The Prof
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,828
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Nope I didn't. But apparently you forgot that the Constitution was made in order to form a more perfect union and to protect peoples rights. Not "form a more perfect union and violate peoples rights".
Really? Those federal judges just need more education from His Honorable Kal'Stang from www.debatepolitics.com huh? Those federal judges who oversaw this and ruled on its behalf must need to go to your Bonners Ferry law school, I guess.
Ummm....sure? If a judge found it to be legal, guess what? It would be legal. Do you even know what legal means? There seems to be a huge group of you here that think "illegal" just means "I don't like it" and "legal" means "I like it". Honestly, do you know what legal and illegal mean? Christ.
And no one's rights were violated. Again, there's a difference between what you think and what the law has decided. No one ever told you that? Just because you think something should be illegal doesn't mean it is. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grapple with? I honestly don't get this. I don't think marijuana should be illegal at all, but I don't go around saying "OMG it's illegal to fine people for smoking it! because that's just plain wrong and nonsensical.
Are you trying to claim that judges cannot break the law also? Really?
You do know that those judges are PEOPLE right? Just as fallible as you or I. Are just as corruptable and prone to breaking the law.
Btw, I didn't go to school in Bonners Ferry. I just live here. You have no idea what my background is.
Do you know what "legal" means? Whether something is legal or not is not dependent on any judge or any group of judges. Something either does not violate the law or it does. And you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the Constitution and what the 4th Amendment says. You only need reading comprehension.
It has nothing to do with what I think should be illegal or not. Fact of the matter is that in order to issue ANY warrant the 4th Amendment states that there must be probable cause.
Amendment IV
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.
Again, I challenge you and anyone else to show me the probable cause for searching my phone records. (I am a verizon customer and have been since before 9/11)
Least oppressive? Are you high?
The US has been very middle of the road, no need to kid yourself. So you care more about the Constitution than you do the American people? Interesting. Not me.
You just give opinions
In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.
On at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Not many countries, if any, were less oppressive until after WWII. If you think otherwise, tell me which countries are or were less oppressive.
Not only that, our system has been able to evolve without as much instability and violence as most nations.
The odds of a terrorist attack impacting any particular individual are extremely slim, even if we experienced as many attacks as a place like Israel. I'll take that one in a million or less risk over letting the government know who I'm calling and e-mailing.
lol no. Did I say that? Or did you make that up?
Okay? What does that have to do with you saying that something is illegal that has not been declared illegal? Is this the United States of Kal'Stang now?
lol no, legal depends upon the legislative branch (Patriot Act, in this case) and then, when challenged, is either upheld by the judicial branch or isn't. When it comes to warrants, if a judge approves it, it's "legal". Did you know that, Your Honor? What you're talking about is whether something is constitutional or not, and unless you're Scalia or something, that's not within your purview either.
You just give opinions, do you understand? You give opinions to your friends and people on the internet. At no point to you dictate what is and isn't legal or constitutional. I'm sorry.
A FISA judge was presented with something that someone said was probable cause. The judge agreed, and several judges have agreed for almost a decade now. The probable cause is classified and no one would give you a clearance in the state you're in now, so you won't see it until it's declassified.
That doesn't make anything illegal, though, sadly for you. You just don't like it. Keep in mind the difference.
Hey, I have an idea! Why not sue them and take it to court! Then you can find out!
Britain. Canada. So it's clearly not just the constitution.
By claiming that these judges did not violate the 4th amendment and that what they did was legal, yes, you are saying that.
The point was to show you that judges can make illegal decisions also. Or was that too hard to understand?
No, legal does not depend on the legislative branch after a law is made.
And the Patriot Act cannot trump the 4th Amendment as the Patriot Act is not an Amendment to the Constitution.
Parts of the Patriot Act have already been shot down due to those parts violating the 4th Amendment.
That alone should be evidence enough to you that the 4th Amendment trumps the Patriot Act.
Nope, I have given facts. None of which you have debunked yet.
In otherwords you have no evidence of any probable cause to search my phone records. Hell, you can't even think of any lol.
LOL! You apparently know nothing of history or current events.
lol kal'stang. Quick, what does the word legal mean?
I can gauruntee you that it is not what you think it means.
A FISA judge was presented with something that someone said was probable cause. The judge agreed, and several judges have agreed for almost a decade now. The probable cause is classified and no one would give you a clearance in the state you're in now, so you won't see it until it's declassified.
That doesn't make anything illegal, though, sadly for you. You just don't like it. Keep in mind the difference.
Hey, I have an idea! Why not sue them and take it to court! Then you can find out!
You can't even guarantee me you know how to spell guarantee.
There is no way that any reasonable suspicion/probable cause can be justified for monitoring the entire nation.