Eating dinner..
Reading Farkels smart ass informative posts..
Laughing my ass off..
Farkel is good for Digestion..
............................
Should The Police Be Able To Search Without A Warrant?
by minimus 71 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
FreudianSlip
Ass-kisser..
-
OUTLAW
Freudian Slip gives me Gas..
.......................
-
AllTimeJeff
Enjoyed reading this.
HELL NO the police shouldn't search without warrants. Probable cause is the easiest thing to invent. It's tantamount to saying "I felt like searching them."
The constitutional ammendments in question are not the problem in this instance. And although As an aside since it was mentioned, while I like to call myself a liberal here, one thing I disagree with the Dems is over wepons and guns. I know in other countries, you can't get guns, only the governements get them, and so yeah, violent crimes are down. Thats a fact.
And that will never happen in the United States of America. YOU try going up to Northern Michingan and telling those guys that they can't have guns anymore. What we really need is to enforce existing laws and make gun crimes more serious then drug crimes.
Anyway, this turned into how the Consititution can be changed. It won't be, and for that I am thankful. It keeps things like banning Gay Marriage away from Constitutional law. It forces law makers and citizenry to confront their issues without having knee jerk reactions with unintended consequences.
-
minimus
F Slip, if you can't handle Farkel and you think he's "picking" on you, you'll never make it into public service.
Jeff, I agree, no search warrants= no search.
-
JWoods
Of course, we are here talking about the civilian police and citizens or legal residents, yes?
I.E. not cases of investigation into foreign terror organizations or covert intelligence gathering?
I agree - search are warrants necessary for the police to search.
-
ColdRedRain
The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.
Oh, you mean like that nice guy across the street named "Mohammed"? The reason why the government allows for warrantless searches in those instances is because Arab extremists found a way to stop being thuroughly searched by becoming naturalized citizens (Which is very easy to become in this country thanks to libs) and thus being under the jurisdiction of the constitution and turning a military matter into a criminal matter. Bush simply quashed that loophole like any smart wartime commander and leader would do.
-
Elsewhere
> should the police be allowed to search through your cell phone?
No.
-
Elsewhere
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
The Eternal Value of Privacy
Bruce Schneier 05.18.06
The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers: "If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me." "Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition." "Because you might do something wrong with my information." My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies -- whoever they happen to be at the time.
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.
We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.
A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of coursebeing watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty.
For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.
How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.
This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
- - -
Bruce Schneier is the CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and the author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World. You can contact him through his website.
-
Terry
The Consitution creates government according to laws.
The Bill of Rights grants protections from Government.
The Courts "interpret" and enforce the Laws.
The Legislature/Congress modify and adapt the "living documents" according to societal needs.
The population of citizens elects representatives to office.
The dissonance in the entire structure of Society comes from the fact we give GOVERNMENT power over the individual while simultaneously asserting it to be a Government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.
The people have the final and ultimate RESPONSIBILITY to stay informed so they can react.
Instead, the citizenry is manipulated by fear and charismatic talking-heads into knee-jerk reactionary impulses.
Democrats and Republicans have seemingly always elected people prone to corruption and self-service who mouth platitudes and who posture as populists.
For evil to prosper good people must do nothing.
I define "good people" as well-informed.