• 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!

Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

  • Yes[because email was not around with the 4th amendment was written,nor is it actual property)

    Votes: 1 2.3%

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

    Votes: 39 88.6%

  • Maybe/I do not know.

    Votes: 4 9.1%
  • Total voters
    44
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?


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

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

Maybe/I do not know.

4th amendment
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.


Yahoo, Feds Battle Over E-Mail Privacy | Threat Level | Wired.com
Yahoo and federal prosecutors in Colorado are embroiled in a privacy battle that’s testing whether the Constitution’s warrant requirements apply to Americans’ e-mail.
 
Last edited:
Hell no.

The only way the government should be able to read someone else's e-mail is if they are indicted or arrested for a crime, while following the judicial paths set about by the courts.

There has to be at least probable reason to suspect that privileged information is being shared, or it's easily unconstitutional.
 
jamesrage said:
Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?


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

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

Maybe/I do not know.

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.


Yahoo, Feds Battle Over E-Mail Privacy | Threat Level | Wired.com
Yahoo and federal prosecutors in Colorado are embroiled in a privacy battle that’s testing whether the Constitution’s warrant requirements apply to Americans’ e-mail.
Click to expand...
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIwlmEN08E8"]YouTube- Rockwell - I Always Feel Like (Somebody's Watching Me) LYRICS![/nomedia]

Peace
 
jamesrage said:

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

No(because the 4th amendment applies to today just as it did back then when it was written))
Click to expand...
I am -sure- that all of the anti-gun liberals that believe the 2nd amednment doesn't cover assault rifles becase there was no such thing back in 1791 will be quick to choose YES.

I have list, and will compare...
 
There is a reason we have a 4th amendment...
 
jamesrage said:
Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?


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

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

Maybe/I do not know.

4th amendment
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.


Yahoo, Feds Battle Over E-Mail Privacy | Threat Level | Wired.com
Yahoo and federal prosecutors in Colorado are embroiled in a privacy battle that’s testing whether the Constitution’s warrant requirements apply to Americans’ e-mail.
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant. The government (current administration) has stated that cell phone calls, text messages, and anything sent via wireless is subject to monitoring.
 
Pretty sure the NSA is already doing this, or something like it... Cell phones too

Video Here: FRONTLINE: spying on the home front | PBS

Click "Watch the Full Program Online" on the right.

Pretty messed up.:shock::shock::shock:
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Can anyone say Patriot Act?
Click to expand...

Patriot Act! :doh

To be honest I'm not THAT concerned about them reading my Emails or cell phone messages. I don't say anything incriminating, nor do I partake in or talk about anything illegal. But I am concerned that they would misinterpret something I say and create their own meaning out of it... then disrupt my life with their misguided notions.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
I am -sure- that all of the anti-gun liberals that believe the 2nd amendment doesn't cover assault rifles becase there was no such thing back in 1791 will be quick to choose YES.

I have list, and will compare...
Click to expand...
I am one of the so-called anti-gun Liberals.
eMail opens up a new Pandora's box.....I choose " I do not know."
Lets forget about guns, rifles, and 1791.
The year is 2010, and apparently we have problems.
Anything can be used as a weapon, guns(naturally), water(boarding), and eMail.
So as usual, man is misbehaving and this brings on more rules and regulations - to the dismay of Libertarians and tea-baggers...
I think our government should be able to monitor "public mail" when crime suspicions exist..
But, there must be oversight.
 
earthworm said:
I am one of the so-called anti-gun Liberals.
eMail opens up a new Pandora's box.....I choose " I do not know."
Lets forget about guns, rifles, and 1791.
The year is 2010, and apparently we have problems.
Anything can be used as a weapon, guns(naturally), water(boarding), and eMail.
So as usual, man is misbehaving and this brings on more rules and regulations - to the dismay of Libertarians and tea-baggers...
I think our government should be able to monitor "public mail" when crime suspicions exist..
But, there must be oversight.
Click to expand...
Warrant = oversight.

Problem solved.
 
Goobieman said:
I am -sure- that all of the anti-gun liberals that believe the 2nd amednment doesn't cover assault rifles becase there was no such thing back in 1791 will be quick to choose YES.

I have list, and will compare...
Click to expand...

Who told you that? All these pre-conceived notions do nothing but advance your misguided mistrust of the other side. Frankly you're doing yourself a disservice by backing yourself into a corner. Can't we all just get along?:2grouphug

For the record I am against average citizens owning assault rifles, but am also against the Patriot Act and tracking Emails.

You're keeping a list? Forget the NSA... what's your deal? Looks like your comparison will be quick... no one's voted "yes" yet. :rofl

You better add me to this "anti-gun" list of yours.
 
Last edited:
Hell No! I am starting to think it is sad that we even have this kind of question or issue in this country:(
 
E-mail accounts are property of the provider, and those providers can technically read your e-mails without your permission because the contents are on their servers. So to me this has more to do with the rights of the providers to not be searched.

Why is your government so hell bent on getting the go-ahead to do so many things without a warrant?
 
Jucon said:
Who told you that? All these pre-conceived notions do nothing but advance your misguided mistrust of the other side. Frankly you're doing yourself a disservice by backing yourself into a corner. Can't we all just get along?:2grouphug

For the record I am against average citizens owning assault rifles, but am also against the Patriot Act and tracking Emails.

You're keeping a list? Forget the NSA... what's your deal? Looks like your comparison will be quick... no one's voted "yes" yet. :rofl

You better add me to this "anti-gun" list of yours.
Click to expand...
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.
 

No. Privacy should not be infringed upon without just cause.

 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

And pro-gun loons like to use the "guns are guns and they are all covered by the 2nd amendment" as a reason to justify owning any and every type of weapon. So surely they would love for non-convicted gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to be able to own AK-47s and gatling guns.

See what I'm doing? I'm supposing a group's ideals to blindly label them. Does that make what I said right? No

Again I say, how about we trying understanding the other sides (and individuals from said sides) before labeling them?

I'm sure the Tea Partiers get pretty pissed when non-conservative news outlets label them as crazies and uneducated... what gives you the right to label liberals? Just because we have the right to free speech doesn't mean what we say is always true.

Keep that in mind when watching Fox News and MSNBC, arguably the most right and left news outlets. In fact, keep that in mind when getting any type of news.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Care to point me out the specific provision giving authorization for wanton warrantless email monitoring in the PATRIOT Act?
Click to expand...

Watch the documentary I posted in this thread.
 
Jucon said:
And pro-gun loons like to use the "guns are guns and they are all covered by the 2nd amendment" as a reason to justify owning any and every type of weapon.
Click to expand...


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.


So surely they would love for non-convicted gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to be able to own AK-47s and gatling guns.
Click to expand...
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.

See what I'm doing? I'm supposing a group's ideals to blindly label them. Does that make what I said right?
Again I say, how about we trying understanding the other sides (and individuals from said sides) before labeling them?
Click to expand...


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'm sure the Tea Partiers get pretty pissed when non-conservative news outlets label them as crazies and uneducated.
Click to expand...

I am not a tea party protester or member.

What gives you the right to label liberals?
Click to expand...
1st amendment. The same right liberals have.
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

We didn't have guns/arms in 1776?
 
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
 
F107HyperSabr said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
repeter said:
We didn't have guns/arms in 1776?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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