PrismmmMMMMmmmm, good! NOT!

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Says the person who has never been to a security brief.

There is absolutely nothing that a security brief could tell me that would make me change my mind about the Fourth Amendment. Also, Obama had those briefs prior to his administration and yet he still said he didn't support any of it.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution restrict government searches and seizures. The amendment reads:

“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.”

Ron Paul has been in those meetings and he's saying the same thing.


I guess some of you are OK with doing away with the Fourth Amendment completely. We might as well. The whole "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't care" mentality should also apply to your home. Well ****, let the cops and government come search your house at will because....after all, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't care. But..but ...that's different. No, no it's not, which is exactly why our founding fathers put that in place.


Also, to think that the government wouldn't use this against political enemies is laughable to say the least. Surely they wouldn't use the IRS to target peo.....oh wait. I'm sure many other agencies have been used to target political enemies as well, and now you want to give them access to your person life. God damn this country and its people have gone to shit. They've bought into this warped mentality that the government is doing what's right for the people and you should sit back and let them go unquestioned and unchecked.

[firstdown]

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

I understand that they are just collecting meta-data, not full content, from everyone. IMO Nonetheless my answer to your question is, "No. It is not ok to collect the meta-data." IMO such flies directly in the face of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, regardless of what the letter of legal precedent might say.

More galling for me is that it was both Bush and Obama who did this. The problem is with the Executive branch, not a particular President.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The problem is with the Executive branch, not a particular President.

No the problem is a citizenry not responsible enough to hold its leaders accountable for their actions. We get the government we deserve.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm torn on this issue. Where do you draw the line? If they are truly just tracking questionable contacts from outside the country then that might not be so bad. If I'm receiving the contacts I would think they would also start tracking me. We just had this administration abusing its power (IRS scandle) so why should we believe them on this issue.

i didnt know that was linked to the WH .. . i thought it was a couple employees at an IRS office in Ohio who pulled the tea party files bc it represented a new type of tax group that they wanted add'l instructions on how to handle the files ... employees who are registered republicans.

re. the NSA and the conservative republican stance = i find it very funny and hypocritical for conservatives to act appalled and lay blame squarely at pres obamas feet when they were the ones waiving the "its a matter of national security" when the patriot act came up for renewal or other top secret programs the bush admin didnt make known to the public ....

repub pres = matter of nat'l security, none of our biz, the price we pay for protecting our land from others

dem pres = scandal of nixon-esque proportions in which our pres is intentionally trampling our constitutional rights in a covert and planned operation to take our guns from us to allow a smooth socialist military take over!

[RedskinRat]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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).

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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>

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

....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.

[NC_Skins]

Good News! You're Not Paranoid - Taking Sides - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 06/11/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central



In Just A Few Hours, A Bunch Of People Plan To 'Troll The NSA' Online - Yahoo! Finance