can still agree on the basics.

[pimpdave]

Yes, I agree with Phatscotty, let's just make it as easy as possible for the terrorists to detonate a super nuke in Times' Square.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, I agree with Phatscotty, let's just make it as easy as possible for the terrorists to detonate a super nuke in Times' Square.

the problem is so much bigger than that. If the government wasn't so twisted and corrupt and abuse the military so often amongst a host of other bad habits, there would be a lot less of a reason or want to nuke us in the first place.

[Nobunaga]

The Patriot Act allowed the tracking of phone calls made by foreign nationals and/or citizens suspected of involvement in high crimes (though this part about including citizens in that net is problematic).

Prism, on the other hand, is a track of every phone call made by every American during his/her day. Well, every phone call may be a stretch, but it's gone well beyond Verizon now.

The content of calls is not (supposedly) monitored. In fact, is there a computer system in the world that could do such a thing? I doubt it.

But here's the point - In spite of the fact the government does not know the content of your conversation, a great deal can be gleaned by knowing who you called, when you called, and how long you talked.

Scenario: Gladys (just a name) had a call from her obstetrician. The call length was 8 minutes. Two hours later Gladys places a phone call to Planned Parenthood. Call length, 30 minutes.

There are no certainties here, but this information might prove useful to somebody... And what if Gladys is running for high political office? ...

[Night Strike]

Prism, on the other hand, is a track of every phone call made by every American during his/her day. Well, every phone call may be a stretch, but it's gone well beyond Verizon now.

PRISM is the internet spying program, not the phone call metadata program. They're separate infringements.

[Night Strike]

As far as breaking some constitutional right, it doesnt, and again only an idiot thinks it does.

The government is entering your property to hear your conversations without a warrant.....sounds like a Constitutional violation to me. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that dragnet searches without individual warrants from individual probable cause are unconstitutional. The metadata collection is clearly a dragnet search.

[thegreekdog]

As far as breaking some constitutional right, it doesnt, and again only an idiot thinks it does.

The government is entering your property to hear your conversations without a warrant.....sounds like a Constitutional violation to me, and only an idiot thinks it doesn't.

Fixed because AAFitz is an idiot.

[Woodruff]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

Ok, so I like that he's doing this. It needs to be done. But still...this stuff has been getting briefed to Congress, so he was clearly already aware of it (or certainly should have been). So that makes this feel a lot like grandstanding for the Presidential run, rather than actual concern about it.

Not all of Congress was informed. Only the leadership and the intelligence committees. The vast majority of members had no idea, just like the rest of us.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/republicans-nsa-surveillance-92418.html

Your statements don't seem to be accurate:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/17251223497/more-than-half-senate-skips-town-rather-than-attend-briefing-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s236

[Night Strike]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

Ok, so I like that he's doing this. It needs to be done. But still...this stuff has been getting briefed to Congress, so he was clearly already aware of it (or certainly should have been). So that makes this feel a lot like grandstanding for the Presidential run, rather than actual concern about it.

Not all of Congress was informed. Only the leadership and the intelligence committees. The vast majority of members had no idea, just like the rest of us.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/republicans-nsa-surveillance-92418.html

Your statements don't seem to be accurate:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/17251223497/more-than-half-senate-skips-town-rather-than-attend-briefing-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s236

How does that negate what I said? Only leadership and intelligence committee members are regularly briefed on what is going on in Top Secret actions. Occasionally they will have larger briefings like the Senate largely skipped out on last week, and of course they pass the legislation, which typically includes briefs and debates in closed sessions. But that still doesn't mean every member of Congress is always told what the secret sections of the government are doing or if they are doing what the law allows them to do.

[Phatscotty]

Night Strike is right. Only certain members of Congress were told, mostly in the intelligence community.

[Woodruff]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

Ok, so I like that he's doing this. It needs to be done. But still...this stuff has been getting briefed to Congress, so he was clearly already aware of it (or certainly should have been). So that makes this feel a lot like grandstanding for the Presidential run, rather than actual concern about it.

Not all of Congress was informed. Only the leadership and the intelligence committees. The vast majority of members had no idea, just like the rest of us.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/republicans-nsa-surveillance-92418.html

Your statements don't seem to be accurate:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/17251223497/more-than-half-senate-skips-town-rather-than-attend-briefing-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s236

How does that negate what I said? Only leadership and intelligence committee members are regularly briefed on what is going on in Top Secret actions. Occasionally they will have larger briefings like the Senate largely skipped out on last week, and of course they pass the legislation, which typically includes briefs and debates in closed sessions. But that still doesn't mean every member of Congress is always told what the secret sections of the government are doing or if they are doing what the law allows them to do.

It completely negates what you said. This wasn't the first "larger briefing" on this issue, as has been documented. As well, the votes on legislation show it as well...no one is expecting them to vote on an issue they have not been informed of (or at least had the opportunity to be informed of).

[Night Strike]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

Ok, so I like that he's doing this. It needs to be done. But still...this stuff has been getting briefed to Congress, so he was clearly already aware of it (or certainly should have been). So that makes this feel a lot like grandstanding for the Presidential run, rather than actual concern about it.

Not all of Congress was informed. Only the leadership and the intelligence committees. The vast majority of members had no idea, just like the rest of us.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/republicans-nsa-surveillance-92418.html

Your statements don't seem to be accurate:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/17251223497/more-than-half-senate-skips-town-rather-than-attend-briefing-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s236

How does that negate what I said? Only leadership and intelligence committee members are regularly briefed on what is going on in Top Secret actions. Occasionally they will have larger briefings like the Senate largely skipped out on last week, and of course they pass the legislation, which typically includes briefs and debates in closed sessions. But that still doesn't mean every member of Congress is always told what the secret sections of the government are doing or if they are doing what the law allows them to do.

It completely negates what you said. This wasn't the first "larger briefing" on this issue, as has been documented. As well, the votes on legislation show it as well...no one is expecting them to vote on an issue they have not been informed of (or at least had the opportunity to be informed of).

But every member of Congress is not informed of every action taken between those large briefings. The vast majority of briefings are given only to the leadership and intelligence committees. And obviously, there's no guarantee that the large briefings will be comprehensive of every detail shared on those more numerous private briefings....especially when things happen that the briefers don't like (for example, having a court deny your request for dragnet data gathering but then doing it anyway).

[ooge]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

[Night Strike]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

[ooge]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

You missed the first part of what i posted,The republicans are not the ones who have a problem with this program its the Democrats/liberals. Seriously look at what the politicians are saying.ACLU a lefty group is suing the administration.

[Phatscotty]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

You missed the first part of what i posted,The republicans are not the ones who have a problem with this program its the Democrats/liberals. Seriously look at what the politicians are saying.ACLU a lefty group is suing the administration.

ACLU does actually have a track record of being somewhat objective. Remember they defended Rush Limbaugh when his medical records were leaked and some other things as well.

And I have seen more and more Liberals lately holding true to their principles, even with a Democrat president, but I still see a lot defending too/only attacking when Republicans do it. Even defending the IRS violating civil rights, simply because they don't like the people who were targeted. It was the exact same way when the targeting was raced based, like with the NAACP. Lot's of racists were like "we don't like them, so you can violate their civil rights and we won't say anything!" Those who support the IRS targeting Conservative groups are just as bad as those who supported targeting blacks in the 50's-60's.

If we don't stand for everyone's rights all the time, we lose them. It's hard to be consistent, and that goes for everyone. It's easy to jump on when it's your political enemy who is having their rights infringed. That's why we had to let the American Nazi party have a convention in America during WW2, that's why we have to tolerate the Black Panthers and the KKK and Planned Parenthood marches and speeches.

Everyone has the same rights, whether we like those people or not.

[Woodruff]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/09/paul-wants-to-lead-supreme-court-challenge-to-fed-tracking-americans-calls/

Ok, so I like that he's doing this. It needs to be done. But still...this stuff has been getting briefed to Congress, so he was clearly already aware of it (or certainly should have been). So that makes this feel a lot like grandstanding for the Presidential run, rather than actual concern about it.

Not all of Congress was informed. Only the leadership and the intelligence committees. The vast majority of members had no idea, just like the rest of us.

EDIT: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/republicans-nsa-surveillance-92418.html

Your statements don't seem to be accurate:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130615/17251223497/more-than-half-senate-skips-town-rather-than-attend-briefing-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml

and

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s236

How does that negate what I said? Only leadership and intelligence committee members are regularly briefed on what is going on in Top Secret actions. Occasionally they will have larger briefings like the Senate largely skipped out on last week, and of course they pass the legislation, which typically includes briefs and debates in closed sessions. But that still doesn't mean every member of Congress is always told what the secret sections of the government are doing or if they are doing what the law allows them to do.

It completely negates what you said. This wasn't the first "larger briefing" on this issue, as has been documented. As well, the votes on legislation show it as well...no one is expecting them to vote on an issue they have not been informed of (or at least had the opportunity to be informed of).

But every member of Congress is not informed of every action taken between those large briefings.

So? Rand Paul's "outrage" is just a show, as I said. He knew at the very least generally what was going on, or if he didn't know it was because he was essentially trying not to know. And generally knowing what was going on certainly should have been enough for that "outrage" then, when perhaps it wasn't as politically useful for him.

[Woodruff]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

I've asked this several times now...who are all of these liberals who support this, even with Obama in charge of it? I certainly don't know any.

[Woodruff]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

You missed the first part of what i posted,The republicans are not the ones who have a problem with this program its the Democrats/liberals. Seriously look at what the politicians are saying.ACLU a lefty group is suing the administration.

I don't consider the ACLU to be a liberal organization. It just seems that a majority of the cases it has been necessary for them to take on have been in liberal interests. They've certainly taken on conservative issues.

[Woodruff]

And I have seen more and more Liberals lately holding true to their principles, even with a Democrat president, but I still see a lot defending too/only attacking when Republicans do it. Even defending the IRS violating civil rights, simply because they don't like the people who were targeted. It was the exact same way when the targeting was raced based, like with the NAACP. Lot's of racists were like "we don't like them, so you can violate their civil rights and we won't say anything!" Those who support the IRS targeting Conservative groups are just as bad as those who supported targeting blacks in the 50's-60's.

If it had only been conservative groups that were targeted, you'd might have a point.

If we don't stand for everyone's rights all the time, we lose them. Everyone has the same rights, whether we like those people or not.

Introspection, Phatscotty...do you do it?

[ooge]

I really hope you folks who lean to the right are paying attention to who is in favor of this program and who is not.Also I may have this wrong But Dick Cheney this Sunday stated the program was great,but Barrack Obama should not be in charge of it.I as often the Case with Cheney do not understand his logic.

And how many on the left were outraged that Cheney might find out what books you checked out at the library but are silent when knowing that Obama could find out every single phone call and email you send or receive? It works both ways.

You missed the first part of what i posted,The republicans are not the ones who have a problem with this program its the Democrats/liberals. Seriously look at what the politicians are saying.ACLU a lefty group is suing the administration.

I don't consider the ACLU to be a liberal organization. It just seems that a majority of the cases it has been necessary for them to take on have been in liberal interests. They've certainly taken on conservative issues.

I agree The ACLU is not a lefty group but they are one of the right wings Strawmen,so that is why I posted that. The ACLU defended Limbaugh,Hanity and Oliver North.But to most republicans they think The ACLU is tax payer funded origination.Think about groups the right hates and the thing you will find that they have in common is the groups allow for an individual to be on a level playing field with the rich and powerful. ex. unions,media,judges,lawyers,ACLU.

[stahrgazer]

I've asked this several times now...who are all of these liberals who support this, even with Obama in charge of it? I certainly don't know any.

Well, many in the current administration are defending it, on the basis of "it started in the Bush regime." And using the same excuse Bush did, "we're doing this to protect you from terrorists."

Also, "Miss USA" contestants - at least one of them - support the idea of having her phone tapped to make her feel safe.

But agreed, typical citizens and all of the liberal media - at least those on radio - are vehemently against it now just as they were vehemently against it when Bush started some sections of the Patriot act.

[Night Strike]

So? Rand Paul's "outrage" is just a show, as I said. He knew at the very least generally what was going on, or if he didn't know it was because he was essentially trying not to know. And generally knowing what was going on certainly should have been enough for that "outrage" then, when perhaps it wasn't as politically useful for him.

It's not necessarily a show. As far as we know, there are no ways to appeal a FISA court order because it's Top Secret. Once it was leaked, that could essentially break the Top Secret seal allowing orders to be appealed. Remember, Congress doesn't have authority to break classified information outside of closed sessions/briefings even if they think there is wrongdoing.