• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

I read that bill and saw nothing wrong with it. The majority of it involved a warrant or permission from either the person or the provider.

If the law enforcement agency is getting something on you that they shouldn't, then any judge can throw out that evidence under the 4th Amendment, not just the SCOTUS. Fruit of the poisonous tree comes into effect here as well. If your email, that they shouldn't have been accessing to begin with, gives them info that leads them to some other evidence then they can't use that evidence either.
 
I read that bill and saw nothing wrong with it. The majority of it involved a warrant or permission from either the person or the provider.

If the law enforcement agency is getting something on you that they shouldn't, then any judge can throw out that evidence under the 4th Amendment, not just the SCOTUS. Fruit of the poisonous tree comes into effect here as well. If your email, that they shouldn't have been accessing to begin with, gives them info that leads them to some other evidence then they can't use that evidence either.

That is not the way the Patriot Act works.... The premise of the Patriot Act is to circumvent the Bill of Rights or in other words to defunct civil liberties for those who are "suspected" terrorists.
 
That is not the way the Patriot Act works.... The premise of the Patriot Act is to circumvent the Bill of Rights or in other words to defunct civil liberties for those who are "suspected" terrorists.


Exactly. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be applied to everyone in America anyway.
 
Exactly. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be applied to everyone in America anyway.

The Bill of Rights applies to every natural born citizen.

But what I see today are a bunch of progressive goons in some situations attempting to limit free speech - they are already attempting to label the freedom movement as terrorists.

Look up "Tea Party terrorists" on google..

All they have to do now is convince the masses that anyone who isn't progressive and who dissents from the governments ideals is a terrorist, and they will use the media to do just that.

This is the US, I have the right to speak my mind and I shouldn't have to worry about my dissent against the currant administration. However those who disapprove of my dissent are so emotional about my position that they will label me a "terrorist."
 
The Bill of Rights applies to every natural born citizen.

But what I see today are a bunch of progressive goons in some situations attempting to limit free speech - they are already attempting to label the freedom movement as terrorists.

Look up "Tea Party terrorists" on google..

All they have to do now is convince the masses that anyone who isn't progressive and who dissents from the governments ideals is a terrorist, and they will use the media to do just that.

This is the US, I have the right to speak my mind and I shouldn't have to worry about my dissent against the currant administration. However those who disapprove of my dissent are so emotional about my position that they will label me a "terrorist."


That's why we have to keep secession as a possible option.
 
I'm confused...

I'm under the impression that Republicans are the ones people consider as wanting to abridge people's rights and that Democrats stand up for the privacy and rights of the people. Am I wrong about this? Leahy is a Democrat.

No, trampling on individual rights in the name of the so-called "War on Terrorism" is pretty much a bi-partisan activity....
 
Yes, that is the point of the Patriot Act.

What do you think warrantless wiretapping means? Also, you do realize the government can circumvent due process and hold you indefinitely if they suspect you're a "terrorist?"

In short - if the government suspects you're a terrorist they can throw your ass in a basement cell and throw away the key. The only problem is that "terrorist" is a loose term - hell, some progressives have attempted to label the Tea Party as "terrorists." The Patriot Act is extremely dangerous and subject to the slippery slope.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to completely circumvent civil liberties (Bill of Rights/Constitutional rights) and lock you up if they believe you're a terrorist - foreign or domestic. The act also allows the government to spy on you and invade your privacy without a warrant... Presently the FBI doesn't need a search warrant to break down your door and search your home via the Patriot Act - all they have to conclude is that you MAY be a suspected terrorist and that is enough to justify their search.
Rewind 20-30 years and it sounds frighteningly similar to the civil asset forfeiture laws we have... and have come to accept (as a society overall)... today.
 
Yes, that is the point of the Patriot Act.

What do you think warrantless wiretapping means? Also, you do realize the government can circumvent due process and hold you indefinitely if they suspect you're a "terrorist?"

In short - if the government suspects you're a terrorist they can throw your ass in a basement cell and throw away the key. The only problem is that "terrorist" is a loose term - hell, some progressives have attempted to label the Tea Party as "terrorists." The Patriot Act is extremely dangerous and subject to the slippery slope.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to completely circumvent civil liberties (Bill of Rights/Constitutional rights) and lock you up if they believe you're a terrorist - foreign or domestic. The act also allows the government to spy on you and invade your privacy without a warrant... Presently the FBI doesn't need a search warrant to break down your door and search your home via the Patriot Act - all they have to conclude is that you MAY be a suspected terrorist and that is enough to justify their search.

Except wiretapping authority is listed in the Patriot Act. Chip implants are not.
 
Except wiretapping authority is listed in the Patriot Act. Chip implants are not.

You mean warrantless wiretapping....

I didn't say anything about microchips - don't give them any ideas. Besides, they don't need to microchip you - they will just track your phone or car without a warrant.
 
You mean warrantless wiretapping....

I didn't say anything about microchips - don't give them any ideas. Besides, they don't need to microchip you - they will just track your phone or car without a warrant.

Yes you did. You said it could theoretically allow them to "microchip individuals."
 
That is not the way the Patriot Act works.... The premise of the Patriot Act is to circumvent the Bill of Rights or in other words to defunct civil liberties for those who are "suspected" terrorists.

And when it is working wrong, then it is proper to challenge it in the courts, as has been done with so many laws and how they were applied by various organizations in our past. Just because we have the Patriot Act, doesn't make it or every part of it constitutional. The only way, atm, to take it down is to challenge it or those parts that are violating people's rights.

But this particular bill is nowhere near the Patriot Act. As I said, I read it and understand it. The vast majority of it is about things already in place. The only questionable part is about the time in informing a person their stuff has been looked at, and that isn't necessarily guaranteed by the Constitution to begin with.
 
If there is one take away from 100 + years of progressivism, it is that it is never overt in its insidiousness. Progressives, and progressivism tacks in small, seemingly innocuous moves that is bent on major change in the end through slight of hand, and miniature bites of freedom. Remember the truism, "You eat an elephant in a million small bites, not one big one."
 
If there is one take away from 100 + years of progressivism, it is that it is never overt in its insidiousness. Progressives, and progressivism tacks in small, seemingly innocuous moves that is bent on major change in the end through slight of hand, and miniature bites of freedom. Remember the truism, "You eat an elephant in a million small bites, not one big one."

Truisms are often misleading and have no authority.
 
Last edited:
And when it is working wrong, then it is proper to challenge it in the courts, as has been done with so many laws and how they were applied by various organizations in our past. Just because we have the Patriot Act, doesn't make it or every part of it constitutional. The only way, atm, to take it down is to challenge it or those parts that are violating people's rights.

But this particular bill is nowhere near the Patriot Act. As I said, I read it and understand it. The vast majority of it is about things already in place. The only questionable part is about the time in informing a person their stuff has been looked at, and that isn't necessarily guaranteed by the Constitution to begin with.

No this bill uses the Patriot Act as justification - hence the "slippery slope" which so many deny exists, despite the fact we have words in the English language such as "precedent."

Look - It is obvious many US citizens regardless of political affiliation are more than willing to trade their liberty for security, and as a libertarian I find that repulsive - not only that but borderline treason...

If the authoritarians want to search my **** they can get a Goddamn warrant and obey the Bill of Rights. I really don't appreciate the circumvention of my civil liberties. Why bother even having civil liberties or a Bill of Rights if government can just circumvent those ideas anyways? It makes the founding fathers premise moot does it not?
 
No this bill uses the Patriot Act as justification - hence the "slippery slope" which so many deny exists, despite the fact we have words in the English language such as "precedent."

Look - It is obvious many US citizens regardless of political affiliation are more than willing to trade their liberty for security, and as a libertarian I find that repulsive - not only that but borderline treason...

If the authoritarians want to search my **** they can get a Goddamn warrant and obey the Bill of Rights. I really don't appreciate the circumvention of my civil liberties. Why bother even having civil liberties or a Bill of Rights if government can just circumvent those ideas anyways? It makes the founding fathers premise moot does it not?

Wow, what an assumption. Personally, I have no issue with people challenging laws that actually violate their freedoms/rights, but this one just doesn't read as if it does. I think people are reading things into this that are not there. The vast majority of this bill specifies that a warrant is required for almost all situations unless the normal exceptions to it already established by the SCOTUS can be made. Point out exactly what part of this bill would violate someone's rights, using the exact text, in context.
 
Yes you did. You said it could theoretically allow them to "microchip individuals."

In theory they could and they probably do.

You can bet your ass anyone who is released from GETMO has a microchip implant.

It's only a matter of time before "common criminals" are chipped... Of course no one will have a problem with that, well not until they want to chip you but by then it will be too late.
 
In theory they could and they probably do.

You can bet your ass anyone who is released from GETMO has a microchip implant.

It's only a matter of time before "common criminals" are chipped... Of course no one will have a problem with that, well not until they want to chip you but by then it will be too late.

When they came to chip the criminals, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a criminal. When they came to chip the children (to protect them of course), I didn't speak up because I hadn't kids. But when these children grew up, grown used to being tracked, they came for me...
 
When they came to chip the criminals, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a criminal. When they came to chip the children (to protect them of course), I didn't speak up because I hadn't kids. But when these children grew up, grown used to being tracked, they came for me...

I love that original quote, and it's absolutely true.

People just don't care just as long as it doesn't effect them.... They walk through their lives saying "so what there must be a good and logical reason for this." Well, that is how an authoritarian government is created - because a bunch of buffoons said "who cares."

I don't want my kids living in a George Orwell novel (1984)...

The ability to say "no" and preserve our liberty to do just that is what makes our country great, and it is sad to see a bunch of fools zombie walking through life and giving a rats ass about their civil rights....

Many conservatives won't do a damn thing about it and progressives will exploit liberties...

I wrote a paper on this several years back.......
 
Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

Daily Kos: No warrant required for private communications?


Pat Leahy's committee has a bill up for vote soon that apparently was QUIETLY rewritten for govt snoopers to dig through your emails without ANYONE'S knowledge. How do you like your transparent government? I added the Daily Kos link so lefties wouldn't accuse me of a biased article. Apparently Leahy has a history mixed stands on privacy. I suspect that Leahy is a closet peeping-tom. Leahy is a huge asshole btw, which doesn't help either. It'll be interesting to learn how intrusive this law will be. Hopefully it'll get watered down to worthlessness.


Hello everyone! :2wave:

I took a look at the article in the first link "Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants," written on November 20th. I noted a link within that article at the top titled "See also the follow-up story: Leahy scuttles his warrantless e-mail surveillance bill," apparently written about 8 hours later. That article, "Leahy scuttles his warrantless e-mail surveillance bill," indicates that he changed his mind after a lot of complaints (which is kind of funny in a way... as the original article indicated he changed his mind from his original stance due to a lot of complaints! :lol: ).

A quote from the beginning of the article: "Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power -- including warrantless access to Americans' e-mail accounts -- than they possess under current law.

The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception" for warrantless access
."

Sometimes you have to marvel at Washington, D.C.; the: politicians can change their direction faster than the weather changes here in Colorado! :2razz:
 
There is no "section number" that is the whole point of the Patriot Act... Suspicion is enough....

Then you obviously know little or nothing about the act itself outside of what you've read on paranoid conspiracy theory sites. Please cite the specific area of the bill that could be interprited to allow the government to do what you suggested in that original post. "Suspicion" is not "enough". A power garnered from the Patriot Act would most assuredly have to come FROM THE ACT, which means you can at the very least point out a specific section/sections that you believe could be interprited in such a way as to allow what you suggest.
 
Methinks they're going to have a hard time getting this past SCOTUS. Warrantless access to Facebook wall posts is one thing (since they're already the internet equivalent of shouting in a room full of people), but email is private, and we've got fourth amendment protections for such things.

They got the Patriot Act through, as well as asset forfeiture, and indefinite detention. It appears that the sky is the limit where it comes to trading liberty for the illusion of security.

The water gets warmer and warmer, still the frog doesn't jump out.
 
Then you obviously know little or nothing about the act itself outside of what you've read on paranoid conspiracy theory sites. Please cite the specific area of the bill that could be interprited to allow the government to do what you suggested in that original post. "Suspicion" is not "enough". A power garnered from the Patriot Act would most assuredly have to come FROM THE ACT, which means you can at the very least point out a specific section/sections that you believe could be interprited in such a way as to allow what you suggest.

Your point is moot, you want me to point out a provision in the act which allows the government to circumvent the Bill of Rights which the Patriot Act was designed to do in the first place.

It's not a conspiracy - if the FBI (or any alphabet agency) wanted to they could break down your door, search your home and haul you off to GETMO, seize your property and sell off your assets - all that without a warrant or any suspicion. To be honest, there would be nothing you could do about it. All the government has to do is claim you're a terrorist. They don't have to present any evidence that you are - hence the purpose of the Patriot Act.
 
Your point is moot, you want me to point out a provision in the act which allows the government to circumvent the Bill of Rights which the Patriot Act was designed to do in the first place.

You being unable to back up your own ridiculous claims is not "my point being moot", it's you trying to retreat because you got caught spewing typical doomsayer rhetoric that was baseless as usual.

You stated "In theory the Patriot Act would allow government to microchip individuals". Nothing about a generic "allows the government to circumvent the Bill of Rights" but SPECIFICALLY that in theory it would allow the government to microchip people.

Provide the portions of the bill that "in theory" allow for that or admit your statement was nothing but hyperbolic conspiracy bs that had zero basis in fact.

It's not a conspiracy - if the FBI (or any alphabet agency) wanted to they could break down your door, search your home and haul you off to GETMO, seize your property and sell off your assets - all that without a warrant or any suspicion. To be honest, there would be nothing you could do about it. All the government has to do is claim you're a terrorist. They don't have to present any evidence that you are - hence the purpose of the Patriot Act.

Again, if that is all true then provide the sections of the Patriot Act that you claim give them this power.

Sinmply saying "IT DOES THIS!" without any evidence or fact, what so ever, is a laughable argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom