http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...-huge-increaseJustice Department do ents released today by the ACLU reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.
The do ents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney general’s 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power.
really, nobody cares?
Sorry.
I don't believe the ACLU at face value. Can you find a "spin free" version by someone else?
the ACLU sued the government to get the data. you don't believe the government's own records showing the increase in domestic surveillance?
Bush pioneered it, Obama normalized it.
Did you even look at the 12 files the ACLU has attached?
why would the ACLU lie to make the liberal look bad?
what do they say, maestro?
I see.
You didn't.
what do they say?
They have their own agenda which if most often in line with liberals, so they most often work with them. For the most part, they are not really partisan.
so, you reflexively defend power (even Obama) against civil libertarians. why am I not surprised?
Not at all.
I just do not believe what the ACLU has to say.
Many of those do ents show they were court orders.
Again, did you look at them, or are you just an ACLU lemming?
court orders for what, please?
Again.
I see you didn't read them.
I'm not going to read it a second time for an accurate summary.
authorized by courts, therefore, ok with you?
who's the lemming now?
As much as any warrant. Some are still bad warrants. Sometimes probable cause is enough.
Don't you get it?
It's the credibility of the ACLU I don't trust. I didn't see what I can call wrongdoing by justice officials in the released do ents. There is not enough facts in the material.
You know I have argued for the 4th amendment, and argued there is a probable cause clause, and that a warrant is a tool rather than always being required. Can you not accept that, or do you plan to turn it into that argument of which we disagree on, and already agree we disagree?
Were they unreasonable searches? We really don't have enough facts. Do we.
Does a warrant have to be court ordered? A: no. Ever look up it's definition? I can tell you, it only has to be ordered by a "competent officer."
lemming
If you say so.
WH.
Am I to understand that you think that no matter the evidence, that search warrants should never be used?
What the ACLU is calling warrantless is not.
Again, look up the definition of warrant.
But he's the "board libertarian"...
There are only limited cir stances in which warrantless searches are cons utionally permissible. Those are the only cases in which a warrant isn't cons utionally required. Whatever you might think the 4th Amendment says, that is our agreed upon understanding of its requirements (since courts across the country apply the 4th Amendment consistently).
I argued against the prior administration's uncons utional surveillance programs and maintain that position. Obama's willingness to extend the Bush-era disregard for civil liberties tells me that we're unlikely to ever go back to the pre-9/11 standards. It's a great irony that our political machinery was insistent that 9/11 wouldn't cause us to compromise our rights in the name of freedom -- they hated us for our freedom and we weren't going to let them win -- and here we are, eleven years hence, having ins utionalized the grab-back of critical civil rights in the putative name of security.
Bin Laden won.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
