ACLU members, please explain?

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it is not. If it were that clear there wouldn't be so much arguing about it.
Click to expand...
Begging your pardon, but yes it is.

And I
[p.33] The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Click to expand...
This is not some uninformed opinion by a pundit or random guy on the internet, this is the ruling of the court.

DasBoot,
Your steadfast faith in the benevolence of the Federal government is charming. When President Feinstein comes to confiscate your guns for your own good, be sure to give her a hug for me.
 
The various agencies of the US gov already had a secret surveilance court where they could get warrants without public disclosure. In fact, in emergencies, they could do the surveilance first and get the warrant afterwards.

There is no reason to do warrantless searches that obviously violate the 4th amendment with this in place.

Unless they had reason to believe the secret surveilance court had been infiltrated by terrorist spies...

Seems unlikely.
 
I felt a little better knowing that people were being searched for weapons at the door before going into some of the clubs I frequented in NYC.
To me, its all the same.
A small inconvenience which I'm happy to make.
You guys have a problem with it, too bad!
These things are being done whether you like it or not and I for one hope it continues.
Click to expand...

Well, squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I guess we will have to see who whines louder.:rolleyes:
 
I’m going to go way out on a limb here, I agree that if the Constitutional Provisions have been broken by anything, or any one that has been done to date, so long as it applies to the US Citizens, then I would agree, but here is my point, where have the terrorist in or out of the United States of America ever been granted US Citizenship, affording them any of the Rights, or Provisions of the Constitution, which only applies to the Citizens of THIS Country. And if a US Citizen is guilty of a treasonous act by aligning themselves with the Terrorist then in my humble opinion they are forfeiting their rights as a Citizen and becoming a Terrorist themselves there by deserving the same treatment as the Terrorist, Period.

Granting the Terrorist any such right is absolutely wrong and is something that really burns me, these people want to kill us, and do so in any manner they can, they hold no law or Document of any kind other than the Doctrine of the Islamic Fascism to be of any value or respect.

We here in the US are still trying to give these people the same rights, and judicial procedures we as Citizens have, and that just isn’t right, no way shape or form, these people are not CRIMINALS, they are TERRORIST, nothing more nothing less, they have not earned nor are entitled to our Judicial System, they are only entitled to our wrath and bullets, I don’t see it any other way.

As far as I'm concerned the ACLU do not have a leg to stand on in this issue!
 
GS,
I do operate under the assumption that, FOR THE MOST PART, our laws and our gov't are all in place to keep this the great society/country it has been right along.
Just as not everyone that smiles and shakes your hand has your best interests at heart, neither do all politicians have our best interests in mind.
But there are enough good people in and out of the gov't to make sure we don't go down the tubes.
I'm sickened by the lack of action with regards our borders and the illegal immigrant situation.
But I think things are moving, albeit slowly, in the other direction.
I can only comment on my own life experiences.
I've never had, nor has anyone I know, had their doors broken down and been subjected to a warrantless search.
I really don't care if the gov't listens to my phone conversations as long as there is some oversight and it is being done at a time when we are trying to weed out dangerous elements in our midst.
I think profiling, conciously or unconciously, plays a huge role in every facet of crime fighting.
If every time you've been bitten by a dog it was a Chihuahua, you know damn well you're gonna watch out for Chihuahuas, not Dobermans.
It's an effective crime fighting tool.
I'm not blind to the shortcomings of our gov't, but I don't believe "IT" is out to destroy us either.
If the time comes that it is necessary to take up arms against it, I'll do so.
Until then, I salute the flag and I'm proud to be an American.
Charming as that may sound.:cool:
 
I’m going to go way out here on a limb here, I agree that if the Constitutional Provisions have been broken by anything, or any one that has been done to date, so long as it applies to the US Citizens, then I would agree, but here is my point, where are the terrorist in or out of the United States of America ever been granted US Citizenship, affording them any of the Rights, or Provisions of the Constitution, which only applies to the Citizens of THIS Country. And if a US Citizen is guilty of a treasonist act by aligning themselves with the Terrorist then in my humble opinion they are forfiting their rights as a Citizen and becomming a Terrorist themselves there by deserve the same treatment as the Terrorist, Period.
Click to expand...

But you're pre-supposing that they're terrorists or terrorist allies, simpl because the government says that they are. Once they've been proven to be such, after being afforded all the rights our Constitution says they should get, then youy can punish them as you see fit. Not before. You can strip them of their citizenship rights, or even kill them, but you've got to convict them first.

What our leaders since 9/11 have said is, essentially, "Give us whatever we want and we'll keep you safe." That is, and has ever been, a fool's bargain.

"We're the government, and we know more than you, and you should just trust us" doesn't cut it. I've never met a single conservative Republican who would accept from Hillary Clinton what they accept without question from George Bush. Here's a clue: It's much easier to not give power up than it is to get it back. Whatever liberties you hand over to a Republican who shares your values you will be handing as well to a liberal Democrat who doesn't, because that Republican isn't going to give them back to you just before the pendulum swings the other way. And it will, it always does.

--Shannon
 
With a founder like Baldwin it's no wonder they don't like guns. John

"In St. Louis Baldwin became attracted to the radical political and social movements that greatly affected his politics until the 1930s. He was a close friend of the anarchist Emma Goldman and he moved in left-wing circles. During the 1920s he joined the I.W.W., and in 1927 he visited the Soviet Union, producing from his trip a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, published in 1928. He broke with the Communists and other radicals only in 1939, after having been horrified by the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Baldwin left St. Louis in 1917, when the United States entered World War I, in order to become involved with the pacifist movement. He was a member of the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM), an organization which lobbied first against U.S. entrance into the war and later for a negotiated peace."
 
tube_ee,
Quote:
I’m going to go way out here on a limb here, I agree that if the Constitutional Provisions have been broken by anything, or any one that has been done to date, so long as it applies to the US Citizens, then I would agree, but here is my point, where are the terrorist in or out of the United States of America ever been granted US Citizenship, affording them any of the Rights, or Provisions of the Constitution, which only applies to the Citizens of THIS Country. And if a US Citizen is guilty of a treasonous act by aligning themselves with the Terrorist then in my humble opinion they are forfeiting their rights as a Citizen and becoming a Terrorist themselves there by deserve the same treatment as the Terrorist, Period.

But you're pre-supposing that they're terrorists or terrorist allies, simple because the government says that they are. (reply)"That isn’t what I said, nor did I imply that, they would have been observed, or known to be aiding the terrorist not simply suspected of doing so".) Once they've been proven to be such, after being afforded all the rights our Constitution says they should get, (Reply) "but in this situation they are not really concerned with their rights as a Citizen of this country are they?") And then you can punish them as you see fit. Not before. You can strip them of their citizenship rights, or even kill them, but you've got to convict them first.

What our leaders since 9/11 has said is, essentially, "Give us whatever we want (Reply) "I don’t see the word want, I see the word need") and we'll keep you safe." That is, and has ever been, a fool's bargain. (Reply) "We cannot have it both ways, we either protect this country or not, that means simply, we use the tools necessary to accomplish that goal, or we loose, which do you prefer, Live, or Die, plain and simple".

"We're the government, In words only we have not been the Government since we started allowing the ACLU to tear this country and it’s foundation apart with their agenda of hate and corruption, policies to make every effort to reject any reference of God from the Public Forum, and just for the sake of clarity the term SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE does not appear anywhere in the writings of the Constitution therefore it is not possible for it to be a violation of same". And we know more than you, and you should just trust us" doesn't cut it. I've never met a single conservative Republican who would accept from Hillary Clinton what they accept without question from George Bush. (Reply) "Other than the fact that H. Clinton is a Democrat and Bush is a republican, what if anything did that have to do with this". Here's a clue: It's much easier to not give power up than it is to get it back. Whatever liberties you hand over to a Republican who shares your values you will be handing as well to a liberal Democrat who doesn't, because that Republican isn't going to give them back to you just before the pendulum swings the other way. And it will, it always does. (Reply) "I would simply counter, that we as a population have already surrendered more that we will ever get back, unless we start holding Congress and the President, and especially the Judicial Branches of the Government accountable to US for the things they do, Granted the Bush administration have made errors and will more than likely make more, but in all fairness he isn’t by himself by a long shot, there have been other Presidents make just as many and costly mistakes but they aren’t on office right now, Bush is, and don’t think for one second that the next President won’t be in the same condition and under the same microscope. It goes with te job".
 
Where in the heck did church/state issues come into this??

As to the false "Live / Die" dichotomy, what level of servitude are you willing to accept? At what prrice do you buy your life? Benjamin Franklin had a very different view of this question than you do, is he a traitor, as well?

And you seem to be far too willing to accept your government's word that anyone is a terrorist. When the definition changes to include you, what will you say then?

--Shannon
 
Dasboot said:
"I do operate under the assumption that, FOR THE MOST PART, our laws and our gov't are all in place to keep this the great society/country it has been right along.
Just as not everyone that smiles and shakes your hand has your best interests at heart, neither do all politicians have our best interests in mind.
But there are enough good people in and out of the gov't to make sure we don't go down the tubes."

This is your mistaken preposition, or base belief. People enter politics for the same reason they enter government. First, they usually have a financial intrest in a certain issue. They want every advantage they can possibly make up, as a law, to their advantage.

I know one scumbag restaurant owner that got himself elected head of the city council so he could pay his busboys, and waiters, below minimum wage. That was pretty much the only reason he went into politics. He thought that as the owner of the restaurant, ALL the profit should be his.
Hilton Hotels has a similar philosophy in South East Asia. There, they make you pay to go in and work for tips. They'd have the same here, if they could get away with it.

You really think the oil industry couldn't have got us out of this faked 'oil crisis' about 30 years ago, with technology avaliable? Heck, they buy all the patents for good alternate full sources, and bury it., along with help from GM and Ford.

Politics is RUN by self-intrest groups, and, the founders KNEW it. They wanted a limit on government, because as they clearly saw, when self-intrest groups run it, they often have desires opposed to the good of the people, and create laws that are opposed to the good of the people.

Also, the larger government becomes, the more the goal becomes self-perpetuation, not the good of the people.
Taxes must go up, so we can have leaching agencies, syphoning off the money the people earn. Diane Fienstien
is intrested in one thing: Power, and protecting herself, and her beliefs. When she was the only person in San Francisco with a concealed carry permit, do you think she gave a damn about anyone else that might have the same, or worse issues? Just judge her by her actions...

Further, government becomes the Leviathian Hobbes saw, with leaching, long should have been dead agencies that have far out lived their time, and purpose. FDR stuck us with income tax, and federal agencies that should have died when the war started. Instead, we are leached on by those agenices, and the taxes he created.

While some regulation should be in place to control the ability of major corporations to run the country, read the SEC, and the stock market crash come to mind, and defraud the people, what has really happened is those corporations now use the agencies designed to limit them, against the people that created them.

The REAL key to the entire system is currently the oh so little difference between democrats and republicans. Bush spends money like a drunken sailor, perpetuating the Leviathian sized monkey on the back of the American people. He inacts government policy that instead of giving us less government, gives us more. Government has
few real purposes.

The only real purpose for a federal government, that George Washington faced, was to raise taxes, and a Militia, to protect the United States from invasion, during a time of war. Other then that, and, protecting commerce, the president was designed to be an ineffectual figure head, limited by travel time, and term of office, from ever accomplishing anything.

Congress was intentionally designed to function at a snails pace, to limit the amount of damage it could do to our freedoms, and, likewise, the Courts, and judicial branch, to further limit that ability.

S
 
It's a bit hard to swallow the "Constitution isn't a living document" arguement by people who then rail about "warrantless searches and profiling". Until recently, both of these provisions were common practice. The Founders allowed for police to enter a home without a warrant. They had no exclusionary clauses about what was found after a warrant was served, either.

The original look-outs given by both the states and feds would today be considered profiling. "Be on the look-out for two white males, ages approx. 30, in a black Ford Sedan, last seen heading West on Rte. 10. Wanted for bank-robbery," would today raise hackles among some who feel that profiling is wrong. A shame, but until the past couple of decades, there was no constitution-based restriction on such a thing. The same goes for Miranda, or the restrictions on warrants, or the limits on why or when a warrant could be obtained. There were also fewer restriction on when and how a police officer could search or detain you. The idea of a speedy trial is also fairly new, especially the definition of speedy.

All of these changes were wrought recently, and all purported to be constitution-based. None existed when the document was first ratified, nor for hundreds of years, in many cases, after. So, is the idea of a "living document" only anathema when it doesn't suit you? Because many of the restrictions that you say are being violated on a constitutional basis never existed when the "set in stone" document you so cherish was written.

What's it going to be, boy.
 
"The Founders allowed for police to enter a home without a warrant. They had no exclusionary clauses about what was found after a warrant was served, either." :confused:

Amendment IV
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.

badbob
 
JR47,
I can only assume that you're talking to me. If not, please disregard my response.
I do not want it 'both ways'. I want my government to abide by the Constitution. I don't make distinctions between Liberals and Conservatives or Democrats and Republicans when they're violating the law.
Both have done it in the past (the libs more than the Conservatives until recently) and I have been completely clear in my prediction that both will continue to use the Constitution for Charmin.

Das Boot,
Just to make sure I'm clear on the point, I'm a member of the ACLU. I figured it was evident by my initial response. I wish they enforced the 2nd but they don't. So I'm a member of the NRA also.
Also, the whole debate about Constitutionality and oversight isn't a matter of "a few minutes of my time". I spend much more than that engaged in the act of fighting it.
You see, you may believe that the assurances of your government that they won't go too far are sufficient, but I don't. They aren't looking out for your best interest and these safeguards are here for a reason.

If you won't stand up...somebody's got to. Judging by the responses in this thread I'm in good company.
 
Last edited:
2: What makes you think random searches make subway travel any safer?

Same as above.
Without searches, the possibility of finding a BG is zero.
With random searches,coupled with profiling, at least there IS a possibility, regardless of how slim.
Is a few minutes of your time too much to sacrifice?
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of "a few minutes of my time". It's a matter of wanting to retain what privacy I have left as a free American. If I have not given cause to suspect me of something, they don't have cause to want to look into my things. Period.

And besides, I have not heard of subway searches in the U.S. (which began with NYC and spread rapidly, as is my understanding) being anything but voluntary! As in, if they randomly select you, and you're a terrorist with a bomb in his bag, you could decline the search and walk away from the scene, opting to not take that subway ride after all.

What a great, effective plan. :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
goslash27 said:
Just to make sure I'm clear on the point, I'm a member of the ACLU. I figured it was evident by my initial response. I wish they enforced the 2nd but they don't. So I'm a member of the NRA also.
Click to expand...

By not defending the 2nd amendment, the ACLU does damage to it.

By taking a position that it guarantees a b.s. "collective right," :rolleyes: the ACLU does damage to the 2nd amendment.

Therefore, it's not good enough to just say, "The ACLU drops the ball on defending the 2nd amendment, so I'll just supplement them by supporting the NRA too." People look to the ACLU and see that it does NOT support the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and that helps them make their decision that the 2nd amendment must not truly protect that right.

Don't you think that it is RADICALLY CONSPICUOUS that the ONLY right guaranteed to us under the Bill of Rights that the ACLU won't protect is the right to keep and bear arms?

Doesn't that abject failure on their part indicate a serious intellectual dishonesty, or at least a serious intellectual lapse of understanding?


-azurefly
 
Here's a clue: The Constitution requires a warrant, supported by probable cause and a description of the place to be searched and the articles to be siezed, before any American can be searched or surveilled.
Click to expand...


I am not placing myself in either camp at this moment in time, but I have a definite problem with the fact that you are launching into this with an outright fallacy in your very first paragraph.

Please show us where the U.S. Constitution prohibits "surveillance". All I see in the fourth amendment is something about "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Surveillance is neither.

Someone's sig line on here says something about the damage that you do to your own cause by defending your own position using fallacies. You should take heed.


-azurefly
 
Tube:

No, I am not saying that the government may do whatever it likes as long as you're not prosecuted. I am attemepting to make the point that there is a vast difference between surveillance for the the purposes of national security and searches by police, both in the conduct and in the way the law and courts treat them.

Goslash, as far as the Taylor decision goes, I will be positively AMAZED if that is not overturned.

Here's a couple other decisions.
1974, Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974): In sum, we hold that, in the circumstances of this case, prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were “conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information.”

Ninth Circuit, United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977): "Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement"

2002, Fisa Court, Sealed Case 02-001: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable."

There are plenty more. Surveillance and wiretapping for foreign intelligence has ALWAYS been considered lawful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top