Victory! Illegal Snooping Law Expires!

Now if the gubmint would do "everything" to prevent an attack than I might MIGHT hear you out about this wire tappin' crap! But truth is an attack is much easier than most realize and it ain't much tougher today than pre 9/11... A bag of fert here a bag there a few 50 gallon diesel fuel purchases and you could bring down any building. Not to mention the faults in the security measures to fly... It is the individual American citizen's JOB to protect us from terrorist attack!
Heck I spoke often with a Chinese buddy in China... did the gubmint eaves drop? I don't know but they wouldn't have heard anything bad just didn't like the idea they may be listening to me speaking.
Brent
 
response to Antipitas

I'll start by saying I respect you as staff here, but also highly disagree with you.

The original Sedition Act and ammended act in 1918 were in fact violations of the first ammendment. The original act was found unconstitutional by Jefferson. The law was enacted by the Federalists, which I'm not seeing on our current ballots. The act also resulted in Judicial Review, which I think we are all going to agree is necessary for checks and balances. However, I am not seeing how the original topic in this post is a violation of my 1st ammendment rights.
 
yomama said:
This is the first issue I've noticed that most here are agreeing with the lefties.
Click to expand...
This is not a "lefty" issue. It is an issue of Liberty. Please note that while many here consider themselves "conservative," that designation is most often tempered with Classical Liberal thought. I hope you would note the difference.
This law was necessary to continue to preserve our freedoms.
Click to expand...
One cannot "preserve" freedoms by stomping upon them. It is a false premise to suggest otherwise.

I have the right to voice my opinions. Even if such opinions may be considered derogatory to the aims and goals of the Executive Office. I also have the same right to voice such opinions to others, that are outside of the territorial concerns of this nation. It is not reasonable for this Government to intercept such communications without probable cause that the person or persons with whom I am communicating are suspected terrorists.

The law in question, absolved the government of probable cause and allowed them to intercept all communications that originated in, terminated in, or passed through a foreign country under the blanket assumption that everyone else was a terrorist.

That sir, is not reasonable by any standards.
DBski said:
If you have nothing to hide, why worry
Click to expand...
Having something or nothing to hide is not the issue. The issue is blanket assumptions wherein not only probable cause, but reasonable suspicion are thrown out the window.
 
response to baker

The sky is not falling.

We don't have a cerfew. This is not Nazi Germany. The movie is not reallity.
 
Thanks Antipitas

Again, I am enjoying this conversation, and feel that I learn from this forum constently.

I guess where we really differ is that I feel we need to think everyone is a terrorist. I believe in better safe than sorry. I don't think we know how many people in this world want us dead....so maybe it's a blanket generalization but it is what it is.

I also again think that you absolutely have the right to speak on your opinions, and that it is protected speach. It becomes unprotected when it infringes on my right to life, and should be monitored. If someone is stating they are planning to attack us, that draws the line for me.

We have alot of wackos in this world that want to meet their creator quicker than I do.

I have to jet for a bit, and will check posts later today if possible. Thanks again.
 
The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 were not violations of the 1st Amendment - that had yet to be passed. Further, Judicial review was in its infancy, Marbury v. Madison had not occurred. The Justices of the Supreme Court were sitting in circuit at that time and they were the exact Judicial body that convicted the 10 men.

Jefferson's opinion was that it was unconstitutional, yes. But he had to persuade the Congress to repeal two of the Acts. A third was self-expiring. The fourth, The Alien Act of 1798 is still with us.

It is a fact that these laws were what precipitated the demise of the Federalist Party.

The Sedition Act of 1918 was upheld against our 1A, by the SCOTUS in two cases. One of which I mentioned (the Opinion of the Court was given by that "lefty," Oliver Wendal Holmes)
I guess where we really differ is that I feel we need to think everyone is a terrorist.
Click to expand...
Ummm, that kind of paranoia is extremely unhealthy.

I don't argue that there are not a number of people in the world that would like nothing better than to bring this nation to its knees, if not outright destroy us. But, it is most definitely not everyone else in the world.

To reiterate, when we begin to curtailing our Liberties in order to placate those that are afraid, we will hit upon a point of no return.
 
Politely responding to "yomama":

It becomes unprotected when it infringes on my right to life
Click to expand...

We are all entitled to our rights and privileges until we infringe on other people's rights and privileges. E.g. shouting "Fire" in a theater is causing a panic and punishable for Disturbing the Peace; I'm allowed to throw rocks and swing my arms randomly until I hit somebody, then it's assault. I can have and shoot my guns all I like til I shoot an innocent person... We can all follow this logic.


I feel we need to think everyone is a terrorist
Click to expand...

By you suspecting me (or everyone) of terrorism, this 'infringes on my right to life'. I'm guaranteed the right to speak my mind and protection from search without due cause. Thinking everyone is a terrorist means failing to acknowledge that we are all INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Assuming everyone is a criminal leads to abuse of government power: traffic stops at random for 'terror checks', house sweeps for 'terrorist paraphernalia', ID checks at movie theaters for 'unregistered peoples'...

I also again think that you absolutely have the right to speak on your opinions, and that it is protected speach
Click to expand...

That's great, I agree. But when we're all unjustly monitored, what happens when saying "Mr. Bush could've handled that better" is now a terrorist threat? I can say "I want to change this government" and have blackhawks circling my block in minutes because it's not an 'approved' statement under future Anti-Terror Laws. This issue here isn't free speech, as "Don't taze me bro" was our motto for 2007, the real issue here is the right to privacy and not have the government listening to our every word. After we give them the right to spy on us, they're one step away from making a law dictating new acceptable behaviors that turn us all into criminals.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give the government too much power and we'll all be wondering how we came to be required to wear maroon colored shirts on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The politicians know this, which is why anyone who doesn't support the war suddenly doesn't support our troops. They take things to extremes (as I do I suppose) with laws like this. "If you're not planning terrorism, what do you have to fear by us listening to everything you say?" or "If you don't support anti-terrorism laws, you must support terrorism!" are both arguments people have used against me and it's getting ridiculous.


And I look really bad in red shirts... :p
 
Antipitas
Having something or nothing to hide is not the issue. The issue is blanket assumptions wherein not only probable cause, but reasonable suspicion are thrown out the window.
Click to expand...

Slightly off-topic, but my guess is that you are against sobriety checkpoints, as well.
 
On the slightly off topic point of sobriety check points...
I am against them! If they put the same amount of officers on the highway within' 5 miles of the busier bars they would nab many more drunk drivers. I also think that if one cop sits within' sight of a busy bar and hollers out a description of leaving vehicles they would catch more. Heck when a DUI checkpoint is announced on the radio, tv and the tequila telegraph they ain't too effective!
Brent
 
We may not be in under a tyrrannical government as some have said, but as we lose more rights and freedom, and empower the government, especially the presidency, to a greater and greater degree, we set up an environment that down the road would allow it to happen.

We cannot believe that tyrranny would never happen here "because we are America". If we empower the government and give away our freedom, it certainly can happen here, because at that point, we are no longer the US as it was founded.

Our government was founded in a way to preserve our freedom. More and more, our government acts as though it's function is to preserve itself, increasingly, from the people.
 
Another response to yomama

If this and my other replies are construed as "not so nice", then I apologize, but it must be said.

I know we are not living under Saddam, or the Nazi regime, but again, that is thinking in absolute extremes. Sure, there are no police checkpoints on every street corner, but do you not understand that this is a "subtle" form of tyranny?

We aren't living that way yet, so why get the ball rolling?

I asked you to put yourself in that situation of someone being a "suspect" or falsely arrested under the sweeping jurisdiction of these types of legislation, and you have not responded. A simpler view put forth by myself and others is to just apply it to the anti gun agenda, and you have not responded.

Your belief is that the govt. should do whatever is necessary to prevent an attack on us. The patriotic belief is that no matter how many people may have to be put in danger, it is necessary and worthwhile to ensure that we remain the nation that is most free in the world.

Our men and women died so that our country could continue to protect and preserve, which is what we are trying to do here.
Click to expand...

I'm so very glad that you brought this up yomama, but your belief system is what actually denigrates the service of these servicemen. And if you have served, then you are actually disgracing your own service and don't even know it. You are doing the same to mine as well, as I am a Iraq war veteran.

Because our boys did not die in foreign lands fighting fascism, communism, despotism and tyranny, promoting democracy and freedom to come back home or to see their descendants have to deal with REAL ID, warrantless surveillance and illegal seizures. Furthermore, it also detracts from all of the people who worked so hard to fight for civil rights, it detracts from all of the people who were involved in setting precedence for 4th Amendment rights, 5th Amendment rights, universal suffrage, and so on.

You are right though, govt. doing whatever is necessary to protect it's people does work. It's a rarity to hear China or North Korea suffer from a terrorist attack, I don't think it has ever even happened. The Chinese don't have to fear radical Islam, because their protector is far more fearsome. The Chinese govt. does apprehend a lot of "terrorists", "criminals", and "enemies of the state". Maybe they were, but maybe they were not. Unlike here, you have no say in the matter, you will not get a fair trial, you will not be judged by your peers. And anyone who goes against the party in your defense will meet the same fate.

The Chinese govt. monitors the press, the TV, the newspapers, and even the internet, and obviously it is near impossible for a regular person to own any firearm. Citizens in North Korea are so afraid to say anything because there are govt. plants everywhere in their own communities, you could be a "political dissenter" at the drop of a dime. They also extremely limit and monitor the movements of its people. Would you be in favor of this, to protect us? Who then would be the real enemy?

Like I said to the other guy on the REAL ID thread, you have to stop thinking about yourself because you are not a terrorist, a criminal, and you pay your taxes. This is all about principle.
 
Anybody want to tell me how listening on international calls violates the constitution in a scewnario where one party is not a US citizen.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourS&W19todayAlaska ™
 
as soon as you can

tell me how they only listen to the side of the call from the non-American I'll answer your question Wild. Meanwhile I did not realize my right only are covered by the Consitution when I do thing inside the boundries of the US and only when I'm doing things with other Americans.
 
Anybody want to tell me how listening on international calls violates the constitution in a scewnario where one party is not a US citizen.
Click to expand...
My pleasure.

The 4th Amendment applies against the federal government, it is not active for the citizen directly. It prohibits certain government actions without regard to location or citizenship status of the person "of interest" or whatever euphemism you might call the recipient of being spied upon. From that prohibition of government activity comes the benefit of the protection of our right to privacy.

As an aside, the Bill of Rights was ratified and amended the US Constitution on December 15th, 1791. The federalists refused to permit the accused violators of the Alien and Sedition Acts any protections guaranteed by the BoR, and indeed, that was the undoing of the Federalists.

Unfortunately not before John Adams was able to load the federal courts with their judges, including one of the worst Supreme Court justices in US history, John Marshall.
 
No, the pleasure is mine. The Fourth Amendment does not and has not ever protected anything that crosses the border. Any violation is purely statutory not constitutional.
 
tell me how they only listen to the side of the call from the non-American I'll answer your question Wild.
Click to expand...

They dont. Now you can answer.

Meanwhile I did not realize my right only are covered by the Consitution when I do thing inside the boundries of the US and only when I'm doing things with other Americans.
Click to expand...

How about your rights in Border zones? Do you have the same rights there as without (as a Citizen)?

My pleasure.
Click to expand...

Thats nice, but spiel notwithstanding , you havent answered the question.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourHusqvarnaNaganttodayAlaska ™
 
Pat, the "people" referred to in IV means everyone anywhere in the world?
Click to expand...
Again, it's a restriction upon the federal government. The Second Amendment forbids a government activity.

So the answer is yes, the US government is prohibited by the Constitution as amended from infringing upon ANY persons right to be armed.

It also prohibits the federal government from hiring surrogates to do the same thing, in or outside America.

The Constitution is an envelope within which the US government is required to remain; any time, any place.
 
The Constitution is an envelope within which the US government is required to remain; any time, any place.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourNEFhandyrifletodayAlaska TM

So the answer is yes, the US government is prohibited by the Constitution as amended from infringing upon ANY persons right to be armed.
Click to expand...

You are wrong there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top