George Bush protecting your civil liberties by breaking them

quote:

---

Amendment IV

​

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.

---

there's a couple of stipulations here, regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy.for instance, if you're broadcasting something over the radio, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. it's going out over the air, and you know you're telling multiple people information. what people don't realize is that cell phones don't have a much higher expectation. it's still broadcasting, but people may not realize. "wire" taps on cellphones do not actually break the fourth amendment. and it's questionable (iirc not unconstitutional) to tap portable phones.the standard is the same as doing something in your house with the blinds open. if a normal person walking down the street can accidentally happen upon it, then the police do not a need a warrant to "accidentally" happen upon it either. it's the plain-sight rule. so the kind of phone matters. taping coversations between landlines without a warrant is unconstitutional (unless one is a payphone).also, email is NOT private for a very similar reason. open up an email and look at it's properties for a bit. how many servers did it go through? on any one of maybe a dozen computers informations could have leaked or been seen by an administrator or any number of other things.now, don't get me wrong. i'm not defending bush here. this is just background info. i'm still not sure what part of the constitution gives him the right to commission this kind of thing. it's not a specific search, it's overbroad collection of data on the american people. the above are all in instances of reasonable suspicion or even probable cause -- not a quest to find people who are guilty without any foreknowledge. it compromises the privacy and security of the american people, and 99% of them are pretty much gauranteed to not be who the government is looking for.[edit: jar gave me some links in chat that indicate the rulings over privacy on cellphones and cordless phones is currently under question]This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-19-2005 01:33 AM

---

אָרַח

[qs]when the other guy is in charge

---

אָרַח

that same way that in grade school it took two people to fight, and two people got suspended.did he participate in it? did he make it worse? george bush is a big boy now, i think he can take responsibility for his own actions without someone blaming the guy before for everything. clinton isn't president anymore; bush is. clinton is not responsible for bush's actions; bush is. clinton doing something mildly obnoxious doesn't make bush's unconstitutional actions okay.clinton got enough flack when he was in office, i assure you. mostly from you guys. how about you concentrate on the issue at hand, not something unrelated that someone did more than 5 years ago.was clinton granted special executive powers to locate the people responsible for 9/11 and bring them to justice? did clinton circumvent the court system (which is apparently ridiculously easy to get through anyways)? becuase that echelon thing? they need a warrant first. so how about you explain why it's related in the slightest to 9/11 exuctive priviledges, or bush ignoring the fourth amendment?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 01:38 AM

---

אָרַח

[moved]This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-21-2005 03:25 PM

they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.give me liberty, or give me death.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-22-2005 04:27 PM

---

אָרַח

well, in the old days we declared war on countries, not ideas.

no no, just the president. the administration is quite good at it. i mean, changing "estate tax" to "death tax" is nothing short of brilliant. and making the word "liberal" a bad thing? wow.they're QUITE good at manipulating words. look at "war." we have wars on drugs, and terror, and christmas. in the old days, we had wars with countries, or perhaps even militant groups. the only word i can think of for what "war" means today is arabic: jihad.

---

אָרַח

ok, well, i'd better listen in just in case. otherwise, i won't know if you're talking to al qaeda or not.

---

talking to known members of al qaeda? get a warrant.talking to suspected members of al qaeda? show probable cause -- get a warrant.see? that was easy.

---

but LINCOLN suspended that, so that makes it ok! liberals love lincoln!

---

oops! you lose!

quote:

---

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

​

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

​

There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

​

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

---

(edit: although it might be appropriate in this case...)This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-02-2006 06:17 AM

---

yeah, no, this is what a declaration of war looks like:

quote:

---

Congressional Declaration of War
on Japan December 8, 1941

​

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

​

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

​

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

---

notice that bit where war is formally declared? that's good, but you neglected "necessary and appropriate." and i don't see how that suspends either the fourth amendment or habeus corpus. or, you know, you could look up "war powers" actually means. "war powers" refers to congress's constitutional power to declare war. however,

quote:

---

...beginning with the Korean War, American presidents have not sought formal declarations of war, instead maintaining that they have the constitutional authority, as commander in chief (Article Two, Section Two) to use the military for "police actions".

​

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which requires the president to obtain either a declaration of war or a resolution authorizing the use of force from Congress within 60 days of initiating hostilities.

​

War Powers Clause - Wikipedia

---

in this case, congress authorized the use of force, but did not declare war formally. understand the difference? it's kind of subtle, i know.

---

that's it? that's all you got?i dunno, tal. maybe the words "declare" and "war" should be in it somewhere. i clearly outlined that declarations of war and authorization of force are two different things. this is very basic american civics and american history material, not to mention common sense. do you really not know that there has been no formal declaration since world war two? that declaration i posted was the most recent. everything after that point, the korean war, vietnam, desert storm, were all military actions, not actual wars. there have only been five declared wars in our nations history.here's two more declarations of war, one against germany, and one against bulgaria. see any similarities? here's one for italy, too. it's practically a form letter.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-02-2006 04:51 PM

---

come on schraf. take one for the team.

---

as long as we can match the dna.and for god's sake, don't take it to the dry cleaners!

---