It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Quietly Passed A Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes - Only 1% Opposed It

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I guess the only thing to do is wait and see what happens. I'm guessing this will not be used much. But, lets see how it works in practice. I doubt it will be a problem...

Or...maybe the areas near railroad buildings are only the start. Next it will be "places adjacent to other places which are adjacent to railroad buildings", and so on, and so on... Or they will add airports... seaports... Then it will be "properties adjacent to paved roads". Or "properties adjacent to other properties".
edit on 8/28/2017 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Probably my paranoia, but it looks more like a how much can we get away with before the people snap move.

If people passively roll over because it only effects those right next to federal property, how long till it gets expanded.

People should be outraged and not just go well we have more terrorist attacks so this makes sense, our answer should be Ell NO!

But most will not ever been aware it happened, and those that do probably two thirds will say meh doesnt have any impact on me, and whats left is not enough to make the fed back up.

I'm being sarcastic. The difficulty in making this argument is convincingly showing the object of your argument is on a steep enough slope and demonstrably will slide further down. If it fails that, the skeptics can always argue it's not steep or not a slope, or it won't slip further down.

As I understand it, this bill has a provision only applying to federal land. Has this shown to be false? Doesn't jibe with the thread title.
edit on 8/28/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite
As I understand it, this bill has a provision only applying to federal land. Has this shown to be false? Doesn't jibe with the thread title.


Includes a provision applying to federal land- not only applying to federal land. Otherwise, it is any lands, waters, and premises adjacent to the WMATA Rail System.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

I am familiar with the constitution and the law, including scotus rulings and how the 4th amendment works. The 4th amendment requires the government to obtain probable cause and then obtain a warrant with that information before taking action. How do we know it applies to the government and not the individual? Because it says the government must meet criteria X Y and Z before they can act.

If it applied to the individual then it would require the affected person to obtain a warrant for himself. In case you forgot that type of requirement would be a violation of a persons 5th amendment.

The 4th amendment applies to the government and not the individual.

This bill does not strip anyone's constitutional rights.
This bill does not allow for warrant less searches.



posted on Aug, 29 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loam

No they didnt. A warrant is still required unless it meets a 4th amendment exception. Secondly what they are referring to is law enforcement working a lawful call that requires them to come onto private property where the property / property owner in question are not the subject of law enforcement action.

IE a train derails and police come onto private property to investigate the derailment.


Or a terrorist jihadi is caught with a bomb on a train, escapes, and law enforcement knows he couldn't have escaped the tight perimeter and must be in one of two city blocks.


In that instance it would fall under "Fresh pursuit".




top topics
 
28
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join