Posted on 01/03/2006 1:45:06 AM PST by SBD1
I have many times and reasonable searchs don't require a warrant. That's why they search your baggage at customs without a warrant. It's considered reasonable. That's why customs can inspect incoming and outgoing shipments without a warrant and search ships. That's why we all get searched each and everytime we fly commerically. They are considered reasonable under current conditions. What's reasonable searching for a small amount of drugs (or a large amount for that matter) is very different than what's reasonable searching for a nuclear weapon that you think will go off shortly for example.
That's why the issue in terms of the needs of warrants not only revolves around the presidential foreign affairs and war powers but even if the Bush administration is wrong about those then were the actions reasonable under the circumstances at the time considering what the threat was. If searching each and every passanger flying commerically is reasonable due to the terrorist threat then wouldn't listening to and taking action on converstations between Al Queda operatvives overseas talking to people in the US also be reasonable? Considering what happened on 9/11; the first World Trade Center Bombing; the thwarted attack on the Brooklyn Bridge; the Cole Bombing; the thwarted attack on Los Angeles International Airport, etc. I think it is reasonable. Listening into someone from one of the drug cartels calling a major dealer in the US without a warrant would IMO be unreasonable. While both are threats of serious harm the first one is far more dangerous and represents the highest level of threat.
Here is some material on it:http://www.njsbf.com/njsbf/student/eagle/winter00-1.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/catId/3900BEB2-2599-4E9F-B5F09F0DF3E33C7B/objectId/DED24689-ADA8-4785-887A0B4A19A694DE/104/143/ART/
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/directory/0/16/
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
Therefore, complaints about this NSA thing are pointless, unless the people are saying they don't trust President Bush. If they don't, then there is notohing to say to them.
Well, I'm not going to get into a urinating contest with you.
I know what I'm about and that's really all that matters to me.
Have a nice day.
I guess that we speak different languages.
The 4th Amendment says that the right of the people against unreasonable searches SHALL NOT be violated. To acomplish that, warrants are required and they can only be issued after meeting certain criteria. That means that the government was required to jump through hoops.
Mere suspicion or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not enough to justify a search. There has to be probable cause, preferably some evidence, and a sworn affidavit before a warrant can be issued and a search conducted. How far afield we have drifted.
Therefore, for a search to be reasonable, a warrant must be issued. Any search without one is unreasonable by definition.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there is case law that states the the damn government can do anything that they deem to be reasonable, but that doesn't make it right. And remember that when you argue for 'reasonable' you also argue for reasonable restrictions on your other rights.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The issue is what's reasonable and unreasonable. Those change with the situation just like what's free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can search a building for someone if you're in hot pursuit without a warrant when under ordinary circumstances it would require a warrant. Your luggage can be opened and inspected by customs without a warrant when you are entering or leaving the country. Your vehicle can be searched when entering and leaving the building. If you're driving across the country they can't search your luggage or car without a warrant (with exceptions)
Unreasonable means no warrant. Reasonable means that they get a warrant and had better be able to back it up.
BTW, you can yell fire in a theater. In fact, there are times that you should. If there happens not to be a fire, then that is a different issue. That's a misuse of your right to free speech and you can be charged.
Exigent circumstances do allow police to enter a building if they hear a cry for help or are chasing a suspect and he just entered the building. That searching would not include anyplace that a person could not hide in. But neither of these situations are what we are discussing.
Forget your lawbooks for a minute. I've acknowledged that the 'law' might say something different. I'm asking you to read the 4th carefully. My reading doesn't require that you torture or twist the words. The Founders intended that the government jump through hoops to search you or your effects -- even in scary times. If you want to change that, amend the Constitution.
bttt
None of them were U.S. citizens.
THE 9/11 PILOTS IN THE UNITED STATES
Someone here on FR referred to Lincoln's statement: The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I can't think of a better way to say it.
You don't read well, do you? Did you learn that in your law classes?
I stated plainly that there was case law (and I should have also said court decisions) that said that government could do such searches.
I'm saying that an honest reading of the 4th Amendment says no such thing.
There SHALL not be unreasonable searches. Reasonable ones require a warrant. It's there. Read it for yourself. Take off your law school hat and put on your English speaking, common sense hat.
You are right. This is silly. You have given up your right to think for yourself and now you just accept someone else's opinion as to the meaning of some pretty plain language. Do you think that since these rulings are some 200 years out from when the document was written -- and it held up as I suggested for the better part of that time -- that there might be an agenda at work?
Do you believe that the SCOTUS is unbiased? Or are you just willing to accept what some biased, anti liberty justices have to say?
Do you like the way the SC interprets the Constitution?
Do you believe that McCain Feingold is constitutional?
Don't give me what the courts have said. What do you think?
You want both. There's tension between requiring probable cause and preventing criminal activity before it occurs. But the folks charged with prevention do want to eliminate the threat.
Authorizing 'rubber stamped warrants' is a threat to our personal liberties far, far greater than any secret wiretapping program.
And there is also tension between civil liberties and preventive law enforcement. Dragging the courts into a secret monitoring program (i.e., the courts are willing co-participants) would signal a deeper systematic threat to civil liberties than when the executive branch unilaterally undertakes warrantless surveillance, but others have noted pretty well, "If it's targeted only at bad guys, and the public is unaware, is it really a threat to personal liberties?"
Really? Got some examples? I sure don't remember all that fuss.
Excerpts from 1975 Senate Hearings re: NSA Activity
That page is excerpts. The source links there (lengthy) have a good deal of history and law. Some examples are warrantless surveillance of MLK & Commies. Hoover's FBI ran warrantless surveillance programs that he ordered be kept from Congress.
See also House Report 106-130, jumping to Porter Goss's comments at the end. Most of his commentary is aimed to justify Congress sticking its nose in, but opens with the following ...
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN PORTER J. GOSSRecently, and perhaps for the first time in the committee's history, an Intelligence Community element of the United States Government asserted a claim of attorney-client privilege as a basis for withholding documents from the committee's review. Similarly, various agencies within the Intelligence Community have asserted, with disturbing frequency, a `deliberative process' or `pre-decisional' argument as a basis for attempting to keep requested documents from the committee's scrutiny. These claims are unpersuasive and dubious.
As part of its regular oversight responsibilities and preparatory to the committee's legislative action on this bill, the committee was questioning the National Security Agency's (NSA) application of current operational guidelines in light of the enormous technological advances that have been made in the past several years. The committee was seeking to ensure that the NSA was carrying out its signals intelligence mission in consonance with the law, relevant executive orders, guidelines, and policy directives. At bottom, the committee sought to assure itself that the NSA General Counsel's Office was interpreting NSA's legal authorities correctly and that NSA was not being arbitrary and capricious in its execution of its mission. ^1
[Footnote 1: In the 1970s it was learned that the NSA, as well as other elements of the United States intelligence community, engaged in serious abuses of the privacy interests of U.S. persons. The congressional hearings on these and other matters led directly to the establishment of the Senate Select committee on Intelligence; see S. Res. 400, 94th Congress; and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI); see H. Res. 658, 95th Congress. Additionally, as a result of those inquiries, executive orders were issued and guidelines and policy statements were promulgated defining the mission of the NSA and its legal obligations and responsibilities pursuant to the Constitution and other laws of the United States. See Legislative Oversight of Intelligence Activities: The U.S. Experience, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess., at 2-6 (Comm. Print)(October 1994).]
That was one of the primary uses of warrantless wiretapping in the '70's.
What if the drug kingpin was also considering terror? There is one instance of a drug kingpin downing an airplane in order to dispose of witnesses. IIRC, over 100 dead.
Drawing lines between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" isn't easy, and at some point will come off as somewhat arbitrary.
That was one of the primary uses of warrantless wiretapping in the '70's.
What if the drug kingpin was also considering terror? There is one instance of a drug kingpin downing an airplane in order to dispose of witnesses. IIRC, over 100 dead.
Here are some facts on that one (granted, the terrorism was not "in the US," but the incident points out that there is no way to untangle "terrorism" from other activities.
Incidents of Major Airline Terrorism. By Wm. Robert Johnston.Nov. 27, 1989 -- A bomb exploded aboard a Colombian Avianca Boeing 727 passenger jet departing Bogota, Columbia, en route to Cali, at 7:16. Exploding 5 minutes after takeoff in a passenger seat, the bomb ignited fuel vapors and caused the plane to crash, killing all 107 aboard as well as 3 on the ground. The bomb was planted by members of the Medellin drug cartel, led by Pablo Escobar who was charged by the U.S. in August 1992. The bomb may have been supplied by Islamic terrorists, based on similarities to the one that destroyed Pam American Flight 103. Five passengers were informants who had been targeted by the drug cartel. Two Americans were among those killed. Fatalities: 110.
See #152.
Nice names, but I don't recall articles of impeachment, et al. Can you enlighten me? Which Presidents are we talking about here?
Thank you for the information, however, it doesn't mention articles of impeachment, et al that antiRepublicrat mentioned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.