There is no evidence that I can think of that suggests that the government is using the intelligence agencies to monitor political speech and distribute that to the detriment of political opposition. It is a fantasy.
Do you have any evidence of the prosecution listening in on any attorney-client conversations for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the trial? The only remotely similar cases that I'm aware of are a small handful of instances involving terrorism prosecutions at Gitmo, and I don't believe that the prosecution was involved, IIRC.
The question isn't what the 4th Amendment says, but what does it mean, how does it apply legally under the given circumstances? There are many searches that the courts have found that require no warrant, boarding a plane is among them, along with sobriety checkpoints, and border crossings. Beyond that, there is the issue of Article II powers and how they play into this. Napolitano takes no notice of this issue, but the courts have, and it has a role, not to mention actions by Congress involving Article II questions.
You many notice that "Judge" Napolitano is no longer sitting on the bench, so he can spin whatever fanciful theory he cares to. The question is, would it hold up before a court? I think the answer is "No" in his case, otherwise he would be moving a suit forward on his theory. He apparently knows this, and that it would be political suicide since he would be shown to be engaging in nonsense, legally. Politically it's very nice.
But, if you like Napolitano, you may like this one too. Unfortunately he gets the question of law wrong, overlooking this document which he chooses to ignore for some reason, and it is highly relevant.
If you trouble yourself to actually read some on the information you wouldn't make such silly comments.
Many of them, such as those associated with Hezbollah, are generating highly valuable funds for the organization, gather intelligence, and make preparations should they be called upon to act. And they certainly could engage in violence if called up. In the case of Hezbollah, they remain a "trump card" for Iran to play if things get too dicey in some future confrontation, such as an invasion. Activating them now would be a waste, and potentially an act of war that would result in enormous losses for Iran.
The fact that most of them aren't engaged in violence doesn't mean the threat of violence is zero since there are still others willing to act. Case in point:
He would have gladly killed you if he could. Now here is a question for you, are you going to remain ignorant by being lazy yourself, or will you inform yourself a little better?
If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools. It would seem difficult to apply "sovereign immunity" to a government that wasn't sovereign. The fact that people vote to elect its leaders and legislature doesn't really alter that.
I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?
The US and allied intelligence agencies face that every day, and they always have. Maybe you haven't heard, but there is an entire world out there full of countries that engage in spying. The US, UK, CA, AU, NZ, FR, DE, NE, DK, NL, IT, SE, FI, NO, ES, PO, are all full of Russian and Chinese spies, many have Iranian spies, and spies from plenty of other countries.
People here keep making cracks about oil, but the truly inexhaustible resource appears to be narcissism..
His activities are arguably "aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States
Snowden revealed the activities of the US in countries like France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain.
Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States? Gimme a fucking break here.
No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are. Some of the people in those countries are terrorists. Some of the people in those countries are foreign spies from adversaries or enemy nations.
Part of the 9/11 attack came from a cell in Germany. There are still terrorists in Germany. German companies did big business with Saddam, and Iran. Germany has many spies from Russia, China, and Iran. There have been multiple terrorist plots aimed at the US from people in Britain. MI5 assesses the threat as being extremely high, and they can barely cover it. Spying against Britain is at Cold War levels again. There is no shortage of Russians or other foreign agents. Mexico has what is essentially a narco-terrorist fueled civil war going on, and it bleeds across the border into the US. Both violence and drugs flow north, along with about 10% of the population of Mexico into the US. Brazil has admitted to spying on the US, and French agents have been discovered before. Brazil's navy has been teaching the Chinese navy about aircraft carrier operations. Brazil has aspirations of being a major power, and is trying to extend its reach. Brazil is a major hub for cybercrime along with Russia. What can one say about the French? They have many fine and maddening qualities. They also have a rising tide of violence from their immigrant population, and growing extremism that is a threat to France and other nations. French companies are trying to get back into Iran. France has its fill of Chinese and Russian spies.
There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy such as is occurring with Iran, and Syria. The British government was recently deeply embarrassed by losing a vote over intervention in Syria, the first loss of that sort by a British government in a very long time. There is certainly more to know that if they are or aren't shooting at you.
From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.
People keep trying to pull this rhetorical nonsense of describing the American people as "the enemy," and it is utter nonsense - just plain stupid. If you want to do that, then please describe how you could inform 300,000,000 Americans about the most secret inner working of the intelligence agencies without the information also leaking to the many spies and terrorist group members or associates in the US, and ultimately to foreign adversaries? I think you need to demonstrate how you could do that if you want to suggest that the information shouldn't be protected by agencies and the legislators doing their job as representatives in a democratic republic. If you want a practical demonstration as to why your idea is really bad, just try sharing your account name and PINs with 100 of your closest friends and see how things turn out in a year or two.
Under the doctrine called “sovereign immunity,” the United States, New York and other states are immune from suit for torts caused by conditions on their property or by acts of their employees and agents.
The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws....
When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
With these words, the United States declared its sovereignty. It became a separate nation, entitled to all the rights of existing nations. It therefore claimed the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
Sovereign immunity is an existing legal doctrine that predates the Constitution. No "immunity" law needed.
It's great the way you keep flogging Snowden whether or not it's relevant, which is this case it isn't. But to clarify, he didn't so much go to the press as he went to Russia, just like Philby. The Russians are learning a fair amount from him and are upgrading their systems with the information he has provided. The West loses, diplomatic relations among Western and allied nations are strained, and Russia gets a win:win. Former KGB officer Putin is the one truly LOL, and many in the West are cheering the self-immolation. Case in point.
Choose wisely as to what that issue will be, and how you will conduct your protest or revolt. You could end up in the history books as an example of wisdon, courage and character, or foolishness and fail.
It's a normal part of the investigative process for police, so figure it out.
Furthermore, there's nothing which would allow blanket surveillance of all users in an area, as opposed to individuals covered under a legitimate warrant.
Do you think it might be possible that there is an imperfection in either your understanding of the methodology of use, or the law, given that these devices are in use and no doubt the combination has withstood legal challenges? But please, summon your facts if you have any, I'd love to see them.
Doesn't the FCC regulate the frequencies used by cell phone towers? Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?
Two things to remember. First, each state police agency is already a licensed user of sophisticated radio equipment that will generally have state-wide reach, a law enforcement agency, increasingly automated with sophisticated equipment, and able to engage in surveillance. Second, Congress has passed laws that the FCC is involved with overseeing for the assistance of law enforcement.
In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA requires a "telecommunications carrier," as defined by the Act, to ensure that equipment, facilities, or services that allow a customer or subscriber to "originate, terminate, or direct communications," enable law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities as communications network technologies evolve
That is a big question, especially since various state governments in the US have passed data privacy laws, and they aren't always complied with by state agencies. This was in the news about six months ago. I have little doubt there are many more instances of illegal or abusive data transfers out there at the state or local level. Bureaucratic overreach is hardly confined to the Federal government, and often occurs in conjunction with it.
It was revealed in Missouri Senate testimony Thursday morning that the Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice handed over to federal officials information regarding concealed carry permits in the state.
The revelation validates the concerns of many Republican state legislators who have warned of the “gun list” for longer than a month.
Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) has led the charge against the Missouri Department of Revenue and others over the list. He said in a press release that the Highway Patrol “asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing.”
According to Schaefer, the list contains 185,000 names and “had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.”....
Col. Ron Replogle with the Highway Patrol underwent nearly an hour of testimony Thursday morning in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. Replogle testified that a Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General agent received the discs but was not able to read encrypted data and then destroyed the discs.
“They said no names were retrieved,” Replogle told the committee this morning, according to the Columbia Tribune. “...
The gun list issue was first raised in early March when Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder told KMOX News that the Missouri Department of Revenue was illegally sharing information on concealed gun permit applicants with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you need to know more about Noam Chomsky from a different perspective.
Unix tends to be Unix. People port things all the time. That isn't particularly meaningless since it is one of the major strengths of Unix.
So, how are things at Microsoft?
...only OpenBSD would catch up in every OTHER category...
You can always port or build other software on OpenBSD.
You can't really bring other operating systems up to OpenBSD security standards with just a compile or two.
Make your pick: secure, or convenient.
There is no evidence that I can think of that suggests that the government is using the intelligence agencies to monitor political speech and distribute that to the detriment of political opposition. It is a fantasy.
Do you have any evidence of the prosecution listening in on any attorney-client conversations for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the trial? The only remotely similar cases that I'm aware of are a small handful of instances involving terrorism prosecutions at Gitmo, and I don't believe that the prosecution was involved, IIRC.
You post is more "what if" than actual problem.
The question isn't what the 4th Amendment says, but what does it mean, how does it apply legally under the given circumstances? There are many searches that the courts have found that require no warrant, boarding a plane is among them, along with sobriety checkpoints, and border crossings. Beyond that, there is the issue of Article II powers and how they play into this. Napolitano takes no notice of this issue, but the courts have, and it has a role, not to mention actions by Congress involving Article II questions.
You many notice that "Judge" Napolitano is no longer sitting on the bench, so he can spin whatever fanciful theory he cares to. The question is, would it hold up before a court? I think the answer is "No" in his case, otherwise he would be moving a suit forward on his theory. He apparently knows this, and that it would be political suicide since he would be shown to be engaging in nonsense, legally. Politically it's very nice.
But, if you like Napolitano, you may like this one too. Unfortunately he gets the question of law wrong, overlooking this document which he chooses to ignore for some reason, and it is highly relevant.
If you trouble yourself to actually read some on the information you wouldn't make such silly comments.
Many of them, such as those associated with Hezbollah, are generating highly valuable funds for the organization, gather intelligence, and make preparations should they be called upon to act. And they certainly could engage in violence if called up. In the case of Hezbollah, they remain a "trump card" for Iran to play if things get too dicey in some future confrontation, such as an invasion. Activating them now would be a waste, and potentially an act of war that would result in enormous losses for Iran.
The fact that most of them aren't engaged in violence doesn't mean the threat of violence is zero since there are still others willing to act. Case in point:
Wichita Airport Technician Charged With Terrorist Plot
He would have gladly killed you if he could. Now here is a question for you, are you going to remain ignorant by being lazy yourself, or will you inform yourself a little better?
Now if only we could get commenters not simply making things up.
Could you list what the freedoms are that have been lost? Skip the privacy issues for now, just the freedoms lost, please?
Look at the butthurt Republican mad that someone called out the GOP for the flaming hypocrites that they are.
Saying that you stand for something and actually standing for it are two ENTIRELY different things.
It's a damn shame that the Republicans don't actually measure up to their rhetoric.
I think this sums up the situation nicely.
Hmmmm, my spider-sense is warning me some down mods may be coming since this isn't a criticism of Republicans.
If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools. It would seem difficult to apply "sovereign immunity" to a government that wasn't sovereign. The fact that people vote to elect its leaders and legislature doesn't really alter that.
I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?
The US and allied intelligence agencies face that every day, and they always have. Maybe you haven't heard, but there is an entire world out there full of countries that engage in spying. The US, UK, CA, AU, NZ, FR, DE, NE, DK, NL, IT, SE, FI, NO, ES, PO, are all full of Russian and Chinese spies, many have Iranian spies, and spies from plenty of other countries.
People here keep making cracks about oil, but the truly inexhaustible resource appears to be narcissism..
Are you kidding? Is that really your answer?
Snowden revealed the activities of the US in countries like France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain.
Are you suggesting that those countries are enemies of the United States? Gimme a fucking break here.
No, France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, and Britain aren't the enemies of the US. But some of the people in those countries are. Some of the people in those countries are terrorists. Some of the people in those countries are foreign spies from adversaries or enemy nations.
Part of the 9/11 attack came from a cell in Germany. There are still terrorists in Germany. German companies did big business with Saddam, and Iran. Germany has many spies from Russia, China, and Iran.
There have been multiple terrorist plots aimed at the US from people in Britain. MI5 assesses the threat as being extremely high, and they can barely cover it. Spying against Britain is at Cold War levels again. There is no shortage of Russians or other foreign agents.
Mexico has what is essentially a narco-terrorist fueled civil war going on, and it bleeds across the border into the US. Both violence and drugs flow north, along with about 10% of the population of Mexico into the US.
Brazil has admitted to spying on the US, and French agents have been discovered before. Brazil's navy has been teaching the Chinese navy about aircraft carrier operations. Brazil has aspirations of being a major power, and is trying to extend its reach. Brazil is a major hub for cybercrime along with Russia.
What can one say about the French? They have many fine and maddening qualities. They also have a rising tide of violence from their immigrant population, and growing extremism that is a threat to France and other nations. French companies are trying to get back into Iran. France has its fill of Chinese and Russian spies.
There are many reasons that nations spy on each other besides being an enemy. Although all of our nations are basically open, they are not necessarily completely transparent. Being able to understand your allies, the pressures they face, the practical considerations is important if you are going to engaged in coalition diplomacy such as is occurring with Iran, and Syria. The British government was recently deeply embarrassed by losing a vote over intervention in Syria, the first loss of that sort by a British government in a very long time. There is certainly more to know that if they are or aren't shooting at you.
From the viewpoint of the government, the American public appear to be enemies of the United States.
People keep trying to pull this rhetorical nonsense of describing the American people as "the enemy," and it is utter nonsense - just plain stupid. If you want to do that, then please describe how you could inform 300,000,000 Americans about the most secret inner working of the intelligence agencies without the information also leaking to the many spies and terrorist group members or associates in the US, and ultimately to foreign adversaries? I think you need to demonstrate how you could do that if you want to suggest that the information shouldn't be protected by agencies and the legislators doing their job as representatives in a democratic republic. If you want a practical demonstration as to why your idea is really bad, just try sharing your account name and PINs with 100 of your closest friends and see how things turn out in a year or two.
That isn't correct. It is waived in many circumstances, but it still exists.
Suing the Government – Sovereign Immunity
Under the doctrine called “sovereign immunity,” the United States, New York and other states are immune from suit for torts caused by conditions on their property or by acts of their employees and agents.
Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?
The United States is a sovereign nation. Sovereignty is a simple idea: the United States is an independent nation, governed by the American people, that controls its own affairs. The American people adopted the Constitution and created the government. They elect their representatives and make their own laws. ...
When America declared its independence in 1776, the Declaration described Americans as “one people” who had the right “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
With these words, the United States declared its sovereignty. It became a separate nation, entitled to all the rights of existing nations. It therefore claimed the “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”
You seem to be badly confused on more than one point. Here is a start for you.
The Klan's Favorite Law
Sovereign immunity is an existing legal doctrine that predates the Constitution. No "immunity" law needed.
It's great the way you keep flogging Snowden whether or not it's relevant, which is this case it isn't. But to clarify, he didn't so much go to the press as he went to Russia, just like Philby. The Russians are learning a fair amount from him and are upgrading their systems with the information he has provided. The West loses, diplomatic relations among Western and allied nations are strained, and Russia gets a win:win. Former KGB officer Putin is the one truly LOL, and many in the West are cheering the self-immolation. Case in point.
Choose wisely as to what that issue will be, and how you will conduct your protest or revolt. You could end up in the history books as an example of wisdon, courage and character, or foolishness and fail.
Where's the "court order?"
It's a normal part of the investigative process for police, so figure it out.
Furthermore, there's nothing which would allow blanket surveillance of all users in an area, as opposed to individuals covered under a legitimate warrant.
Do you think it might be possible that there is an imperfection in either your understanding of the methodology of use, or the law, given that these devices are in use and no doubt the combination has withstood legal challenges? But please, summon your facts if you have any, I'd love to see them.
Doesn't the FCC regulate the frequencies used by cell phone towers? Do state police have the authority to use them as well? Do they have a special license from the FCC?
Two things to remember. First, each state police agency is already a licensed user of sophisticated radio equipment that will generally have state-wide reach, a law enforcement agency, increasingly automated with sophisticated equipment, and able to engage in surveillance. Second, Congress has passed laws that the FCC is involved with overseeing for the assistance of law enforcement.
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
In response to concerns that emerging technologies such as digital and wireless communications were making it increasingly difficult for law enforcement agencies to execute authorized surveillance, Congress enacted CALEA on October 25, 1994. CALEA requires a "telecommunications carrier," as defined by the Act, to ensure that equipment, facilities, or services that allow a customer or subscriber to "originate, terminate, or direct communications," enable law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. CALEA was intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct electronic surveillance by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessary surveillance capabilities as communications network technologies evolve
.... but who gets the records?
That is a big question, especially since various state governments in the US have passed data privacy laws, and they aren't always complied with by state agencies. This was in the news about six months ago. I have little doubt there are many more instances of illegal or abusive data transfers out there at the state or local level. Bureaucratic overreach is hardly confined to the Federal government, and often occurs in conjunction with it.
Highway Patrol Handed Concealed Carry Information To Feds - April 11, 2013
It was revealed in Missouri Senate testimony Thursday morning that the Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice handed over to federal officials information regarding concealed carry permits in the state.
The revelation validates the concerns of many Republican state legislators who have warned of the “gun list” for longer than a month.
Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) has led the charge against the Missouri Department of Revenue and others over the list. He said in a press release that the Highway Patrol “asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing.”
According to Schaefer, the list contains 185,000 names and “had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.” ....
Col. Ron Replogle with the Highway Patrol underwent nearly an hour of testimony Thursday morning in a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. Replogle testified that a Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General agent received the discs but was not able to read encrypted data and then destroyed the discs.
“They said no names were retrieved,” Replogle told the committee this morning, according to the Columbia Tribune. “ ...
The gun list issue was first raised in early March when Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder told KMOX News that the Missouri Department of Revenue was illegally sharing information on concealed gun permit applicants with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
45690965
45690965? .... That just doesn't sing. Try this instead.
Lets read that comment again.
Tell me, how do you know, on good authority, that there are all these spies and terrorists IN OUR COUNTRY
He was questioning knowledge of any spies.
Are you the one playing fast and loose with the facts? It seems so. I think that also clarifies where the BS is, and it isn't from me.