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.
Originally posted by lastrebel
Originally posted by inkyminds
So we think the government shouldn't be able to tap a phone they know is being used by someone plotting against the homeland? Isn't that one of the main functions of government? To protect the homeland?
You need to be less obvious.............LOL
HOMELAND indeed.............LOL
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Originally posted by thorg
The potus also declared a national state of emergency today over Libias unrest. the dictatorship of our presidents continues.
I missed that little news item today. Thanks. Considering the magnitude of Union involvement, plus the involvement of Bill and Bernadine and Code Pink in the affairs of Egypt, I'd say it was engineered.
Are you seriously asking that? I mean really? This has been answered so many times that for you to miss it reveals an intentional blindness.
Originally posted by inkyminds
"Privacy and Freedom"? Yes, those are phrases that attract stars and simplify complicated issues.
But tell me, how does this effect YOUR 'Privacy and Freedom" in any way?
This isn't the government putting a bug in your reading lamp. It's allowing them to track very specific foreign agents who are able to subvert basic wiretap laws by using several mobile deices.
To pretend that our government should be able to thwart potential terrorist attacks with their hands tied behind their backs seems self-defeating, at best.
I'd bet you'de be the first to blame the government if a bomb wen of in your state.
Of course, I'm sure there are SEVERAL folks posting on ATS trying to shape public opinion away from giving government the tools to do their job or protecting the homeland.
edit on 26-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The two English cases are usefully treated as a pair. Both Wilkes v. Wood, 19 Howell's State Trials 1153 (C.P. 1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029 (C.P. 1765), involved pamphleteers charged with seditious libel for criticizing the king's ministers and, through them, the king himself. In both cases, agents of the king issued a warrant authorizing the ransacking of the pamphleteers' homes and the seizure of all their books and papers. (An aside is necessary at this point: Warrants are means of giving government officials permission to search or arrest someone whom they otherwise might not be allowed to search or arrest. In American practice, warrants are issued only by judges or magistrates after reviewing an application from a police officer. In eighteenth-century England, warrants were sometimes issued by agents of the Crown on their own initiative.) These searches were duly carried out. Wilkes and Entick sued for damages, claiming that the warrants were void and that the searches pursuant to them were therefore illegal. Both Wilkes and Entick won, with powerful opinions issued by Lord Camden, the judge in both cases. These decisions made Camden a hero in the colonies; a number of towns and cities were named after him because of his opinions in Wilkes and Entick.
Note that this case is one of the main reasons for the 4th amendment and how closely it resembles the so called "powers needed" as claimed by the highly unpatriotic "patriot act".
The third case was the Writs of Assistance Case (see Dickerson, 1939). British customs inspectors seeking to stamp out smuggling in colonial Boston were given blanket search warrants, called writs of assistance, that permitted them to search anyplace where they thought smuggled goods might be. (The writs also allowed the inspectors to compel private citizens to help them carry out the searches—hence the writs' name.) Some Boston merchants, represented by James Otis, sued, seeking a holding that the writs were invalid. The merchants lost, but Otis's argument, with its ringing defense of individual privacy, became famous and strengthened opposition to British rule. John Adams later said of Otis's argument that "then and there the child Independence was born."
Historians generally agree that the Fourth Amendment was designed to affirm the results in Wilkes and Entick, and to overturn the result in the Writs of Assistance Case. Three principles seem to follow. First, the government should not be allowed to search without some substantial justification, some reason to believe the place being searched contains the evidence being sought. That was the problem with the writs of assistance—they authorized searches based on no more than the unsupported suspicion of the inspector. Second, searches, particularly of private homes, should not go beyond their justification. That was the problem with the searches in Wilkes and Entick–the authorities did not simply search for and seize illegal writings, but took all the books and papers in the suspects' houses. Third, the government should not use blanket warrants to evade the first two principles. That was a problem in all three cases. English common law held it a trespass to invade someone's home without some kind of authorization; the warrants in Wilkes and Entick and the writs of assistance looked like efforts to evade that common law right. This explains why, at the time of the Founding era, search warrants—now viewed as a protection against police overreaching—were seen as more of a danger than a safeguard.
Notice that none of these three cases involved ordinary criminal law enforcement. None stemmed from the investigation of a murder, or a robbery, or a rape. Rather, each involved the investigation and prosecution of what might fairly be called dissidents—ordinary law-abiding citizens who disagreed strongly with the laws they were disobeying, and who enjoyed some substantial support among the citizenry.
The "patriot act" specifically attacks and derails the 4th amendment. Thus it is in fact Un-Constitutional.
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.
The first clause—lawyers usually call it the "reasonableness clause"–contains a simple prohibition: unreasonable searches and seizures are forbidden.
The second clause, usually called the "warrant clause," places a set of limits on the issuance of search or arrest warrants. Three limits are listed: the warrants must be supported by probable cause, they must define where the search is to take place, and they must define what the object of the search is—who or what is to be seized.
Though you are not addressing me here, I feel I must interject.
Originally posted by inkymindsSo, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Though you are not addressing me here, I feel I must interject.
Originally posted by inkymindsSo, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?
I do believe it is one of the most import jobs of our federal government. So tell them to get their a** down to the Mexican border and protect us instead of ceding sovereign US territory to Mexican drug cartels. They also need to be enforcing current immigration laws and they need to get the hell out of the way of states like Arizona that try to protect themselves when the feds fail to enforce the laws.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by inkyminds
I do happen to believe that most of this "terrorism crap" is total bs and 9/11 was either a false flag or at minimum we pulled a Roosevelt and allowed the attack to occur.
So yes, I think this is a naked power grab. Either way, giving up our liberties is a very bad idea.
Are you being totally obtuse, or what?
Originally posted by inkyminds
Well, if we ALLOWED it to occur, then 'terrorists' do exist.
How is this 'giving up our liberties'? Are you a foreign national who uses multiple cell phones to communicate with other foreign nationals?
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Are you being totally obtuse, or what?
Originally posted by inkyminds
Well, if we ALLOWED it to occur, then 'terrorists' do exist.
How is this 'giving up our liberties'? Are you a foreign national who uses multiple cell phones to communicate with other foreign nationals?
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by kolcath
Why three months?
It just makes me feel like we are waiting for something. Perhaps something that will justify a more permanent adoption of the Patriot Act. So what are they waiting for? Unrest here in the US? Trouble in the mid east to spread to Iran? Aliens to invade?
Edit to add, I knew the little happy dances over the failure to extend the Patriot Act a while back were premature. They are up to something.
edit on 25-2-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)
"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
— Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by inkyminds
I fricken hate people who call America, "the homeland." You sound like Nazis.
There were channels of approval, courts to petition, etc.. to allow them to spy on suspected bad guys before the Patriot Act. They can use those channels again. They dont need some blanket ability to violate someones Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by inkyminds
Did you even read my post on the 4th amendment? That is how they are affecting me personally by trashing the Constitution which endangers every American.(This includes me, in case you cannot figure that out.)
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by inkyminds
First, shove Godwin's law somewhere only a fellow prisoner will find it.
Secondly, I wasnt looking for the phrase, I know exactly what phrase the Nazis used, and I find "homeland" reminiscent of it.
Thirdly, I dont care. You and your people dont need the Patriot Act. You can just damn well follow the US Constitution. How about that?
Originally posted by beezzer
Hows that "hope and change" working out for everyone? I mean, really. Did anyone here actually think for an instant that Obama would do anything to lessen his (the governments) control over people?
I was disgusted when Bush signed it.
I was disgused when conservatives voted for it.
I was pleased when some Tea Party reps knocked it down'
I was not surprized when Obama did this.edit on 26-2-2011 by beezzer because: trypo
Originally posted by inkyminds
Originally posted by lastrebel
Originally posted by inkyminds
So we think the government shouldn't be able to tap a phone they know is being used by someone plotting against the homeland? Isn't that one of the main functions of government? To protect the homeland?
You need to be less obvious.............LOL
HOMELAND indeed.............LOL
So, you disagree that protection of the homeland is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government?