• 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

Apocalypse said:
I'm glad we are in agreement.
Click to expand...

K. But the FBI has already shown the willingness to break the law to get what they want. So first, shouldn't we deal with that before we grant them more power against our rights?
 
Ikari said:
K. But the FBI has already shown the willingness to break the law to get what they want. So first, shouldn't we deal with that before we grant them more power against our rights?
Click to expand...
It should have its consequences.

And I wouldn't call it "power", but flexibility.
It is not entirely different, that I know, but the small difference is important.
 
Apocalypse said:
And you are able to understand my position on it from my post, that I'm sure of.
Click to expand...
So little violations are okay in your book.

Funny, I saw no exception in the text of the amendment for minor violations. Did I misread it?
 
Apocalypse said:
It should have its consequences.
Click to expand...
It does have consequences. It's called the Exclusionary Rule. Perhaps we should start enforcing the consequences?
 
Among those whose phone records were searched improperly were journalists for The Washington Post and the New York Times, according to interviews with government officials.
Click to expand...

Well, not to defend the FBI's actions, but The NY Times and WaPo could easily be mistaken for terrorist enabling cells.;)

.
 
Coronado said:
It does have consequences. It's called the Exclusionary Rule. Perhaps we should start enforcing the consequences?
Click to expand...
While keeping relevance to the level of severity of the committed violation, yes.
 
Apocalypse said:
It should have its consequences.

And I wouldn't call it "power", but flexibility.
It is not entirely different, that I know, but the small difference is important.
Click to expand...

Ok. Well I think we can take the position that until there are consequences for their actions, we don't entertain the notion of granting them more power.
 
Ikari said:
Ok. Well I think we can take the position that until there are consequences for their actions, we don't entertain the notion of granting them more power.
Click to expand...
I have no opposition to that.
 
Apocalypse said:
While keeping relevance to the level of severity of the committed violation, yes.
Click to expand...
How will you know if there is a violation by the defendant prior to the verdict?
 
Apocalypse said:
Because I acknowledge the differences in the levels of severity between the two respected cases.
Click to expand...
Why do you do so? In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
 
Coronado said:
How will you know if there is a violation by the defendant prior to the verdict?
Click to expand...
If the law has been violated, and the 'defendant' has been found guilty, then the punishment would be in accordance with the severity of the violation.
As in any other violation of the law.
 
Apocalypse said:
If the law has been violated, and the 'defendant' has been found guilty, then the punishment would be in accordance with the severity of the violation.
As in any other violation of the law.
Click to expand...
So the defendant gets a lesser sentence because the government collected evidence improperly?
 
Coronado said:
Why do you do so? In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
Click to expand...
Both are wrong, one worse than the other.

Taking a phone record is a minor violation of a person's privacy, monitoring a person is a major one.
 
Coronado said:
So the defendant gets a lesser sentence because the government collected evidence improperly?
Click to expand...
Please elaborate, what do you mean by "collected evidence improperly"?
 
Apocalypse said:
Please elaborate, what do you mean by "collected evidence improperly"?
Click to expand...
Let's say the government monitored phone calls without a warrant and in violation of all the relevant statutes on wiretapping.
 
Coronado said:
Let's say the government monitored phone calls without a warrant and in violation of all the relevant statutes on wiretapping.
Click to expand...

Then the case against the defendant is dropped.
 
Coronado said:
Let's say the government monitored phone calls without a warrant and in violation of all the relevant statutes on wiretapping.
Click to expand...
Then the violation is way bigger than taking a phone record, and should have severe consequences, in accordance to the act.
 
Apocalypse said:
Then the violation is way bigger than taking a phone record, and should have severe consequences, in accordance to the act.
Click to expand...
Whose violation, the defendant's or the government's?
 
Redress said:
Nothing like an emotional appeal exploiting the victims of 9/11.
Click to expand...


Thank you so much. I almost replied to their statement but couldn't find words without getting upset. I like most will remember 9-11. But let it rest people. To use one of the worst days in our history as a excuse to invade other nations, hate other religons, justify loss of privacy, use as a campaign platform ever election and so on really gets my blood boiling. I have said and will always believe, 9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to Bush and his cronies. His popularity was sagging before but after he was able to push through the Repubs Republo-fascist agandas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom