ACLU members, please explain?

[DasBoot]

azurefly,
I forgot that it was voluntary!!
HOW INCREDIBLY STUPID!!!But I'm sure the ACLU would've been right there to stop it if it wasn't made voluntary.
Look, I understand everybodies desire/need/right for privacy.
My love of personal freedom is no less than anyone elses.
But knowing that there is an enemy amongst us whose sole purpose for living is to eradicate us, and our way of life, is enough to persuade me to allow a small intrusion into my life by the authorities.
Does anyone doubt that there are terrorist sympathizers in the US?
Are any of you so dead sure that subway bombings, like those that happened in Britain and Spain, could never happen here?
Some of you have this "I have my rights and I'm not gonna give an inch. Everyone else be damned!!" mentality.
Is that minute or two spent having your bag checked SOOOOOOOOOOO incredibly important to you!
Do you REALLY think random home invasions and covert street kidnappings are in the near future as a result of a random search program?
Don't any of you think there JUST MIGHT BE A CHANCE that the authorities could intercept someone with an explosive device.
Yes, I KNOW! "Anyone anywhere could be walking around with a bomb!
Why not search everybody!!!"
Well, it hasn't come to that and I REALLY doubt it would.
I don't walk around looking over my shoulder and worrying about the next "hit".
I'm speaking SOLEY of train/subway/airline searches.
You don't want random searches.
You don't want to allow profiling.
So that group of 5 Middle Eastern young men(they fit the profile) that have been standing in the corner of Grand Central Station for the last hour should NOT arouse ANY curiosity on the part of the authorities?
I would hope they would question ME(Scotch-Irish profile) if I were hanging around with my backpack for some length of time.
To each his own, but I'm very glad to see common sense tactics, like profiling, being used IN AN EFFORT to keep us safe.

 

[GoSlash27]

Mike,

I will be positively AMAZED if that is not overturned.

Maybe, maybe not. But it has not been overturned and is thus valid.

'74 & '77: Nullified by FISA.

'02: The answer is in the sentence immediately preceding your highlighted sentence.

The President does have the authority to conduct warrentless wiretaps for the express purpose of collecting foreign intelligence, but NOT on American citizens unless that citizen is a suspected terrorist.
There's not enough room on this forum to reproduce that finding in it's entirety. That's a shame, because they make a distinction between a "search" and a "seizure" that sheds light on this issue and others we're discussing. Particularly the one regarding random stops.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

As the law stands, it's perfectly fine to collect intelligence data (listen in, even) when the call comes from a known/suspected terrorist. That's not what they're doing here.
Government acquisition of communications records of American citizens requires a warrant. Handing those records over to the government requires a warrant. See FISA '78 and GCA '34.
The government is establishing a database of every phone in this country (including yours, mine, and everybody else's in this forum). They have your records, and are collecting it real-time. Without a warrant and in flagrant violation of the law.

 

[Mike40-11]

Goslash

Actually, if I am not mistaken, the Taylor decision has been stayed pending appeal and thus is NOT valid at the moment.

Not familiar with the FISA nullifications, will have to check, but I'll take your word for it at the moment.

For '02 that is correct, the boundaries must be determined. I believe that is what we are discussing?

As far as the database goes, are you referring to the USA Today story from a month or so back that has been denied by most of the phone companies referenced?

 

[GoSlash27]

Das Boot,

I forgot that it was voluntary!!
HOW INCREDIBLY STUPID!!!But I'm sure the ACLU would've been right there to stop it if it wasn't made voluntary.

The ACLU is fighting it despite the fact that it's voluntary, and I'll tell you why:
Have you ever had a policeman ask to search your vehicle? I have, several times. Do you know what happens if you refuse permission? They construe that denial as 'probable cause' and search you anyway. After all, why not let them look if you have nothing to hide?

My love of personal freedom is no less than anyone elses.

Begging your pardon, but yes it is.

But knowing that there is an enemy amongst us whose sole purpose for living is to eradicate us, and our way of life, is enough to persuade me to allow a small intrusion into my life by the authorities.
Does anyone doubt that there are terrorist sympathizers in the US?
Are any of you so dead sure that subway bombings, like those that happened in Britain and Spain, could never happen here?
Some of you have this "I have my rights and I'm not gonna give an inch. Everyone else be damned!!" mentality.
Is that minute or two spent having your bag checked SOOOOOOOOOOO incredibly important to you!

There is *always* an enemy among us. ALWAYS! That's not the point.
The bad guys will continue to try to blow stuff up, and will occasionally succeed, your police-state tactics notwithstanding. The danger posed by that does not justify our government violating the law or the Constitution.
I don't know how else to explain it to you...it's not about inconvenience and it's not about my personal freedom. It's about maintaining our collective freedom (yours, mine, our children) and protecting us from tyranny at the hands of our own government.

Do you REALLY think random home invasions and covert street kidnappings are in the near future as a result of a random search program?

YES!!! Because the only thing that keeps the government from doing things like that is fear of prosecution. Once you have removed that and shown that you will allow them to get away with violating their own laws, what's to stop them? Their own word?

Is it so foreign a concept to you that maybe your government doesn't want you to be free? That they might just place their personal power and self-interest above yours?
Or do you recognize that threat and place the spectre of terrorism higher on the priority list?
I need to know which fallacy I'm debating here.

 

[GoSlash27]

Mike,

Actually, if I am not mistaken, the Taylor decision has been stayed pending appeal and thus is NOT valid at the moment.

Stayed, not nullified. Valid.

For '02 that is correct, the boundaries must be determined. I believe that is what we are discussing?

Not quite. The boundaries have been set by law and judicial interpretation. He's already well past them.
What they mean by 'must be determined' is that if the Executive wishes to challenge the Constitutionality of separation of powers and judicial oversight (HAHAHAHAHA) they must sue and get a ruling.

As far as the database goes, are you referring to the USA Today story from a month or so back that has been denied by most of the phone companies referenced?

Yes. Several months back, not categorically denied by those involved, and still ongoing.

 

[GoSlash27]

Azurefly,
(just because I need another iron in the fire )

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

No more so than any other special interest group or political party. Is it your contention that the NRA does harm to the 1st Amendment because they don't actively support freedom of the press? Do you claim that the Republican party is intellectually dishonest for not uniformly recognizing states' rights?
Look...you show me a special interest group that supports the *entire* Constitution and I'll join it. Until then, I've got to work with what I've got.

 

[DasBoot]

GS,

Is it so foreign a concept to you that maybe your government doesn't want you to be free? That they might just place their personal power and self-interest above yours?
Or do you recognize that threat and place the spectre of terrorism higher on the priority list?

I am free!
Completely!
Aside from the usual everyday restrictions(speed limits, no smoking, curb your dog, etc) I am free to do and say whatever I please.

Have you ever had a policeman ask to search your vehicle?

On several occasions.

They construe that denial as 'probable cause' and search you anyway. After all, why not let them look if you have nothing to hide?

Precisely!
If I'm carrying a few kilos of coke in my trunk, you BET I'm gonna say NO!
Then they SHOULD search my car!
Another good crime fighting tool.
On the off chance I am pulled over by police because I "fit a description", I will pleasantly let them get on with their business, get it over with, and go on my way.
They are trying to do a job.
Not picking on me for some nefarious reason.
If they are trying to apprehend someone, and I fit the description, what would you expect them to do?
Things happen.
If it was happening every day, then there would be a problem.
I don't view the gov't as some omnipresent ogre, looking to enslave me and crush my will.
You seem to though.
I don't fear the gov't as you apparently do.

 

[JR47]

badbob, the wording of the 4th Amendment is still the same. Yet, even during Jeffersonian times, observation of wrongdoing gathered during the execution of a warrant wasn't precluded during a search. Until recently, evidence of wrongdoing found during a search was considered to be allowed under the heading of things to be siezed. Warrants back then were allowed to be much vaguer than those of recent years. Phrases such as "evidence of illegal activities" was a boiler-plate addition to the warrant.

ccwolf, I forgot the quotation marks. It's from the song "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights". It was meant to be a form of "take your pick".

As for complaining about anything that isn't perfect, try voting.

 

[JR47]

Hmmmmm. I'm guessing that an organization named the National Rifle Association could be forgiven for concentrating on firearms? There is nothing in their mission statement that requires them to defend any other aspect.

I'll also venture that the American Civil Liberties Union should be expected to be concerned with the Civil Liberties of all Americans. I would also expect them to be concerned about the violations of civil liberties inherent with encroachment upon ALL of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments.

If their mission statement is to support ALL of these above mentioned liberties, they are derelict in their refusal to support the Second Amendment.

 

[GoSlash27]

I am free!
Completely!
Aside from the usual everyday restrictions(speed limits, no smoking, curb your dog, etc) I am free to do and say whatever I please.

You didn't answer my questions. I would appreciate it if you did.

AFA the 'voluntary search' thing, you freely concede that it's voluntary in name only. You also support it if I read your response correctly.
So how do you differentiate between a random search at a train station and a random search anywhere else? The law and Constitution do not differentiate between locations, so is it your argument that merely being at a subway station is probable cause?

JR47,
I'm in complete agreement, I just don't see how you construe that as an attack on the second or why, exactly, that means I shouldn't support them.
I believe in the entire Bill of Rights. What organization would you have me support instead?

 

[DasBoot]

I'll try again.

Is it so foreign a concept to you that maybe your government doesn't want you to be free?That they might just place their personal power and self-interest above yours?

No, the concept is par for the course for just about every gov't.
But what they WANT and what they GET are 2 different things.
I am STILL free, unless you can show me how I'm not.

Or do you recognize that threat and place the spectre of terrorism higher on the priority list?

Again , I don't perceive any overt threats to my freedom beeing perpetrated by the gov't. So I'm not placing terrorism higher on the list.
In dangerous times, adaptations must be made.
I for one am willing to adapt and cooperate to combat a common enemy.
Not bitch and moan about the inconvenience and imagined greater ramifications looming in the distance.
Hope that answers your questions.
If there were others, I didn't see them.

 

[Socrates]

I AM NOT FREE, nor am I given the protection of the 2nd amendment. I cannot get a concealed carry permit in my city.
Last one was issued 28 years ago.

To protect myself, going into work in Oakland, or Hunter's Point in SF, I HAVE to break the law. No police officer there to walk me to my car, or, to escort me out of the area.

What if I just don't want the police to search me, since I believe they are supposed to have a warrant? This probable cause garbage is a construct of the Supreme Court, NOT THE WRITING of the founders. Their life was full of British searches, with 'probable cause', anytime they wanted. That's why they wanted NO searches without a written warrant,by a JUDGE< regardless of circumstances. They believed the freedom to be more important then ANY garbage construct the government could come up with.

In our state of Kali, a search of most people's houses would turn up something that was illegal. Not enough smoke detectors, the wrong kind of pipes, an illegal dog,
etc. EVERYTHING is illegal here, your pepper spray is over 2.5 oz, and is too big, too many laws.

S

 

[GoSlash27]

Das Boot,
You contradicted yourself there, but I gather you mainly follow the second line of reasoning.
"The threat of terrorism outweighs all concerns about tyranny". That about sums it up for you? Correct me if I'm mistaken. Now here's why I disagree:

Terrorism (the act of aggression against noncombatants to further political goals) has always been a threat and will always remain a threat. The day when you and your loved ones are 100% safe from violence will never come. You may as well come to grips with that.
Furthermore, the real physical threat it presents is, relatively speaking, minor in the general scheme of things. It's less of a threat to you and yours than the pistol you keep in your house.
Third, no amount of government authority can render Americans 100% safe.
The difference between throwing away our protections and not boil down to a choice between miniscule threat from terrorism with a large threat of Fascism,and miniscule threat from terrorism and no threat of Fascism.

Finally, there are many ways to combat terrorism and make America safer without violating the Constitution or the law, and these ways are arguably more effective.

This is why I mention the 'illusion of safety' and why our founding fathers mentioned it as well. You have made the choice of a larger threat over a smaller one.
I can't really dissuade you from what I see as a betrayal of what makes this country great, but I fully intend to stand against you.

 

[Scott Conklin]

DasBoot, you're free?

I'm not. I pay federal taxes and property taxes and my land can be taken at any time for almost any reason by any level of government. My vehicles are designed by government mandated committees and what guns I own are restricted by bureaucrats. My business is babysat by layers of rulemaking and my travel may or may not be hampered at any given time by random roadblocks, searches, "emergencies", etc. If I deposit too much money in the government controlled bank I have to fill out government forms and I may get a visit from some government thug if I do it too often. if I travel with too much cash(an arbirtrary and unknown amount) some other government employee can confiscate it without ever filing a charge against me... Shall I continue?

The US is still, probably, the most free place on earth but let's not mistake it for real freedom, nor kid ourselves it is getting any better. As for adaptation, we the people have done more than enough. It's past time for the powers that be to do a little of their own.

 

[JR47]

GoSlash, I have a hard time supporting any organization that deliberatly refuses to apply it's resources to the entire civil liberties spectrum. The ACLU has been quoted as believing the Second Amendment to be a vestigal remnant of a no longer needed power of the people. Yet, they spend money and resources unfalteringly to "protect" the rights of those who consider feces and urine to be artistic mediums.

Their lack of support for 100% of the Constituion, Bill of Rights, and Amendments gives lie to their pompous assertions. It also shows their pacifist origins, and how even they have been corrupted in the interests of political expediency. If feces are an important art medium, how can the individuals right to self-defense be any less important?

 

[johnbt]

How would you make airline travel safer w/o profiling?

Allow passengers to fly armed at their own discretion where such weapons do not pose a threat to airworthiness.

____________________________________________________________

How do you defend yourself against a bomb with a handgun? I assume you intend to prohibit searches along with the passenger profiling - all in the name of freedom of course.

John

 

[GoSlash27]

JR47,

I have a hard time supporting any organization that deliberatly refuses to apply it's resources to the entire civil liberties spectrum.

Yeah, you've said. And if you know of an organization that fits this criteria I'm asking you to tell me what it is. The NRA? The JPFO? The RNC? Who?

 

[DasBoot]

The day when you and your loved ones are 100% safe from violence will never come. You may as well come to grips with that.

I totally agree.
Hence the modest arsenal I own and carry on my person.

Furthermore, the real physical threat it presents is, relatively speaking, minor in the general scheme of things.

And just how do you know that?
Unless I'm mistaken, we have an enemy tirelessly plotting to eradicate us.
Sleeper cells may, or may not, be amongst us.
The threat is real.

It's less of a threat to you and yours than the pistol you keep in your house.

My guns are incapable of hurting me and mine unless I voluntarily use them to do harm.
They are incapable of doing ANYTHING on their own.
The same cannot be said for terrorists, can it?

Third, no amount of government authority can render Americans 100% safe.

Again, total agreement.
But the odds get better with the amount of impediments you put into play.
At least the BG knows THERE IS A CHANCE his attempts will be foiled.

The difference between throwing away our protections and not boil down to a choice between miniscule threat from terrorism with a large threat of Fascism,and miniscule threat from terrorism and no threat of Fascism.

As I previously posted:

I don't view the gov't as some omnipresent ogre, looking to enslave me and crush my will.
You seem to though.
I don't fear the gov't as you apparently do.

To you, random searches in a volatile time are a precursor to Fascism.
Pardom me if I think that reeks of a "Big Brother" complex.
But rail against it all you like, I'm all for it.


2ndA,

The US is still, probably, the most free place on earth but let's not mistake it for real freedom

There isn't any civilized society that I know of where there are not rules of some kind imposed on the populace.
Unfortunate as some of them are, that's the price we pay to live in this country.
So far, I'm content to live with the ones we have.
I wouldn't mind some tax reductions, but I can always move somewhere less expensive to live also.
I do have that choice.

 

[Kowboy]

Das Boot:

I haven't been avoiding you, it just took me a while to find this thread.

I would respond, but so many others have done such an excellent job, it would be redundant.

When our civil rights are gone, sacrificed for "security", Osama will have won. Please don't help him out.

Kowboy

 

[FirstFreedom]

GoSlash is my hero - good job, man.