F.U. right wingers. NSA eavesdropping program ruled unconstitutional

[Kuciwalker]

They considered ANY searches without a warrent to be unreasonable.

Believe that if you want, but there are many, many circumstances where the police don't need a warrant to search.

[Kuciwalker]

Oerdin, you're going to be thoroughly pwned on this point. Just concede now.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That is absolutely retarded. If you want to understand the original intent of the people who wrote that sentence then read the Federalist Papers. They spell it out very clearly what they were thinking and what they were concerned about when they wrote the fourth amendment. THE issue they were dealing with was that the British searched houses without a warrent. They considered ANY searches without a warrent to be unreasonable. That is the context of the "unreasonable search and seizure" phrase. It specifically covered any persons, houses, papers, or effects. It is extemely easy for the courts to saym as they have in the past, that telephones are part of the house or effects of a person.

This is a slam dunk. There is no wiggle room.

They are right, these NSA searches are not against the law, that is why Arlen Specter (R) is trying to introduce a bill into congress to make it legal, and absolve Bush at the same time.

I mean, clearly when laws are legal, more laws are needed to make them more legal.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, it's wiki:

A warrant is not necessary for a search or seizure under certain circumstances. Officers may search and seize objects that are in "plain view." Before the search and seizure, however, the officers must have probable cause to believe that the objects are contraband.

Similarly, "open fields"—pastures, open water, woods and other such areas—may be searched without warrant, on the basis that the individuals conducting activities therein had no reasonable expectations of privacy. Contrary to its apparent meaning, the "open fields" doctrine has been expanded to include almost any open space other than the land immediately surrounding a domicile (for instance, in Oliver v. United States 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path several hundred yards, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place. See also: open fields doctrine.

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement-for instance, if an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may destroy evidence, he might be permitted to seize the evidence without a warrant.

There are more exceptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Searches_and_seizures_without_warrants

[DinoDoc]

How did these people even get standing?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Oerdin

This is a slam dunk. There is no wiggle room.

Yes, we're just waiting for you to realize it!

[snoopy369]

Not all right wingers support the desecration of our constitution

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How did these people even get standing?

They're claiming a chilling effect that came into being because they program was disclosed by the NYT and subsequently hurt their ability to work with foreign contacts. Too bad nobody presented any concrete evidence that they were being monitored. IINAL; maybe Imran or Lefty can better define injury and standing.

And a single district judge in Detroit writing what many are calling a poorly written and poorly reasoned opinion hardly constitutes a slam dunk. I'm sure there will be stay and this will be kicked upstairs to better qualified Judges.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Timexwatch


They're claiming a chilling effect that came into being because they program was disclosed by the NYT and subsequently hurt their ability to work with foreign contacts. Too bad nobody presented any concrete evidence that they were being monitored. IINAL; maybe Imran or Lefty can better define injury and standing.

And a single district judge in Detroit writing what many are calling a poorly written and poorly reasoned opinion hardly constitutes a slam dunk. I'm sure there will be stay and this will be kicked upstairs to better qualified Judges.

The program was not just disclosed by the NYT, it was already reported by a lawsuit and affadavit of a worker at the AT&T switching station in San Fransisco, in a EFF lawsuit.

[alva]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Don't pay attention to this, the big news is they caught a Pakistani woman with two suitcases that a dog detected at least explosive traces on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5261456.stm

Isn't that a bit like finding traces of coke a dollar bill?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by NeOmega

They are right, these NSA searches are not against the law, that is why Arlen Specter (R) is trying to introduce a bill into congress to make it legal, and absolve Bush at the same time.

I mean, clearly when laws are legal, more laws are needed to make them more legal.

That's a great point.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Warrantless searches aren't prohibited by the Constitution...

Did you even understand the arguement? I said that if you want to understand the original intent then reading at the Federalist Papers would give you an inside look at what the authors where thinking at the time they wrote it.

You have come up and then said that courts have subsequently gotten away from the original intent and have interprited the writing to mean something else. How does that in any way change my original argument about what the original intent of the fourth amendment was?

[Kuciwalker]

Did you even understand the arguement?

Yes, it went something like this?

They considered ANY searches without a warrent to be unreasonable. That is the context of the "unreasonable search and seizure" phrase.

I said that if you want to understand the original intent then reading at the Federalist Papers would give you an inside look at what the authors where thinking at the time they wrote it.

I've read the Federalist Papers, and I find it inconceivable that the original founders would object to many of the current exceptions. Maybe you should try actually reading some of the evidence presented.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How does that in any way change my original argument about what the original intent of the fourth amendment was?

I think your assuming too much. Most of the founders failed to leave discussions of what their intent was. The Philadelphia Convention was composed of over 50 men who spent an entire summer bickering over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public. It's far from clear therefore that they even a single agreed upon original intent for the Constitution. Even if they did I'm a little cloudy about how you could determine it from the centuries sperating the present and 1787.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think your assuming too much. Most of the founders failed to leave discussions of what their intent was. The Philadelphia Convention was composed of over 50 men who spent an entire summer bickering over provisions that were interpreted very differently the moment the Constitution's text became public. It's far from clear therefore that they even a single agreed upon original intent for the Constitution. Even if they did I'm a little cloudy about how you could determine it from the centuries sperating the present and 1787.

You have a valid point, but conservatives are always b!tching about "activist judges," and how they want judges who interpret the Constitution strictly, going by "original intent." So you'd think that they'd support this ruling.