PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!

I think it started with the whole judicial system and went onto data collection.

Who knows. Who cares

truth

I think it started with the whole judicial system and went onto data collection.

Who knows. Who cares

I CARE!! It's the offseason and, apparently, it's either this or Tebow. Delving into the validity of a semi-tangential comment in an obscure parking lot thread is emminently more interesting than discussing the possibility of a marginal player making the roster as 3rd QB on a team I don't particularly like.

It's been said before and will again ad nauseum in the next 6 weeks: I HATE THE OFFSEASON.

If they have this much awesome technical firepower, how do things like Boston happen? Particularly given that they were also warned by the Russians and the Saudis.

It's like John Stewart said on his bit about this stuff - When the govt. wants to do something evil and bad, it works with incredible power and efficiency. When it tries to do good things, it bumbles about like a blind, drunk, multi-armed bufoon in a china shop. (or something to that effect).

It's like John Stewart said on his bit about this stuff - When the govt. wants to do something evil and bad, it works with incredible power and efficiency. When it tries to do good things, it bumbles about like a blind, drunk, multi-armed bufoon in a china shop. (or something to that effect).

So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?

So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?

<FACEPALM>

Never, never, NEVER ask for JR's opinion! Have you learned NOTHING!

He's all in favor as it drums up more business. But we'll get a 20 page legalese diatribe on the topic now.

Eff the offseason! <shakes fist at sky>

So what's your legal take on the government shredding the Constitutions 4th Amendment?

My "legal" take is that the Prez. has some very creative lawyers who have taken something that was intended to be a small doorway for rational use and driven a bulldozer or two through it to broaden it beyond any original intent. I believe it will take some equally creative lawyering to oppose it - the public security argument carries lots of weight.

I am with you. Freedom requires risk. Unfortunately, we are becoming such a risk averse society that individual liberty falls by the wayside.

<FACEPALM>

Never, never, NEVER ask for JR's opinion! Have you learned NOTHING!

He's all in favor as it drums up more business. But we'll get a 20 page legalese diatribe on the topic now.

Eff the offseason! <shakes fist at sky>

Oh ye of little faith.

I have no problem with them tracking a particular citizen if they obtained a warrant and went about it the legal way. Just collecting ALL information from citizens is well beyond criminal.

I actually agree with your basic sentiments...I was just poking the bear a little. BUT...your misinformed on this. They are not "Just collecting ALL information from citizens". Far from it. Aren't they collecting the meta-data? I sthat ok? Not sure either...but it isn't the full content.

....the public security argument carries lots of weight.


Only if they can prove it's working, which they can easily sidestep by saying "We'd love to tell you but we'd have to kill you" kind of thing.

This Administration has been really quick to 'inadvertently' let slip their awesomeness, not so good on taking responsibility for the FUBARS.

^^ When I say it carries a lot of weight, I mean in legal precedence. The Judicial branch give great deference to excutive branch's assertions that public security required certain actions. Particularly when the legislative branch created laws which ostensibly permit the executive to take the actions under scrutiny.