Slashdot Mirror
'Fourth Amendment Caucus' Aims To Fight Government Surveillance (usatoday.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: An unusual coalition of 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats on Wednesday announced the creation of the House Fourth Amendment Caucus to protect Americans' privacy rights against calls for increased government surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks. The group named itself after the Fourth Amendment because the lawmakers fear that the government is increasingly seeking the power to search Americans' electronic data without a warrant. They see that as a threat to the Constitutional amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. "In the face of difficult circumstances, some are quick to pursue extreme, unconstitutional measures; the Fourth Amendment Caucus will be a moderating influence that gives voice to countless Americans whose rights are violated by these ill-conceived policies," said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich), who joined the group led by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas).
"A Republic. If you can keep it."
-- B Franklin
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
is often the justification used when reality and the law strike each other head-on. There are many interpretations of the phrase but these days it's used to say that the laws cannot encompass everything that people throw at it. Which, to my mind, is chickening out. It is allowing fear to reign and decide for us the actions we take to protect ourselves from the world.
I believe that it can be agreed that all of us want to live in a safe, civil society. So we write our laws with that in mind. Not everyone agrees as to what "safe" or "civil" means and those bounds are constantly being tested, much to our greater benefit. Thus we want to protect that civility and that safety as much as possible. The problem, this tension in our current world comes from the fact that we know, with intuition and through demonstration that there is only so much we can do. Some of us sigh and accept that there will be those accidents, incidents, and attacks which cannot ever be prevented. That the cost of having a civil and safe society is one in which others, regrettably, will come to harm through no action of their own.
And then there are those who don't. Whose drive to protect has been left unchecked and has become diseased. Somewhere, somehow, these people with the best of intentions has had their perspective mutated to the point where they only see how much control they do not possess. Maybe some of these people see the opportunity to get greater wealth or personal power. Maybe they were never taught how to let go of things in life. Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm in the first group.
All of this was say that it is not against outsiders that we must protect ourselves. It it not the asylum seeker, the immigrant, nor the H1B visa holder that brings a single iota of threat to civility or safety. It is not the fear monger, the hate spewer, nor the yellow journalist. These may be pitied and reviled but never feared.
What we must do is to check our fear. We cannot help but feel it. Nature gave it to us for survival reasons and it did our ancestors well to listen. These are not those days, however, and we cannot fall back to acting as our ancestors did.
Maybe they can officially apologize to Snowden and get him returned to the US, ideally with a ticker tape parade in his honor. If he hadn't done what he did, the mass violations of the 4th amendment would still be flying under the radar. They're still happening, but at least we are more aware of them now.
I live in SW Michigan, am a local union president, and vote mostly for Democrats - with the typical exception of Justin Amash. I have never voted against him.
Justin fought against SOPA, for privacy, and has published his rationale for every vote that he makes.
Because he stands for, and listens to his constituents, I would gladly vote for Justin Amash for President.
"See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. "
The way the police have been behaving as of late, guns seem to be the only things that tend to get their attention. Protests are cute and easily ignored or broken up.
Death, on the other hand, gets all sorts of attention rather quickly and shows folks you're quite serious.
( Doesn't always produce the results you want however )
There are a few methods that will remedy this problem:
1) Someone in the government tells them to cool it before it becomes a Class A Shit-Show
2) People quit playing by their rules and bring the fight back to them ( See Dallas ) becoming the " War " the police have always claimed to be fighting
3) Someone in Law Enforcement sees how crazy #2 will get and modifies the rules of Deadly Force across the board. ( Probably best choice )
Pro tip for the Police: We're on your side. However, we don't really care to have guns pointed at us for " our safety " over stupid bullshit. We don't really care to see you gunning down folks who were unarmed. We really dislike the fact that the laws are not equally applied to you as they are to us. Why is Law Enforcement allowed to intimidate and threaten people with pain or death for non-compliance with their demands ? Wtf is wrong with you people ? Since when was LE granted the ability to become Judge, Jury and Executioner ? ( Just say the magic words: " I feared for my safety " and you get to kill anyone you want )
You all tend to draw those firearms far too quickly and for trivial issues. As a result, the trust is starting to slip. Lack of trust ultimately turns into fear. Fear is what will start the aforementioned Shit Show. We are dangerously close to that already.
Your move.
There are several shake ups coming in November / January.
Let's look at the Senate. It's likely to swing Blue. This alone won't mean much because the House is likely to remain Red, but it's certainly going to change legislative agendas, which are important. Speaking of the House, with Trump at the top of the ticket, there will be downballot implications, some Republicans are going to have turnout trouble leading to Democrats taking some seats. I haven't seen any polls I believe in, but I think the House stays Red but with a bigger percentage Blue than before. That's a change that means more bipartisan cooperation will be necessary for anybody to get their personal agendas to see the light of day.
I can't see a Hillary executive changing much in terms of foreign policy, so full credit for "status-quo" there. Despite my preferences, she's likely to continue to antagonize Russia with anti-ICBM batteries and unified exercises close to Russia. She stands a chance of using executive orders to continue to shape the immigrant and minimum wage debates. And her ability to sign into law what the new Senate and the increasingly bipartisan House is important.
On the topic of Hillary being status-quo. Based on the rhetoric of the Republican Party for the last 2-3 years, a status-quo is in fact a shake up. All the stonewalling that's been done in Congress, all the scapegoating, all the blaming, and they can't get the American people to put them back into power. Heck, they need to tend to their own house as they realize 12 candidates can't make it through the primaries without a crazy making it out as the candidate. Then if you count that Hillary is almost certain to name at least one Supreme Court Justice in the next 4 years (with some guessing up to three!), this is going to be a "status-quo" that remains in place for a long time. Even if it's only Ginsberg and Breyer getting replaced with younger equivalents, that's a big deal. There's a 54% chance of a conservative justice kicking it in the next four years, so that's an even bigger deal.
Police Unions do tend to favour gun control. Especially in cities/states that already have strong gun control laws. Note that Chicago has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country, and a rather higher than average murder & crime rate.
Do keep in mind that "enable" is NOT the same as "require": As in 'countries that don't allow guns REQUIRE cops to not hae to carry guns". Yeah, some places with no guns, cops don't carry. Other places with no guns, cops still get to use them. And much more safely, since noone will be shooting back. Do remember that the USSR (and Nazi Germany) had strong gun control laws, yet in neither place did they have "kinder, gentler" police (as a rather extreme example).
For that matter, seems to me Rwanda did the gun control thing just before they did the "massacre those other guys" thing....
Personally, I'm in favour of strict gun control laws. For the police. They don't need to carry a handgun, a shotgun & an assault rifle (latter two in the car, and a REAL assault rifle, not just the scary looking guns that the Left keeps trying to convince us are the same thing). When the cops disarm, I'll think about it. Probably won't get rid of my guns, but I'll at least think about it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"