Senators Call NSA Snooping Unnecessary to Security

Status
Not open for further replies.

thechief73

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2010
1,126
0
19,460
50
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[EDIT/UPDATE]

It's Latin for "Who guards the guards?"

or better know as "Who watches the watchmen?"

I thought it would be more elegant without having to explain the meaning.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
"The amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure of property, "

no the Amendment IV clearly states

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.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
just like the 2nd Amendment "shall not be infringed."
what part of "shall not be violated," can not be clearly comprehended?

also the 5th amendment was directly violated as well:

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life,
liberty,
or property,
without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting " <--how can you not see direct prohibitionary labeling?

seriously read the preamble:
"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz."

THERE'S NOTHING TO INTERPRET IT'S DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY SPELLED OUT WITH NUMEROUS PRINTED PUBLICATIONS BY THE MAKERS/SIGNERS CITING THE REASONS OF DIRECT ABUSES THE KING OF ENGLAND USED AGAINST THEM.

YOU CAN'T SCREW ANY OF IT UP!!!

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

go read the declaration of independence most of the reasons are directly cited in the very first document of founding of the USA right there!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.................................To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. : ..... "
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
"but upon probable cause," <---- probable cause is injury, death, damage or destruction of property

ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOU CLEARLY MAKE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT HAS THIS DEFINED TO THEIR FACE it is more important than your miranda rights for which was a defining court case that stated police are allowed to LIE TO YOU or only tell the partial truth/facts in order to get you to incriminate yourself or break the law infront of a police officer as you are not allowed to lie to them.
 

razorblaze42

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2009
150
0
18,680
0
ISP's, Phone Companies and Search providers are already collecting,, storing, and selling same the data the NSA is seeking to access...this is not a 4th Amendment argument, because once you allow companies, like Google, access to your data...there's no expectation of privacy anymore. (FYI that's Google's argument in a separate case)
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1
The government attorneys claim that their phone record collections have given them leads on finding associates as people of interest are discovered. How that extends to the NSA talk of archiving all data in the country they didn't say..
 

Nilo BP

Honorable
Aug 24, 2013
31
0
10,530
0
True that you can't expect your data to be private when you put it out on the street, but I think the feds didn't just walk up to Internet firms and ask them real nice and friendly if they could *please* share their info.

That's the real issue - not that they store the data that happens to fall on their laps, but that they go around invading property, twisting arms and lying about it, and with taxpayer money (i.e. taken from people whether they like it or not) to boot.

But hey, it's all to protect us poor, helpless sheep from Bogeyman, err, terrorists, innit?
 

dorsai

Distinguished
I don't buy the argument that once your in public the 4th amendment doesn't apply...I generally take my person, effects, and papers with me everywhere I go.

"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."
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50


i had read a very complicated brief of that argument. essentially the spying was carrier out then what ever offenses were discovered were turned over to the proper departments in other branches of the law enforcement. essentially if they were spying on the tea party or anonymous, and you had information posted of being a drug user, that information was turned over to the DEA, and when the DEA took those cases to trial and were questioned about how that evidence was obtained they citied a very long run around of how they obtained that information and alluded or lied to the cause of discovery of that information being at their request using vague reasons to elicit probable cause.

couldn't find the bookmark of the DOJ version i looked at but this quick google search sort of sums it up:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans
BY JOHN SHIFFMAN AND KRISTINA COOKE
WASHINGTON Mon Aug 5, 2013 3:25pm EDT
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50


well then where is the terms of agreement contract releasing you of these rights and of prosecution you signed with the NSA that google had you sign in order to use their service?

but to be devils advocate here, if the NSA is a paying customer of googles and google gave them a wholesale price on all the data they had...that's a different story then right?

"The law cannot save those who deny it but neither can the law serve any who do not use it. The history of injustice and inequality is a history of disuse of the law. Law has not failed--and is not failing. We as a nation have failed ourselves by not trusting the law and by not using the law to gain sooner the ends of justice which law alone serves.
~ Lyndon B. Johnson ~"
 
G

Guest

Guest
as Lemmy of Motorhead wrote: You may have the power, but you ain't got the right.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780
0
Just so everyone knows, all these 3 Democrat senators did was write a letter saying they support a lawsuit that someone else filed. They are not taking any part in the lawsuit nor does their amicus curae brief mean anything.

Mean while, their party is the one in control and ultimately responsible for the actions of the NSA. If they don't like what the NSA is doing, they can do something about it.

Don't get me wrong. The Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. Of all the Senators, I think the only one actually interested in curbing the NSA is Rand Paul.
 

ddpruitt

Honorable
Jun 4, 2012
1,109
0
11,360
45
Why isn't anyone going after the judges in this case. One of the judges freely admitted they had issues with this but said they signed the FISA warrant anyway.

Our government is built on a system of checks and balances. This means everyone has a part to play to ensure that no one part of government becomes too powerful. I think we've witnessed the fact that the collective public apathy towards government is biting us in the a$$. Yes it's our fault this is happening, let's do something about it.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
1,495
0
19,310
15
"Because the government's call-records program needlessly intrudes upon the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans [...]"

And billions of foreigners...
 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780
0


Go after the judges? How exactly? They can't be sued or prosecuted. These judges are appointed not elected.

Basically the only repurcusion these judges could face is being passed up for a higher level appointment by the President. Of course we can surmise that the president supports this kind of draconian intelegence gathering as he is the one who appoints the director of the NSA.
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1


Mr. Wyden of Oregon seems to be a lone voice as often as not. He had an alternate to the ACA, he's opposed the NDAA with it's martial arrest provisions (one of only 7 Senators), and in general he seems to be on the liberty side of most issues, ignoring the money behind them.

Too bad he's not my Senator, mine follow the money explicitly and they ride easily to reelection.
 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1


One of the early NSA audit reports found them being intentionally misleading in dealing with the FISA court and just ignoring it when it was inconvenient. It must be functionally toothless, yet the thing politicians point to as the reason the NSA is not overstepping anything.
 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780
0


Wyden is probably the best among the Democrats but he had one enormous unforgivable flaw. He is pro gun control.

Anyone who supports gun control of any kind doesn't understand liberty or self reliance.
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
Lawyers are a plague on society and encompass most politicians previous background.

With that said, its nice some Democrats are leaving the totalitarian progressives. The progressives have been such an abysmal failure since the Great Depression and if you look at their legislative actions have been the greatest proponents for many of the economic failures and reductions of liberties. The Neo Cons are not much better, but I am glad there are less progressives.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


The problem is we have a right to privacy in even those things.

For example, With IE9 and up you could enable DNT (do not track) and add TPL lists to stop adds and tracking. In IE10/11 it is enabled by default but you have to add it again.

Google made a fuss about this then they actually found a way around the DNT. You state you do not want to be tracked, much like you do not want to participate in a survey, yet they do it anyways.

If they require this information then they should have a EULA you agree to in order to use their services.

I find it annoying that Google did that as it shows they were more interested in add revenue than in their customers privacy, which has been reiterated when they stated that your data is never private once they have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS