Slashdot Mirror

but your examples are laughable.

If those egregious violations of the constitution are laughable to you, then you desire a government with near-unlimited power that can search anyone to check whether or not they're criminals simply because some authoritarian judges have decided that it is a "compelling state interest" or whatever other nonsensical justification they use at the time to rewrite the constitution.

DWI checkpoints? TSA? Seriously? Do yourself a favor and Google 'compelling state interest' and 'strict scrutiny.'

If you honestly think that searching everyone to check their criminality is anything less than a serious violation of the constitution, you are anti-freedom. The "case law" you speak of is nothing more than government thugs giving other government thugs more power. The courts are not always right, and in fact have been wrong many times. Too often, they side with the government instead of siding with the people as they should.

The only way to fix this is awful situation is to get judges to finally uphold the constitution on issue after issue. It won't be fixed by citing their previous (incorrect) justifications and giving up. Appealing to authority will not help you here.

As I understand it, you're saying that based on the reasoning behind the fourth amendment, had the draftsman envisioned mass surveillance he would also have prohibited it? So in other words, the actual language of the amendment doesn't prohibit it?

Yes, not explicitly.

A constitution sets hard limits on the power of the government, that cannot be changed without enormous popular support. It should be as unambiguous as humanly possible. The problem if it is not is that it gives policy decisions to judges rather than to the legislature, leading to a politicised judiciary.

If it were more specific, that would be great. People writing such a thing today would know of more government powers that need to be explicitly forbidden.

Unfortunately, courts oftentimes side against the rights of the people in favor of increasing government power when they shouldn't. So yes, a new amendment going into more (it can't ever be 100% precise) detail would be great, but the current people in government likely wouldn't allow it.

The US wouldn't have that problem and i'll tell you why. They probably had socialized medicine and it was normal to have doctors just see someone on the government's dime. That would never happen here, lol.

Umm, "never happen here" you say, and with a laugh?

Let me cure that memory hole for you.

https://www.rutherford.org/key_cases/key_cases_brandon_raub/

You owe me an internets. :)

Strat

What do the "brownshirts," as you styled the sheriffs in Florida, have to do with FB, or any of it? What do the KGB and Gestapo have to do with it, and your comparison with DHS? Your language was way over the top, and the point was misguided.

It looks like this started with complaints to the government.

The FBI said the interview was prompted by complaints from people who read his posts, including some that spoke of a pending revolution. One said "a day of reckoning" was coming, and another said: "Sharpen my axe; I'm here to sever heads." . . . The Federal Bureau of Investigation launched "Operation Vigilant Eagle" in 2009 to target white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups," with a focus on veterans, according to memos obtained and reported at the time by The Wall Street Journal. A memo detailing the national operation was issued by the Department of Homeland Security later. -- Facebook Posts: Suit Filed Over Vet's Detention

I think you are right to have concerns, but privacy isn't an unconditional right, and in certain respects it can be graduated. The idea that publicly accessible web sites are private is questionable. Groups that advocate the violent overthrow of the government are advocating something illegal, and have been monitored before.

And as to the IRS and FB? The IRS made law abiding, peaceful political groups submit printouts of their websites to them, along with many intrusive, completely inappropriate questions all under the threat of law. It cost them large amounts of time and money, including attorney fees. It is clear that there was a pattern of abuse with the obvious intent of political suppression, and it worked. That is it was real political suppression, not rhetorical. The groups they did it weren't making terroristic threats.

You worry about profiling, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about extra searches, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about intrusion into social media postings, unless it is the IRS against certain political groups. You worry about privacy, unless it is the IRS asking about people's prayers, lists of donors, and future plans. . And yes, the IRS went after religious groups as well: conservative Christian groups, and Jews. Do you have any outrage to spare?

I doubt the IRS had anything to do with warrantless wiretaps. The real recent scandal involving wiretaps at present is the administration targeting journalists in an unprecedented way. Some have called it an attempt to criminalize journalism.

But when it comes to war, and terrorism, the courts have long held that the President has that power to wiretap people in direct contact with the enemy in armed conflict. But either way, there is a process in place and the security services do get warrants. Just an FYI - Presidents have been doing that at least as far back as FDR. That isn't a threat to civil liberties as long as the limits are respected.

Your point about profiling is largely nonsense. The TSA bends over backwards to avoid the appearance of that, which is why there are so many complaints about 90 year old grandmothers, babies, and the handicapped, of all races, being searched. If anything, instead of profiling the most likely suspects in relation to the current conflicts, there are complaints about the reverse. People who act suspicious from the larger communities engaging in terrorism aren't getting the attention they should. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Just look away and then the problem will go away.

It wasn't the IRS commissioner appointed by Bush that recently took the Fifth in testifying before Congress.

Ther

It's already happening.
Brandon Raub anyone? Post lyrics to facebook, get committed.

https://www.rutherford.org/key_cases/key_cases_brandon_raub/

I'm sure many of the kids caught up in Zero Tolerance suspensions/expulsions didn't have any criminal intent either, but were still prosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_(schools)

, obviously not all result in criminal charges, but many do.

http://rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=561

> Using it as an excuse for ex post facto warrants and attempts at all encompssing listening systems should not be tolerated.

It is my understanding of FISA that getting a warrant after the fact is perfectly legal if the warrant is obtained within 72 hours. The Bush administration refused to even do that! The reason FISA exists is so that someone outside the administration (i.e., at least one federal judge) is aware of who and what is being wiretapped and will hopefully keep them from abusing the power of the intelligence services as had been the case from WWII to Watergate. During the 1960's the government was spying on the likes of Martin Luther King, Vietnam War protesters, and many others who did not warrant it. The government even had the audacity to attempt to use the information gathered about King to coerce him to commit suicide.

here

Sorry...the other link was a putdown on Michael from earlier. Fun reading nontheless.