|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: Close extremist schools [Re: Phred]
#6004495 - 08/28/06 12:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Actually, it is not unconstitutional. Listening in to enemy transmissions in time of war is not unconstitutional and never has been ruled as unconstitutional by any appellate court.
Phred
Would you know if you were being wiretapped. Would i know if I was being wiretapped? This is pretty cleverly worded. If my phone was being tapped would it make me a enemy combatant?
If They wrote the 4th admendment today im sure cell phones and sattelite phones will be included.
never has been ruled as unconstitutional by any appellate court.
Of course not they can make up the rules as they go along and you dont see anyone complaining if its for "fighting terrorism"
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Would you know if you were being wiretapped.
Probably not. So what?
Quote:
Would i know if I was being wiretapped?
Probably not. So what?
Quote:
If my phone was being tapped would it make me a enemy combatant?
Not necessarily, no. What's your point?
Quote:
If They wrote the 4th admendment today im sure cell phones and sattelite phones will be included.
Undoubtedly. Again, what's your point?
Quote:
Of course not they can make up the rules as they go along ...
What rules have "they" made up? As I pointed out already, the interception of enemy communications during wartime has been going on for millennia. It's not as if Bush invented the concept.
Phred
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: Close extremist schools [Re: Phred]
#6005252 - 08/28/06 04:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
If you dont see my point then i dont feel a need to reiterate it a second time.
I understand that if say i called Pakistan repeatedly maybe i might have links with Al Qaeda. Then by all means they can get a wiretap. However warrantless wiretaps are an obvious work around the system.
What makes you think that these wiretaps are used soley to spy on terrorists and not say Bush's political opponents (watergate anyone?)Or anyone leaking information to the press. Wiretaps like these are used to harass journalists and whistleblowers alike and not to go after terrorists.
What would happen in 30 years down the road this law was used. The 4th admendment was put into place for a reason.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
QUESTION: I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
You can read the fourth admendment yourself. There is no such thing as Reasonable Belief. The vagueness of this law is a threat to civil liberties especially domestically. Wiretaps like these all though worded to go after terrorism can easily be used to go after Political dissidents,Political Opponents,Tax Protestors,Religious Cults,Pot Dealers,Journalists,Whistleblowers.
Laws like these are blatantly unconstiutional and just because a judge who happens to be on the teet of the koolaid drinkers says its constitutional doesnt make it anymore right.
Im afraid you have lived in a 3rd world country for too long.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
You can read the fourth admendment yourself. There is no such thing as Reasonable Belief.
Where do you get this phrase "reasonable belief"? Not from General Hayden, obviously.
As it happens, Hayden was stating the Fourth Amendment correctly.
Quote:
The vagueness of this law is a threat to civil liberties especially domestically.
Which law?
Quote:
Laws like these are blatantly unconstiutional...
I ask again -- which law? But as it happens, intercepting the communications of the enemy in time of war is NOT unconstitutional. Claiming repeatedly that it is unconstitutional is not an argument and does not change the fact that it isn't unconstitutional. There are many MANY appellate court decisions confirming such surveillance is not unconstitutional. There isn't a single appellate court decision saying otherwise. Not one.
Quote:
... and just because a judge who happens to be on the teet of the koolaid drinkers says its constitutional doesnt make it anymore right.
I guess an awful lot of appellate court judges -- going back a very long time -- drink koolaid, then.
You seem to believe this is something new, dreamed up by Bushco. It is far from new, it is as ancient as warfare itself. The fact of the matter is that if you receive a phone call from someone in Peshawar who has been identified by an intelligence agency as a 'splodeydope, or a member of the 'splodeydope support crew, there's a very good chance that call is being recorded. I don't understand why that bothers you. It should comfort you.
Phred
--------------------
|
|