[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Surely you can back this up. How does the Patriot Act “snoop in bedrooms”?[/quote]
…are you serious? it allows search and seizure without a warrant.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, wait a sec, maybe you can.
I suppose that if you have terrorists calling you from overseas, while you’re in your bedroom, and you like having phone sex with these terrorists, the Patriot Act would result in you being snooped in the bedroom.
Bad enough that you’re a bleeding heart for terrorists… but having phone sex with them? You disgust me.[/quote]
are you serious! im starting to think you are either joking, or you worked under the bush administration.
Post the relevant section of law or give a single example of an American citizen being “snooped on in his bedroom” in this way.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Well, wait a sec, maybe you can.
I suppose that if you have terrorists calling you from overseas, while you’re in your bedroom, and you like having phone sex with these terrorists, the Patriot Act would result in you being snooped on in the bedroom.
Bad enough that you’re a bleeding heart for terrorists… but having phone sex with them? You disgust me.[/quote]
you keep looking over your shoulder for those boogie man terrorist. yes use them as an excuse to strip Americans of constitutional rights.
No, I did not “work under the Bush Administration” and for that matter am not a Republican.
I am simply struck by statements that many people believe rather mindlessly, such as this “the right snoops in your bedroom” charge. Or related variants, “controls what you do in the bedroom” and so forth.
Mindless assertions deserve to be pointed out as such from time to time.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Post the relevant section of law or give a single example of an American citizen being “snooped on in his bedroom” in this way. [/quote]
i dont have to. the fact is it by definition infringes on ANYONE’S constitutional rights.
and i wouldn’t be able to cite a case because there would be no case under the patriot act. only arrest and imprisonment with no trial.
I am headed to bed so this is my last response to you: you are again in error when you claim I am, above or at any time, using terrorists as an excuse to strip Americans of constitional rights.
Sorry, you don’t have a Constitutional right to have privacy in phone calls received from overseas terrorists. The fact, if it is a fact, that you object to their interception puts your loyalties on the wrong side. You would then be like the fellow that wants a murderer let free because he wasn’t properly Mirandized or whatever crap. Boo-hoo, phone calls from terrorists are intercepted, saving American lives. You’re crying tears about supposedly rights (which are not established as existing) of the person receiving the terrorist’s phone call being violated. That is completely having your head up your ass, if that’s your position.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I am headed to bed so this is my last response to you: you are again in error when you claim I am, above or at any time, using terrorists as an excuse to strip Americans of constitional rights.
Sorry, you don’t have a Constitutional right to have privacy in phone calls received from overseas terrorists. The fact, if it is a fact, that you object to their interception puts your loyalties on the wrong side. You would then be like the fellow that wants a murderer let free because he wasn’t properly Mirandized or whatever crap. Boo-hoo, phone calls from terrorists are intercepted, saving American lives. You’re crying tears about supposedly rights (which are not established as existing) of the person receiving the terrorist’s phone call being violated. That is completely having your head up your ass, if that’s your position.[/quote]
no infact i DO have a right to phone call whoever i want to without the government listening untill they prove somebody is breaking the law. if you dont believe that go to Canada because that is the type of principal this country was built on.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am headed to bed so this is my last response to you: you are again in error when you claim I am, above or at any time, using terrorists as an excuse to strip Americans of constitional rights.
Sorry, you don’t have a Constitutional right to have privacy in phone calls received from overseas terrorists. The fact, if it is a fact, that you object to their interception puts your loyalties on the wrong side. You would then be like the fellow that wants a murderer let free because he wasn’t properly Mirandized or whatever crap. Boo-hoo, phone calls from terrorists are intercepted, saving American lives. You’re crying tears about supposedly rights (which are not established as existing) of the person receiving the terrorist’s phone call being violated. That is completely having your head up your ass, if that’s your position.
no infact i DO have a right to phone call whoever i want to without the government listening untill they prove somebody is breaking the law. if you dont believe that go to Canada because that is the type of principal this country was built on.
[/quote]
So that is your proof that the “right” “snoops in bedrooms.”
I knew, and was correct, that you had nothing.
And just as a side note, let’s also note that even for your irrelevant sidetrack you had to twist things. The actual situation where your call might be listened to without warrant is you RECEIVING a call from an overseas terrorist. And if you knew more than you do, you would be aware that right to privacy exists only where reasonable expectation of others not being able to hear or see exists. E.g., if you have a conversation with a terrorist in a public place, you have no right to expect everyone to move away so they can’t hear you. If you think an unencoded microwave signal from a terrorist beamed all over the place has reasonable expectation of privacy, or that it suddenly gains such because precious you are the intended recipient, you’re wrong.
However that is a TOTAL sidetrack resulting from your complete inability to support a single one of the assertions made except for coming up with a diversion. So that ends this discussion of that diversion. I would suggest starting a new thread if you want to complain about your being unable to receive overseas telephone calls from terrorists with no risk of monitoring.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
I am headed to bed so this is my last response to you: you are again in error when you claim I am, above or at any time, using terrorists as an excuse to strip Americans of constitional rights.
Sorry, you don’t have a Constitutional right to have privacy in phone calls received from overseas terrorists. The fact, if it is a fact, that you object to their interception puts your loyalties on the wrong side. You would then be like the fellow that wants a murderer let free because he wasn’t properly Mirandized or whatever crap. Boo-hoo, phone calls from terrorists are intercepted, saving American lives. You’re crying tears about supposedly rights (which are not established as existing) of the person receiving the terrorist’s phone call being violated. That is completely having your head up your ass, if that’s your position.
no infact i DO have a right to phone call whoever i want to without the government listening untill they prove somebody is breaking the law. if you dont believe that go to Canada because that is the type of principal this country was built on.
[/quote]
Bill is about as anti-Constitutional as is George Washington. Your argument is as full of holes as an old moth eaten blanket.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
No, I did not “work under the Bush Administration” and for that matter am not a Republican.
I am simply struck by statements that many people believe rather mindlessly, such as this “the right snoops in your bedroom” charge. Or related variants, “controls what you do in the bedroom” and so forth.
Mindless assertions deserve to be pointed out as such from time to time.[/quote]
The patriot act has already been used to shut down a porn producer.
Close enough?
Also, with the experiences made with RICO it is flat out ridiculous to even pretend that these kind of powers will not be used in all kinds of cases they were most definitely not intended for.
If you build it, they will come.
I’m really not interested in watching a video. Don’t you have an article?
That also is reaching.
What was claimed is that the right “snoops in your bedroom.” As well as some other specific claims that I think are nonsensical memes, and whenever I ask persons who recite them to give examples, they never can: except via diverting to complaining about something else, which is giving an example of something else.
So far the pattern continues. The above, even if correct, may be a legit complaint about the Patriot Act but does not constitute “snooping in your bedroom.”
C’mon. Give an example that actually is what is claimed, or grant that it’s a mindless meme. Thanx
[quote] The Patriot Act has been abused. The ACLU detailed these abuses in a 10-page letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, dated April 4, 2005.
* Brandon Mayfield is a Portland, Oregon resident who is a convert to Islam and an attorney. Mayfield was wrongly accused by the government of involvement in the Madrid bombing as a result of evidence, including mistaken fingerprint identification, that fell apart after the FBI re-examined its case following its arrest and detention on Mayfield on a material witness warrant. Attorney General Gonzales acknowledged before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Section 218 of the Patriot Act was implicated in the secret search of Mayfieldâ??s house. FBI admitted that it entered Mayfieldâ??s house without a warrant based on criminal probable cause and copied four computer drives, digitally photographed sever documents, seized ten DNA samples and took approximately 335 digital photographs of Brandon Mayfieldâ??s home.
* Tariq Ramadan is regarded by many as Europeâ??s leading moderate Muslim intellectuals. Time Magazine named Ramadan among the Top 100 Innovators of the 21st Century. The government revoked Ramadanâ??s visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame under Section 411 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to exclude non-citizens from the country if in the governmentâ??s view they have â??used [their] position of prominence to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or to persuade others to support terrorist activity.â?? Consequently, an individual who discusses politics that a terrorist organization may adopt as its own viewpoints may be excluded from the United States, even if the individual does not support terrorist activity. As such, the government can essentially use this provision to deny admission to those whose political views it disfavors. There is no doubt that Ramadan uses his position of prominence to espouse his political beliefs. Notably, Ramadan, who denounces the use of violence in the name of Islam, had already been granted a visa after undergoing an extensive security clearance process and had previously been permitted to enter the country on numerous
A number of other examples are also listed in the ACLUâ??s letter. The Justice Department largely confirmed the substance of these examples in its response to the ACLU letter, dated April 26, 2005, while denying that the examples listed were â??abuses.â?? The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Justice is actively investigating the Brandon Mayfield case.
The extent of Patriot Act abuse is still unknown because of excessive secrecy enshrouding its use. For example, both special document FBI document snoop orders, called â??national security letters,â?? (expanded by section 505 of the Patriot Act) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) document orders (expanded by section 215 of the Act), include permanent â??gagâ?? provisions. These automatic secrecy orders prohibit recipients from telling anyone they have received the order or letter to produce documents that include their customersâ?? private information.[/quote]
and thats from 2005. if you think the patriot act isnt being abused you are a complete fool.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/critics-cite-patriot-act-abuse-and-misuse-1.1269020
another article
Why are you changing the subject?
Well I know why: it’s because you can’t come up with a single example of the specific things that I said you couldn’t.
And you won’t man up to that, so all you can do is change the subject.
Again, I suggest starting a new thread if you want to complain about the Patriot Act. It is not relevant to the original point of this thread or to the specific points that I said were mindless memes that some people believe, spread, or even base their votes on though they cannot come up with a single example, because there aren’t any.
I would also suggest abandoning your one-dimensional left-right political thinking. But if you insist on holding on to it, then you need to consider how it is that with Democrats in control of Congress for the last three years, and with Obama having won the election a full year ago now, the Patriot Act is still in place.
Sure, leading Democrats made a lot of noise against it when there was a Republican president, but I would suggest not being deceived by that into thinking that only “the right” favors such things. Aside from the Patriot Act still being in place three years after the Democrats took control of Congress, consider that CARNIVORE was a Clinton Administration project.
See how that fits into your one-dimensional left-right thinking. But again, the Patriot Act is a completely different topic that you had no reason to bring into this thread. Absolutely irrelevant to anything that anyone had discussed. Purely an attempt to disguise that you indeed cannot come up with an example of what I said you could not. 'Bye now.
i did not in any way change the subject. mabey your forgetting i simply interjected the patriot act into how the right has peer into our windows or w/e metaphor was used. my only point was the bush administration(the right) peered into our windows. i have no clue what the hell your original subject was anymore, and im losing interest anyway.
also what the flying fuck are you talking about “one-dimensional left-right political thinking” that is as close to the polar opposite of my thinking as i could imagine. i only interjected the patriot act and that WAS my point.
i have no affinity for right or left. stop talking out of your ass.
I want Deorum to list an actual case, arrest, conspiracy, or individual where someone was snooped on or their phone call was listened to without a legitimate government phone tap. I have personally witnessed (yes ME PERSONALLY) where evidence was thrown out due to a falsified search warrant or arrest warrant or lack of search warrant or arrest warrant altogether. You also run the risk of a mistrial if there are enough violations of civil rights, tampering of evidence, or lack of due process. Court in the real world is much different than what you read about or even see on TV or movies. Stop listening to people who say, “I heard that…”
I have personally filed numerous 2255 motions in Federal Court (a motion dismissing legal counsel due to ineffective assistance), which means the public defender was a lazy bum who didn’t want to help the defendant other than telling him/her to just plead guilty and hope for the best.
The government cannot just search you for no good reason, and believe me their probably cause is usually more than legitimate. Sure, sometimes someone oversteps their boundaries, but this is more likely the exception than the rule. Trust me, the government could care less what you are talking about on the phone, unless you truly are phone boning a terrorist.
Stop watching CSI, the real world does not work the way TV shows it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I want Deorum to list an actual case, arrest, conspiracy, or individual where someone was snooped on or their phone call was listened to without a legitimate government phone tap. I have personally witnessed (yes ME PERSONALLY) where evidence was thrown out due to a falsified search warrant or arrest warrant or lack of search warrant or arrest warrant altogether. You also run the risk of a mistrial if there are enough violations of civil rights, tampering of evidence, or lack of due process. Court in the real world is much different than what you read about or even see on TV or movies. Stop listening to people who say, “I heard that…”
I have personally filed numerous 2255 motions in Federal Court (a motion dismissing legal counsel due to ineffective assistance), which means the public defender was a lazy bum who didn’t want to help the defendant other than telling him/her to just plead guilty and hope for the best.
The government cannot just search you for no good reason, and believe me their probably cause is usually more than legitimate. Sure, sometimes someone oversteps their boundaries, but this is more likely the exception than the rule. Trust me, the government could care less what you are talking about on the phone, unless you truly are phone boning a terrorist.
Stop watching CSI, the real world does not work the way TV shows it. [/quote]
quote me where i placed all this emphasis on the phone call. i don’t recall ever doing that. what i did do is reply to (inserthisnamehere)'s post about terrorist phone calls or something of that sort - that idea spawned of his head not mine. my orginal and ONLY point was that rights are infrigned under the patriot act and i listed SERVERAL cases proving my case. stop scrambling for a case - wait your not even making a damn case - stop trying to pick apart my case which i clearly stated and made.
i never watched an episode of CSI in my life, would you care to enlighten me on its plot?
I lived CSI, and lost.
Do you know of anyone personally, who has had their rights infringed upon? I mean, do you know someone who’s phone was tapped without a judicial order?