ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 10, 2011 9:59:11 GMT -5
You are willing to give up those rights, others are not. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3137&page=2#ixzz1DVdpeEh0What are you giving up? They have a warrant for a phone number, the alleged terrorist buys a new cell phone - now law enforcement has to go back to a judge and get a new warrant - it isn't as easy as you all seem to think and time is lost On the other hand - the warrant could follow the individual and would take a lot of probable cause to get it against an individual - it follows that person, and no one else Unless you are a targeted terrorist - you are not losing any rights that I can see There are two issues here, If I am a targeted terrorist I still have rights as an American Citizen until I violate or conspire to violate the law. Being suspected of something is different than being guilty of something. This is the basis of the fourth amendment. These laws are broad and overreaching, look at the bigger picture this is not just applied to "terrorist", this is applied to anyone that law enforcement and government deems a threat. Today it's radical Muslims, tomorrow it's anyone that disagrees with the government. Second, the advancement in technology argument doesn't hold water. Criminals have alluded wiretaps by using multiple phones for decades. This is not a new tactic. Before Cell phones there were payphones, business phones, other peoples home phones. There is a reason that a law like this would have never passed before 9/11, because it infringes on our rights. I would be willing to listen to the debate of having a warrant reviewed after the fact. I just don't agree with giving a "blank check" to a agency to trample on our rights.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 10, 2011 10:01:30 GMT -5
And just out of curiosity - how do you all feel about TSA and their new procedures? I really have very little issue with the TSA procedures as everything they are doing is out in the open and we have rights to refuse, or choose other options.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 10:00:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2011 10:20:36 GMT -5
hmmm.. I just saw on TV that they are bringing this up for a vote again today. Can they just do that any time they want? Keep voting until they get the vote they want?? That is strange. What-- they listened to the blowback last night and some now want to change their minds? Lots of rumbling.. tea party this, constitution that... not a party line vote... well, we have seen that on this one little thread. I guess I'm not the only one that gets stuck in the grey zone on this issue.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 10, 2011 10:43:21 GMT -5
You are willing to give up those rights, others are not. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3137&page=2#ixzz1DVdpeEh0What are you giving up? They have a warrant for a phone number, the alleged terrorist buys a new cell phone - now law enforcement has to go back to a judge and get a new warrant - it isn't as easy as you all seem to think and time is lost On the other hand - the warrant could follow the individual and would take a lot of probable cause to get it against an individual - it follows that person, and no one else Unless you are a targeted terrorist - you are not losing any rights that I can see There are two issues here, If I am a targeted terrorist I still have rights as an American Citizen until I violate or conspire to violate the law. Being suspected of something is different than being guilty of something. This is the basis of the fourth amendment. These laws are broad and overreaching, look at the bigger picture this is not just applied to "terrorist", this is applied to anyone that law enforcement and government deems a threat. Today it's radical Muslims, tomorrow it's anyone that disagrees with the government. Second, the advancement in technology argument doesn't hold water. Criminals have alluded wiretaps by using multiple phones for decades. This is not a new tactic. Before Cell phones there were payphones, business phones, other peoples home phones. There is a reason that a law like this would have never passed before 9/11, because it infringes on our rights. I would be willing to listen to the debate of having a warrant reviewed after the fact. I just don't agree with giving a "blank check" to a agency to trample on our rights. I basically agree with your arguments - however the main problem law enforcement faces is we do not want our law enforcement community solving the crime after a terrorist strike - we want them to prevent a terrorist strike. This necessitates different tactics than old fashioned crime fighting. Balancing our rights as American citizens with our needs for domestic security are extremely difficult and I suspect will be an ongoing problem for a long time.
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 10, 2011 10:59:21 GMT -5
There are two issues here, If I am a targeted terrorist I still have rights as an American Citizen until I violate or conspire to violate the law. Being suspected of something is different than being guilty of something. This is the basis of the fourth amendment. These laws are broad and overreaching, look at the bigger picture this is not just applied to "terrorist", this is applied to anyone that law enforcement and government deems a threat. Today it's radical Muslims, tomorrow it's anyone that disagrees with the government. Second, the advancement in technology argument doesn't hold water. Criminals have alluded wiretaps by using multiple phones for decades. This is not a new tactic. Before Cell phones there were payphones, business phones, other peoples home phones. There is a reason that a law like this would have never passed before 9/11, because it infringes on our rights. I would be willing to listen to the debate of having a warrant reviewed after the fact. I just don't agree with giving a "blank check" to a agency to trample on our rights. I basically agree with your arguments - however the main problem law enforcement faces is we do not want our law enforcement community solving the crime after a terrorist strike - we want them to prevent a terrorist strike. This necessitates different tactics than old fashioned crime fighting. Balancing our rights as American citizens with our needs for domestic security are extremely difficult and I suspect will be an ongoing problem for a long time. Agreed.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 10, 2011 11:34:47 GMT -5
So you don't think the act is necessary?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 18, 2024 10:00:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2011 19:12:41 GMT -5
OKAY-- patriot act back IN... ("You guys did not vote right, let's talk for a few days and vote again.")
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 15, 2011 13:15:34 GMT -5
OKAY-- patriot act back IN... ("You guys did not vote right, let's talk for a few days and vote again.") Actually, they just used the normal process instead of the expidited one. All they needed was a simple majority - which they have.... See reply #2 (Still wondering why they tried the expidited process without ensuring enough votes in the first place. Boehner knows better than that...)
|
|
ChiTownVenture
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
Posts: 648
|
Post by ChiTownVenture on Feb 15, 2011 13:19:30 GMT -5
So you don't think the act is necessary? The act it's self seemed necessary, what I don't agree with are the parts of the act that impede our rights and trample upon the constitution. I don't believe in giving the government free reign over our rights and freedoms even under the blanket of "safety". If we give them up today there is no reason for the government to give them back to us. The world is not getting any safer.
|
|