You're venturing into another area of the law all-together. The people raising a stink in this thread are crying their salty tears because of their precious privacy rights. If you want to start talking about drone strikes killing American citizens without due-process, then I'd actually agree with you that that crap is most likely unconstitutional.
The NSA watches you poop.
- Thread starter Beef Supreme_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
They're really easily identifiable as separate issues. The first issue is whether or not a search (or even if it is a search) is a violation of your privacy rights. The second issue is whether assassinating an American citizen without procedural due process is constitutional. Even if the first issue aids the government in the second doesn't mean we need link them. Using that logic: Crazy nutjob eats food. Food keeps him alive. Since he's alive this allows him to go nuts and shoot up a school. That doesn't mean we should link eating food and shooting up a school.
The search is probably constitutional. The killing based on the information gained from the search without due process probably isn't. I don't see the problem.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
The main issue I have with something like this, especially in conjunction with ubiquitous surveillance, is that is how we all commit crimes everyday without knowing it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...every-day.html
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies.../dp/1594035229
http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/per...is-a-criminal/
You can't just say "well, if you aren't a criminal, none of this should bother you" because like it or not, you ARE committing crimes every day. With a widespread enough surveillance and database coordination the government can choose to arrest whoever they want for whatever trumped up reason and find an excuse to convict them.
But you say, this data will only be used against terrorists!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97409R20130805
So again, this stuff may end up being ruled constitutional, but if so it will certainly change the landscape of what I was taught the 4th amendment was about. I don't want to be in a country where a warrant is pointless because they are already allowed to look at all my information anyway.
BrutulTM
Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
- 14,767
- 2,653
Of course this stuff will be used for things other than terrorism just like the RICO act before it was used for things other than the mafia. If you give law enforcement a tool, they are going to use it as much as they can.
Also, if the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" idea is true, then there is no need for the Bill of Rights at all. If we can trust the government to do the right thing, then there is no need for oversight or balance of power at all. But of course we can't. Abuse of power is human nature. It has been since the beginning of time. The framers of the constitution knew this and that is why the constitution is written the way that it is. Also, it's important to keep in mind that we are not just giving this power to the Obama administration, but to every administration going forward until the end of time. Maybe you feel secure that Obama is not out to get you, but can you say that for every president down the line?
I don't personally believe that Bush or Obama are bent on turning the US into a police state, but they are sure as hell paving the way for that guy to come along.
Also, if the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" idea is true, then there is no need for the Bill of Rights at all. If we can trust the government to do the right thing, then there is no need for oversight or balance of power at all. But of course we can't. Abuse of power is human nature. It has been since the beginning of time. The framers of the constitution knew this and that is why the constitution is written the way that it is. Also, it's important to keep in mind that we are not just giving this power to the Obama administration, but to every administration going forward until the end of time. Maybe you feel secure that Obama is not out to get you, but can you say that for every president down the line?
I don't personally believe that Bush or Obama are bent on turning the US into a police state, but they are sure as hell paving the way for that guy to come along.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
I'll help you out a bit. Re-read that article and you will notice that nowhere does it say anything about Snowden, phone record metadata, or PRISM. There are other ways for the FBI, NSA, DEA, etc., to gather intelligence, including normal everyday run-of-the-mill court ordered wiretaps. The potential for confusion is obvious, so naturally, Reuters wrote another article to explain the difference:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9740AI20130805
Of particular interest:
In other words, while you may have valid concerns about how the mass metadata gathering may be abused, your concerns are still theoretical. Even with all the leaks, there isn't a shred of proof that the government has actually USED any of these mass data-gathering apparatuses in any other way than to go after a terrorist.
The real constitutional brouhaha here isn't that the NSA is one of the agencies in SOD -- it's that wanky parallel construction of evidence shit where the prosecutors recreate a different origin of the evidence to prosecute the perp because they want to keep the real source of the intelligence secret. But that's probably more of a due process issue, and doesn't really support your privacy narrative.
I get the hint from your post that you think that because the NSA is part of SOD, then you naturally conclude that the intelligence in the Snowden disclosures are also a part of SOD. That isn't correct.
Juvarisx
Florida
- 4,062
- 4,450
I agree clearly we need a God fearing anti socialist Republican President with these tools, I am sure he would never have abused them like this dirty socialist Obama has. Holy Christ.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
So in other words, in a program that is hypersecret, we don't have any evidence that has yet come forth that shows an abuse. Great, Im completely convinced!
BrutalTM has it right...
Even if we had 100% proof that the NSA data hasn't been abused yet, you are woefully naive if you think it won't be abused in the future if it isn't reigned in.BrutalTM_sl said:
Blakkheim
Karazhan Raider
- 8,257
- 38,117
I don't know if this has been posted already so bite me if it has but here you go.
The US government's War on Reality:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...reality/?_r=1&
The US government's War on Reality:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...reality/?_r=1&
Well, your Messiah Snowden has terabytes of top secret information on everything the NSA does. If he had the smoking gun, my gut tells me it would have been the first thing disclosed. And I readily agree that the potential for abuse is there. But our response and criticism must be measured by the fact that the potential for abuse is only hypothetical, and the proper argument is to strengthen the safeguards to assure that the potential abuses STAY hypothetical. That's not what you're arguing for. You're calling the entire thing illegal and want it abolished. That's the position that I find foolish.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
Orwell was 30 years off.
Good to see Soysauce and Chaos are doing their part to spread FUD on rerolled.
You're a fucking pussy. Go live in a real police state, then compare the differences there with the freedoms you currently enjoy. It's ironic, really. The fact that you can sit in your chair and post on a message board about how we live in a police state disproves your point. You freely criticize the government, because you do not fear it. Even after all this bullshit about electronic surveillance, you openly exercise your right to speak whatever the hell you want. Wake me up when the black helicopters come for you.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,039
- 138,835
who said obama, there's plenty of crises left to go in the future history of the world.
tad10
Elisha Dushku
- 5,533
- 599
Fact is you jumped on this thread and started spreading FUD. Fact is the USG is paying for folks to do just that. Even chaos hasn't gone as far as you.
Fact is you're a fucking NSA/Contractor plant. Nobody else would sit around and spew the shit you're spewing otherwise.