View Poll Results: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes[because email was not around with the 4th amendment was written,nor is it actual property)

    2 3.77%
  • No(because the 4th amendment applies to today just as it did back then when it was written)

    47 88.68%
  • Maybe/I do not know.

    4 7.55%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

  1. #21
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Usually anti 2nd amendment loons like to use the "they didn't have those in 1776" as a reason for infringing on 2nd amendment rights.So surely they would apply that logic to other rights as well.
    We didn't have guns/arms in 1776?
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  2. #22
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Now I am surprised that question no. 1 hasn't recieved many votes since we seem to have a sizable cabal of TEA partiers here. Considering the fact that they want to take our country "back" from the rest of us and return to 1789 they would really like this option =

    "Yes(because the email was not around when the 4th amendment was written,nor is it tangible).

    But maybe if one of their's was in office now they would feel diferent.

    Ok TP's , YHBT
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  3. #23
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by F107HyperSabr View Post
    Now I am surprised that question no. 1 hasn't recieved many votes since we seem to have a sizable cabal of TEA partiers here. Considering the fact that they want to take our country "back" from the rest of us and return to 1789 they would really like this option =

    "Yes(because the email was not around when the 4th amendment was written,nor is it tangible).

    But maybe if one of their's was in office now they would feel diferent.

    Ok TP's , YHBT
    I think you might be right. People are blind when it comes to their own side doing ****. Its basically the "its okay when our side does it, but bad when your side does it" mentality. For example when supreme court candidates are picked one side bitches and complains that you are not supposed to question a candidate's beliefs and while the other side is questioning to the candidate's and then years later when the other side is control the positions are reverse. But then against a lot of people are not like that and will point it out regardless of the side that is doing it while other people learn from their mistakes once the shoe is on the other foot.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #24
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    We didn't have guns/arms in 1776?
    Of course they had those things in the 1700s, its the machine guns, self-contained round, semi-automatic fire that they did not have and anti-2nd amendment loons like to argue that since they did not have those specific things then the 2nd amendment does not apply to today. Of course while they say that they ignore the fact that they did not have computers, TVs, mass printing presses, the Mormons, the internet, Scientology, cameras, microphones and all sorts of other things.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  5. #25
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If you understood why the 2nd amendment was written you would not be one of those anti-2nd amendment loons who thinks the 2nd amendment should be infringed. Unless you are just totally naive and fully trust the government.




    Don't they already have their hands on those kinds of weapons? Besides if they were easily and legally able to get their hands on those kinds of weapons so would everyone else. SO gangbaging scum(gang banging and scum,yeah I know its two synonymous words together) thrive where the general population can not adequately defend itself.




    Actually your attempt failed because I do think that civilians should be be able to get their hands on what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on. Seeing how one of the reasons the founding forefathers wrote the 2nd amendment is so that the people have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government by force.



    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

    Thomas Jefferson




    I am not a tea party protester or member.


    1st amendment. The same right liberals have.
    You completely missed my point. My post was intended to show you how labeling a group doesn't make you right. I wasn't expressing my own personal beliefs.

    I was simply using an example from a hypothetical misguided anti-gun side's perspective, as your post was an example of a misguided conservative side's perspective.

    And my point is proven because pro-gun owners would not love to see gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to own guns... at least I assume they wouldn't love to see that, as the types I listed should be the last people to own guns... being they are criminals or criminal types.

    My point is also proven by this poll, where no one has voted "yes", even though you assume anti-gun people would vote "yes". Well, I'm not anti-gun, but anti-civilians-owning-automatic-weapons... and I voted "no".
    Last edited by Jucon; 04-17-10 at 03:23 PM.

  6. #26
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jucon View Post
    You completely missed my point. My post was intended to show you how labeling a group doesn't make you right. I wasn't expressing my own personal beliefs

    I was simply using an example from a hypothetical misguided anti-gun side's perspective, as your post was an example of a misguided conservative side's perspective..
    You point did not work because I as most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment do not work and therefore do not see a point in them.



    And my point is proven because pro-gun owners would not love to see gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to own guns... at least I assume they wouldn't love to see that, as the types I listed should be the last people to own guns... being they are criminals or criminal types.
    You point is not proven. Most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that anti-2nd amendment laws do not stop criminals as they are allegedly intended for,they stop law abiding citizens.

    My point is also proven by this poll, where no one has voted "yes", even though you assume anti-gun people would vote "yes". Well, I'm not anti-gun, but anti-civilians-owning-automatic-weapons... and I voted "no".
    Then you are anti-2nd amendment unless of course you are trying to argue that you can advocate hate speech laws and government controlling what you can and can't say and what religion you can be a part of and still be pro-1st amendment. Surely if you support a blatant infringement of one right then the 4th and other other rights are open up to infringements as well.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #27
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    You point did not work because I as most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment do not work and therefore do not see a point in them.





    You point is not proven. Most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that anti-2nd amendment laws do not stop criminals as they are allegedly intended for,they stop law abiding citizens.


    Then you are anti-2nd amendment unless of course you are trying to argue that you can advocate hate speech laws and government controlling what you can and can't say and what religion you can be a part of and still be pro-1st amendment. Surely if you support a blatant infringement of one right then the 4th and other other rights are open up to infringements as well.
    Just like any law, they can easily be broken by those who don't abide by them. Using your argument, there shouldn't be any laws against counterfitting money simply because some get away with it? Or try using the same argument with people who steel other people's identities. Or maybe we shouldn't have safety laws in the work place simply because some ignore those rules because they are too expensive? I don't think so...

    The way I look at it, people SHOULD be allowed guns because they deserve the right to protect themselves and their property, and should be able to form a militia if they believe the government is becoming too tyrannical. HOWEVER, I am 100% against people overthrowing the government when they have misguided notions about the government and those who support the government (i.e. people who think that limiting people's gun owning rights also translates to wanting to limit people's free speech and all the other rights). Sure there are some who want to limit people's free speech, but they are an insignificant minority. The majority believes that, hate speech or not, misguided beliefs or not, EVERYONE deserves the right to say and think what they want. And I am one of these people. You deserve the right to go around believing that liberals only want to take away all your rights... I am simply trying to show you that you're believing a falsehood. If liberals wanted to take away people's rights to free speech, they would also be advocating to have their own rights to free speech to be taken away (i.e. their right to spew hate speech about conservatives... or their right to hate Bush / Cheney).

    The major difference between gun owning rights and the other rights is that with guns, people can kill other people... more easily than with knives or other melee weapons. By allowing everyone to own machine guns, you unintentionally are enabling violent people to own those same guns... and then EVERYONE will NEED to buy guns for protection out of fear. Even then, we will not be safe from these violent people. Sure these violent people are a tiny minority of the population, but it doesn't take much to put this country into fear mode. Forgive me for enjoying not having to worry about mass murders like we are seeing in Mexico. The weapon of choice to cause fear and mayhem would be the machine gun.

  8. #28
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Care to point me out the specific provision giving authorization for wanton warrantless email monitoring in the PATRIOT Act?
    Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the ability of the FBI to use NSL's, or National Security Letters.

    One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[132] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[133] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[134] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act]USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Under Title 4: Border Security, last paragraph.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Hmm, from the looks of it:

    The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[133] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[134] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.
    Why look...

    It appears the Patriot does not allow for that. It did however to suggest, as you did earlier, that it somehow DOES allow for it is misleading and a dishonest.

    This would be like suggesting, concerning a story about someone not being afforded habeus corpus rights, saying "Can anyone say Abe Lincoln. Or when having a discussion about imprisoning a story about american citizens being prepared to be rounded up going "Can anyone say Executive Order 9066".

    Replying to a current story using alarmist language about something in the past doesn't really do anything. The PATRIOT does not do as you were implying in your original post, not any longer and even previously in arguably a far from as wanton way as was being implied in this thread.

    So, I'll ask again, got a specific section of the USA Patriot Act that's currently on the books that backs up your assertion that the NSA Is already doing this by order and power of the Patriot Act?

  10. #30
    Guru
    repeter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 12:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,445

    Re: Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hmm, from the looks of it:

    Why look...

    It appears the Patriot does not allow for that. It did however to suggest, as you did earlier, that it somehow DOES allow for it is misleading and a dishonest.

    This would be like suggesting, concerning a story about someone not being afforded habeus corpus rights, saying "Can anyone say Abe Lincoln. Or when having a discussion about imprisoning a story about american citizens being prepared to be rounded up going "Can anyone say Executive Order 9066".

    Replying to a current story using alarmist language about something in the past doesn't really do anything. The PATRIOT does not do as you were implying in your original post, not any longer and even previously in arguably a far from as wanton way as was being implied in this thread.

    So, I'll ask again, got a specific section of the USA Patriot Act that's currently on the books that backs up your assertion that the NSA Is already doing this by order and power of the Patriot Act?
    I really don't know what you're talking about...in the last sentence of what you quoted, it said the following:

    However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.
    Now, whether the NSA, FBI, etc. have continued to use NSL's, I don't know, but I would think they would, simply because of the simplicity of using them. They're just efficient.

    And please don't think I'm against using the NSL's, they just cut the crap, and let our intelligence agencies do what they should be doing anyway. I personally don't care if the NSA looks through my emails, or hacks my facebook, or whatever, I have nothing to hide.
    Last edited by repeter; 04-18-10 at 12:34 AM.
    Veni. Vidi. Vici.
    -Gaius Julius Caesar
    The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
    -Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •