- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,583
- Reaction score
- 8,632
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I mean like potential threats.You mean like NYT and WP reporters?
The FBI know who their suspects are.
I mean like potential threats.You mean like NYT and WP reporters?
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.
A minor break of freedom, and yes, it should be pointed out (once again) that the law is above everyone.Them's the breaks of freedom my friend.
You'll do it and like it!...:rofl
Are you really trying to assert that the FBI considered NYT and WP reporters as "suspect or a potential threat?"I mean like potential threats.
The FBI know who their suspects are.
Nope.Are you really trying to assert that the FBI considered NYT and WP reporters as "suspect or a potential threat?"
Okay, then where were you going with this?Nope.
.
Because the original article clearly stated that Washington Post and New York Times reporters were searched improperly.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.
Where was I going with my statement that the FBI searches the phone record of suspects and potential threats?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.
Until someone slips through the cracks and frags a few hundred people. Then, you'll wondering why no one tried to stop them.
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.
False ditchotomy much?
It is certainly not a matter as dire as this choice makes it seem.
Are you really trying to assert that the FBI considered NYT and WP reporters as "suspect or a potential threat?"
Tell that to the 9/11 families.
The procedure requires looking into each case for itself.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.....
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.
Tell that to the 9/11 families.
Nope, it's a breach of privacy, a much smaller threat than the breach of security.And government intrusion on privacy is a breach of security.
I wasn't asking them, answer the damn question, stop dodging and some up with a real response. :doh
I am outraged by this, someone need to go to jail for this now.
And government intrusion on privacy is a breach of security.
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.
Nope, it's a breach of privacy, a much smaller threat than the breach of security.
Know your rights, buddy.
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.