Reply With Quote
Obviously the police should be able to tag any swarthy looking ferriner's vehicle with a GPS unit because they could be a terrorist, drug dealer, or a Democrat.
If it's inevitable, then go on living your life until it comes. There is far too much emphasis on removing risk from life in these United States as it is.
Obviously the police should be able to tag any swarthy looking ferriner's vehicle with a GPS unit because they could be a terrorist, drug dealer, or a Democrat.
If you say so, but I would disagree.
We, the inheritors of this magnificent governing arrangement, have done our damnedest to piss it away. As long as a mass of the population can drink beer (or wine), eat something fried (or green), watch football (or PBS), and drive American (or something European) they don't really give a what the state claims at the expense of their rights.
As long as the people can be scared, they will surrender their liberty with ease.
Gems like that are why I keep coming back to this typically shallow gene pool of intellectual thought.
It was first reported in 2005. Do you know when it started? Does it matter when it started?
I didn't.
No, you're apologizing.
What you do is irrelevant. We're discussing losing our cons utional guarantees to privacy, not if you're a boy scout.
I'm not applying anything. I was under the impression we agreed that the 4th amendment is part of the cons ution and that the executive is not above it.
Why bring up point-and-shoot then? If you agree the comparison is re ed, then keep it to yourself.
Is that your answer for 'Why does the police force requests arrests warrants all the time?'... Just stop with the strawman and either answer the question or simply tell me you don't know.
Which makes those scaring the people the automatic winners. It's really amazing how this escape some people.
You know more about cons utional law than a judge?
I'm going to entertain this, even if it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.
If the police reviews a tape of the robbery 2 hours later, do they need a warrant to go arrest the robber at his residence?
Elnono, when you stop acting like Chump, and respond to my pointed answers about the details, without spinning, we can continue this. When you throw my words back to me, and ask question far off from what I stated already, then you are no better than Chump.
Bye.
You should be ashamed of throwing the fourth amendment argument back at me like you did.
My answers on this have been clear. If you refuse to acknowledge what I previously said on the issue, then you can go yourself.I'm not applying anything. I was under the impression we agreed that the 4th amendment is part of the cons ution and that the executive is not above it.
Run Lola Run...
Yeh right.Run Lola Run...
One last thing, and why you are pissing me off.
I have very well explained my stance of the 4th amendment. You either have not taken me at my work, completely ignored my words, or don't understand.
It is you who are running by pretending my stance if different than it is, so I'm done with your sorry ass Chump.
the dead enders are a bit sensitive tonight
Your stance is clear as a day.
Wrong, but clear as day.
Then stop mischaracterizing it. Doing so means you have no intent of debate, but just want to piss me off. No point to continue then, is there.
What is there to debate when you succinctly claim that you don't know what you're talking about?
And it wasn't me that was running away from this thread. If you want to debate, then be prepared to be challenged in your opinions and assumptions.
When you intentionally misconstrue my words, I say you! What do you expect?
You know as well as anyone, this debate did not stick to the OP. I don't know all the facts behind the OP, but I can assume the FBI did exceed it's bounds, by the ruling.
Like all threads, we tend to go off on tangents.
I was arguing in general, my views on the 4th.
The E-Mail issue also came up.
Now if you are unwilling to address these individually, but insist of misconstruing my words between them, then again. You!
I quoted you every time I replied to you. I answered your propositions, even if they were completely unrelated to privacy, which is what we're discussing here.
See, the problem is not that your stance is now known or unclear.
Nobody misconstrued anything you said. We merely pointed out what the fallacies on your stance are, and you got all pissy about it.
What you think it's clear as a day. It's completely wrong, but clear as a day.
Very substantive. You just exhale intellect. Is this the kind of debate you had in mind?
When you mix up my distinction between executive power, and that of the federal, state, and local law enforcements, there is no point in debating you.
Run Lola Run...
If I'm running, it's because I don't have tall enough boots for your .
Do your understand the distinction I make between executive power, and the laws that law enforcement operate under. Yes or no.
I do. And I pointed out repeatedly that your view on executive power is obviously flawed, and your view on the laws that law enforcement operate under is also flawed. It's most likely due to your own admission that you really don't know what it's cons utionally legal or not. Which really begs the question if you shouldn't be trying to educating yourself on things you want to debate about before you actually debate about them.
But do you at least agree I make distinction between them?
I only said I don't know in regards to the data mining and the FBI case in the OP. After reading the PDF file, I agree the FBI was clearly out of bounds. I see the data mining as a gray area for two reasons. Not enough facts are known, and even then, the distinction as to where we separate unreasonable and reasonable is very subjective at times. I mentioned that the user agreements matter. You continue to argue against everything but my points. I specifically said that these providers cannot be compelled to give up the data without a warrant. I may have used subpoena, or both.
I otherwise never claimed ignorance to the fourth. Your portrayal of such is an insult to my intelligence. To twist my words is showing that you don't want a reasonable debate. I have specifically said that federal, state, and local law enforcement must follow the laws congress hands down and court precedent. I have specifically said that the executive branch is not beholden to congressional law. It seems to me that you, think congress can tie the hands of the executive branch.
You just refuse to see what I said in what perspective. What twisted part in in wants to increase the flames?
I never claimed that you did not. I actually debated you on both. I don't even know how that escapes you.
There's nothing grey about conducting an investigation when a judge is involved and a warrant issued. That's why the decision of what's reasonable or not is normally left to the judicial, and not arbitrarily determined by law enforcement (with clear and concise exemptions). That's what check and balances is all about.
As far as data mining goes, since the introduction of the Patriot act, and as far as email is concerned, there's no need for a warrant or a subpoena anymore. I do personally would like to see the Patriot Act and other laws that reduced that standard done away with, and requiring warrants again to allow access to such do ents. Unfortunately, the idea that we should adjust our interpretation of what the cons ution dictates are our personal privacy rights based on the contemporary boogeyman takes further away from that goal.
Your understanding of the 4th amendment is entirely built in your own ideas of how it should be interpreted, as opposed to years of jurisprudence determining how it's indeed interpreted. When you do that, the one insulting everybody's else intelligence is you, not me.
And your interpretation of executive power is just as flawed. Under your interpretation of executive power, Congress is irrelevant. A President could merely govern using Presidential Orders. A quick look at Executive Order 10340 should tell you that the Executive cannot make law. Furthermore, Article 2 clearly states that Congress is indeed in charge of impeaching the officers of the executive branch under certain cir stances.
I see what you said. As I said numerous times, your stance on this issue is, however wrong, clear as day.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
