• 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

No one ever died from a waterboarding, either. But that doesn't answer my question.
Alright, let me rephrase then, no one has ever got hurt from a frisk.
The point of the Bill of Rights is to put government in its proper bounds, as to the Founders the government was the security risk.
The people are always at risk that the government would go out of its boundaries and become tyrannical, or at least less-democratic, but who in heavens has decided that this risk would be labeled a "security risk"?

It could just as well be an economical risk for all I care, depends on where the boundaries are being crossed, and when referring to this specific case - we are talking about a privacy risk.
 
That's cause I've made it clear I disagree with your proposal.

This action itself shows we shouldn't give the government MORE power, because they will always reach for a bit more.

They were limited in how they could do these, they broke those rules and regulations.

And we're supposed to believe though that if we then make that legal that they won't reach and break more rules and regulations to do something even worse?

And on, and on, and on.

No, the benefit of this is little and not worth continuing down the slippery slope not to mention the idiotic and ignorant brainwashing of people that its okay to continually over and over again give up privacy in the name of "security" by Big Nanny State Government.

The precedence does not need to be set.
 
Alright, let me rephrase then, no one has ever got hurt from a frisk.
The degree of physical pain and/or discomfort is irrelevant.
The people are always at risk that the government would go out of its boundaries and become tyrannical, or at least less-democratic, but who in heavens has decided that this risk would be labeled a "security risk"?
Probably people who have been falsely accused by the government using unconstitutional tactics.
It could just as well be an economical risk for all I care, depends on where the boundaries are being crossed, and when referring to this specific case - we are talking about a privacy risk.
Frame it however you like ... but if you argue it outside the framework of the Forth Amendment, your argument is pointless.
The Bill of Rights said:
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.
 
The degree of physical pain and/or discomfort is irrelevant.Probably people who have been falsely accused by the government using unconstitutional tactics.Frame it however you like ... but if you argue it outside the framework of the Forth Amendment, your argument is pointless.
Once again, the word secure in that paragraph is being taken out of context.
It refers to the people's feeling of safety that their right to privacy would not be violated, not to the people's feeling of safety for their lives and bodies.
 
That's cause I've made it clear I disagree with your proposal.

This action itself shows we shouldn't give the government MORE power, because they will always reach for a bit more.

They were limited in how they could do these, they broke those rules and regulations.

And we're supposed to believe though that if we then make that legal that they won't reach and break more rules and regulations to do something even worse?

And on, and on, and on.

No, the benefit of this is little and not worth continuing down the slippery slope not to mention the idiotic and ignorant brainwashing of people that its okay to continually over and over again give up privacy in the name of "security" by Big Nanny State Government.

The precedence does not need to be set.
It's a minor privacy violation.
Again, keep things in proportion, do not equalize phone record with bigger privacy violations such as my given example of monitoring.
 
Once again, the word secure in that paragraph is being taken out of context.
It refers to the people's feeling of safety that their right to privacy would not be violated, not to the people's feeling of safety for their lives and bodies.
So you agree it is a violation.
 
So you agree it is a violation.
Of the right to privacy, yes, and it would be about the hundredth time I say it in this thread.

Maybe I should just put it in my signature, you know, "the FBI has violated the law by taking phone records without a warrant, they should be accountable for this tyrannical act of pure evil and hatred to the citizens of their nation".

Maybe I should write it in red, you know, to give it more meaning.
 
Of the right to privacy, yes, and it would be about the hundredth time I say it in this thread.

Maybe I should just put it in my signature, you know, "the FBI has violated the law by taking phone records without a warrant, they should be accountable for this tyrannical act of pure evil and hatred to the citizens of their nation".

Maybe I should write it in red, you know, to give it more meaning.
So why are you arguing the point? Is it okay for the FBI to routinely run roughshod over the Bill of Rights?
 
So why are you arguing the point? Is it okay for the FBI to routinely run roughshod over the Bill of Rights?
My proposal was to partially legalize the act in a limited form, not to ignore the fact that this is a violation of the law, in its current form.
 
My proposal was to partially legalize the act in a limited form, not to ignore the fact that this is a violation of the law, in its current form.
What makes you think the FBI would obey that law in view of the fact that they don't obey the laws we already have?
 
It's a minor privacy violation.
Again, keep things in proportion, do not equalize phone record with bigger privacy violations such as my given example of monitoring.

However, its not likely to keep in proportion.

What you are suggesting probably woudln't have even been suggested reasonably a few years back. But we passed legislation to allow them a litle more leeway in the name of security and against the constitution and freedom to deal with terrorism. They then break the law, take even more leeway then we give them, and when they do it you turn around and go "Oh, that's reasonable, lets give them that".

I see no reason not to believe that when we then give them that leeway they won't once again take it, reach even farther once again, and then if it proves at all helpful regardless of the freedom it infringes people like you will go "Oh just give them it".

And repeat

And repeat

At some point you have to stand on principle.
 
what limitation would you impose upon it?
Only when time is a vital factor, and when the suspect is suspected for something bigger than stealing candies from the grocery.
 
What makes you think the FBI would obey that law in view of the fact that they don't obey the laws we already have?
Because the reason they don't obey the current law is because it is restricting them.
 
However, its not likely to keep in proportion.

What you are suggesting probably woudln't have even been suggested reasonably a few years back. But we passed legislation to allow them a litle more leeway in the name of security and against the constitution and freedom to deal with terrorism. They then break the law, take even more leeway then we give them, and when they do it you turn around and go "Oh, that's reasonable, lets give them that".

I see no reason not to believe that when we then give them that leeway they won't once again take it, reach even farther once again, and then if it proves at all helpful regardless of the freedom it infringes people like you will go "Oh just give them it".

And repeat

And repeat

At some point you have to stand on principle.
Principle is that the law is above everyone.
Beyond that you're simply exaggerating.
 
Because the reason they don't obey the current law is because it is restricting them.
Well hell, there's a ton of laws that restrict me. Howzabout if I just break them all until Congress finally changes them? :roll:

That's got to be the dumbest rationale I've read this month.
 
Well hell, there's a ton of laws that restrict me. Howzabout if I just break them all until Congress finally changes them?
That is incomparable, we're speaking here on a body that has to do a specific job, and that job is being restricted.
I'm also not saying that it's okay to violate the law because it restricts you from doing your important job, but suggesting to partially legalize the act in order to come to terms.
That's got to be the dumbest rationale I've read this month.
And here's me thinking that you are actually reading your posts before you post them.
 
That is incomparable, we're speaking here on a body that has to do a specific job, and that job is being restricted.
I'm also not saying that it's okay to violate the law because it restricts you from doing your important job, but suggesting to partially legalize the act in order to come to terms.
You know, the FBI had a **** ton of legally-obtained intel on a certain terrorist act committed in September, 2001. The problem is not that they need more intel; the problem is that they don't read, understand, and/or use the intel they have. Whittling away at my rights won't fix that.
And here's me thinking [...]
That's certainly debatable.
 
That is incomparable, we're speaking here on a body that has to do a specific job, and that job is being restricted.

Of course it is. The government is supposed to be restricted on many fronts, especially when it comes to the rights and liberties of the individual. The government cannot be allowed to run around unrestricted.
 
You know, the FBI had a **** ton of legally-obtained intel on a certain terrorist act committed in September, 2001. The problem is not that they need more intel; the problem is that they don't read, understand, and/or use the intel they have. Whittling away at my rights won't fix that.
While your FBI-bashing is certainly contributing, such a proposal would allow the institution to work better and more effectively, perhaps preventing such mistakes in the future.
That's certainly debatable.
How cute.
That statement is implying that you are capable of debating, while all your arguments are about is personal attacks. :2razz:
 
Of course it is. The government is supposed to be restricted on many fronts, especially when it comes to the rights and liberties of the individual. The government cannot be allowed to run around unrestricted.
I'm glad we are in agreement.
 
While your FBI-bashing is certainly contributing, such a proposal would allow the institution to work better and more effectively, perhaps preventing such mistakes in the future.
Pointing out facts that even the FBI acknowledges is considered "bashing"? That's a unique take.
How cute.
That statement is implying that you are capable of debating, while all your arguments are about is personal attacks. :2razz:
I'm almost sorry about hurting your feelings.

Tell you what: let's just have the FBI install a camera in everyone's bedroom and tap everyone's phones. That would make their job really easy then, right?
 
Pointing out facts that even the FBI acknowledges is considered "bashing"? That's a unique take.
It's not the facts, sir, it's the tone.
I'm almost sorry about hurting your feelings.
Don't be. I have got none.
I am however obliged to inform you of the forum's rules, because, as you may already know... the law is above everyone - and we have to stand on principle. :tongue4:
Tell you what: let's just have the FBI install a camera in everyone's bedroom and tap everyone's phones. That would make their job really easy then, right?
I have already made that example in one of my previous posts here.
 
It's not the facts, sir, it's the tone.
I suggest you learn to deal with it, then.
Don't be. I have got none.
I am however obliged to inform you of the forum's rules, because, as you may already know... the law is above everyone - and we have to stand on principle. :tongue4:
I really can't do my job effectively with all these silly rules. Let's change them!
I have already made that example in one of my previous posts here.
And ... ?
 
I suggest you learn to deal with it, then.
I believe I have.
I really can't do my job effectively with all these silly rules. Let's change them!
Please do keep relavence to the subject, knowing that your job is not to throw personal attacks. :2razz:
And ... ?
And you are able to understand my position on it from my post, that I'm sure of.
 
Back
Top Bottom