• 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!

FBI broke law for years in phone record searches

Ikari said:
And you're free to agree to it. Just don't make me agree along with you. I will hold the government to the law and to the Constitution. They'll have to respect my rights and liberties, acting accordingly. I'm not going to consent to their search and seizure of my information, my effects and papers, without proper warrant first.
Click to expand...

You'll do it and like it!...:rofl
 
Ikari said:
Them's the breaks of freedom my friend.
Click to expand...
A minor break of freedom, and yes, it should be pointed out (once again) that the law is above everyone.

I did suggest to try and partially-legalize the act, to a degree where the FBI gets more support from the law.
 
apdst said:
You'll do it and like it!...:rofl
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrpx4NAtsFQ"]YouTube- You'll Get Nothing and Like It[/ame]
 
The law is for every one, not just for some. If, as it appears, law enforcement is not following the law, this is a problem and has to be corrected. How benign the violation is, or how worthy the cause is entirely irrelevant. We are, and should remain, a nation of laws.
 
Apocalypse said:
I mean like potential threats.
The FBI know who their suspects are.
Click to expand...
Are you really trying to assert that the FBI considered NYT and WP reporters as "suspect or a potential threat?"
 
Apocalypse said:
Nope.
.
Click to expand...
Okay, then where were you going with this?
Apocalypse said:
Not to mention that the call history is only taken if the FBI considers you a suspect or a potential threat.

...

I mean like potential threats.
The FBI know who their suspects are.
Click to expand...
Because the original article clearly stated that Washington Post and New York Times reporters were searched improperly.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Okay, then where were you going with this?

Because the original article clearly stated that Washington Post and New York Times reporters were searched improperly.
Click to expand...
Where was I going with my statement that the FBI searches the phone record of suspects and potential threats?
I wasn't going anywhere, there's no hidden part in that statement.

Was I trying to assert that the specific journalists were seen as potential threats/suspects by the FBI?
Nope, that would not be my assertion, and my post was not made in order to present the situation as such.
 
apdst said:
Until someone slips through the cracks and frags a few hundred people. Then, you'll wondering why no one tried to stop them.
Click to expand...

False ditchotomy much?

It is certainly not a matter as dire as this choice makes it seem.
 
Last edited:
illegal phone record searches certainly helped them interdict a terrorist who's own father indicated his danger.

all this illegal bull**** hasn't made us safer at all because it's carried out by idiots.
 
Apocalypse said:
Contrary to popular belief, it is not really easy for the FBI (or any other law-enforcing institution) to receive a warrant from the court.
It requires a difficult procedure, as any other appeal to the court.

And at investigations when time is essential, it might have been a contributing decision, while law-violating, to take the call record without a warrant.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt its that hard for the FBI. Surely there a Judge or two that works in close enough proximity to key FBI persons that a warrant can be obtained. Also the old law said they could get a warrant upto 72 hrs AFTER they tapped. A warrant helps track who was tapped and why. Someone stated call history wasn't a big deal. Losing Freedoms, even small ones is a big deal. Why? Because often times a lost freedom started out small with good intentions but grew.....
 
Binary_Digit said:
Are you really trying to assert that the FBI considered NYT and WP reporters as "suspect or a potential threat?"
Click to expand...

NYT reporters have illegally released classified info, so yes, I would say that they might fall into the category of, "suspect, or potential threat".
 
pugetsoundwa said:
I seriously doubt its that hard for the FBI. Surely there a Judge or two that works in close enough proximity to key FBI persons that a warrant can be obtained. Also the old law said they could get a warrant upto 72 hrs AFTER they tapped. A warrant helps track who was tapped and why. Someone stated call history wasn't a big deal. Losing Freedoms, even small ones is a big deal. Why? Because often times a lost freedom started out small with good intentions but grew.....
Click to expand...
The procedure requires looking into each case for itself.
It takes time for the court to give away the warrant, even if it would approve it most of the times.

As to the other part, there is the freedom to live your life in security and not to be threatened by others.
It is actually one of, if not the most, important freedoms of the individual.
 
Apocalypse said:
The procedure requires looking into each case for itself.
It takes time for the court to give away the warrant, even if it would approve it most of the times.

As to the other part, there is the freedom to live your life in security and not to be threatened by others.
It is actually one of, if not the most, important freedoms of the individual.
Click to expand...

And government intrusion on privacy is a breach of security.
 
apdst said:
Tell that to the 9/11 families.
Click to expand...

I wasn't asking them, answer the damn question, stop dodging and some up with a real response. :doh
 
marduc said:
And government intrusion on privacy is a breach of security.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's a breach of privacy, a much smaller threat than the breach of security.

Know your rights, buddy. ;)
 
Travelsonic said:
I wasn't asking them, answer the damn question, stop dodging and some up with a real response. :doh
Click to expand...

I did give you a real response. If you don't like it, then I don't know what to tell you.
 
marduc said:
And government intrusion on privacy is a breach of security.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of the Liberals were up-n-arms when Helen Kelly violated Joe The Plumber's 4th Amendment rights.
 
Apocalypse said:
As to the other part, there is the freedom to live your life in security and not to be threatened by others.
It is actually one of, if not the most, important freedoms of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's what guns are for.
 
Apocalypse said:
Nope, it's a breach of privacy, a much smaller threat than the breach of security.

Know your rights, buddy. ;)
Click to expand...

If the government oversteps its bounds and intrudes in my life and my privacy it is both a threat and a source of insecurity.

This is why there is this silly thing here in the U.S. that we decided to call our ahem.. Bill of Rights, they mention something about illegal search and seizure security and all.

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom