Data reveal FBI abuses in secret surveillance

[Illuminatus]

Guys, knowing Jonathan David, it's safe to say he was being sarcastic.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

There was a decent movie about this. Think Ray Liotta was in it. Anyways, if a police officer abused this authority they should be held accountable.



Again, a government worker squandering time on such nonsense should be canned and given a bad reference. The main thing I'm concerned about is bad guys hiding behind a 'right to privacy' so they can do perverted things or plan terrorism with relative impunity. Most cops I know are fairly straight laced. The less than honest ones usually get identified as a round peg unable to fit the square hole and cast aside.

The right to privacy is not absolute. What people are demanding is that government intrusions into our privacy be approved beforehand by some sort of oversight. If law enforcement wants to snoop around, they should have to convince someone that such snooping is warranted.

 

[Cerberus~]

Honestly, I would consider this government as large a threat to us as Osama. Osama can only kill us, but the government is the only one that can oppress us.

 

[Autumnleaf]

The right to privacy is not absolute. What people are demanding is that government intrusions into our privacy be approved beforehand by some sort of oversight. If law enforcement wants to snoop around, they should have to convince someone that such snooping is warranted.

They still have to get warrants, or the equivalent. The difference is time is saved by shortening the process to get it. Probable cause for trial purposes is still there as is unreasonable search and seizure, unless I'm missing something.

 

[SimplyMe]

They still have to get warrants, or the equivalent. The difference is time is saved by shortening the process to get it. Probable cause for trial purposes is still there as is unreasonable search and seizure, unless I'm missing something.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. The OP talks about a news article, that claims:

In one case, FBI agents kept an unidentified target under surveillance for at least five years, including more than 15 months without notifying Justice Department lawyers after the subject had moved from New York to Detroit.An FBI investigation found that the delay was a violation of Justice Department and prevented the department ''from exercising its responsibility for oversight and approval of a foreign counterintelligence investigation of a US person."

In other cases, agents obtained e-mail messages after a warrant expired, seized bank records without authority, and conducted an improper ''unconsented physical search," according to the documents.

These are cases where there was no warrant or the warrant expired, even if the Patriot Act was being used.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

They still have to get warrants, or the equivalent. The difference is time is saved by shortening the process to get it. Probable cause for trial purposes is still there as is unreasonable search and seizure, unless I'm missing something.

From the OP:

agents obtained e-mail messages after a warrant expired, seized bank records without authority, and conducted an improper ''unconsented physical search,"​

The FBI was not following the rules. Some here have said that they don't mind this since the FBI was going after "suspected terrorists."

 

[Autumnleaf]

From the OP:

agents obtained e-mail messages after a warrant expired, seized bank records without authority, and conducted an improper ''unconsented physical search,"​

The FBI was not following the rules. Some here have said that they don't mind this since the FBI was going after "suspected terrorists."

Right, they violated the rules and it was investigated. Did the culprit agents get off easy?

 

[Scholar in training]

It is against the law, period. That is the only argument that need be made.

Do our rights stem from the law or from God?

 

[praying]

Do our rights stem from the law or from God?

Depends on the right, but what does this have to do with illeagal surveillance?

 

[Scholar in training]

Depends on the right, but what does this have to do with illeagal surveillance?

Is government surveillance of citizens wrong because the law says so or because it is against our rights?

 

[praying]

Is government surveillance of citizens wrong because the law says so or because it is against our rights?

Illegal surveillance is wrong becuase the law says so, IMHO.

 

[Scholar in training]

Illegal surveillance is wrong becuase the law says so, IMHO.

What if at a future date the law says that surveillance is entirely permissable? Will the "rightness" of the action change because the law changed?

 

[praying]

What if at a future date the law says that surveillance is entirely permissable? Will the "rightness" of the action change because the law changed?

All surveillance under any conditons, no can agree with that.

 

[SimplyMe]

What if at a future date the law says that surveillance is entirely permissable? Will the "rightness" of the action change because the law changed?

To that I would simply remind us all of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"

 

[Scholar in training]

All surveillance under any conditons, no can agree with that.

Of course not. Our rights - which do not stem from any mere law, the law is there only to protect our God-given rights - are always erroded slowly.

 

[praying]

Of course not. Our rights - which do not stem from any mere law, the law is there only to protect our God-given rights - are always erroded slowly.

What would you say are our God given rights?

 

[Diamonds2004]

just so long as it's not you doing the sacrificing

I take this as a stand alone phrase apart from anyone who said it.

Those who sacrifice thie freedom don't deserve to have any of it. Period.
I try to say that with the most emphasis that text can communicate.

if you don't excercise your liberty to badger your Representatives and Senators, then you will lose it and probably don't deserve it either. Those represetatives put themselves there. They chose to run for the job, they got it, and be under the scrutiny of the public. That is what the job of a representative is and shoud be, to be a public servant.

If you do not exercise your liberty in the U.S. to tell those around you ofthe rightful Judgement Day of mankind and the supreme loving that God made as a sacrifice on the

Ben Franklin, diplomat for years to England before relations went sour and led to the revolutionary War. Diplomat to France to persuade King Louis XVII. He understood what fighting for freedom and liberty took. The credentials on this guy are plenty. He wanted to avoid a war and tried much to stop it, but finally he concluded that the hardness of Parliment was not moving and he knew that war would happen, so accepted it and fought for the liberty of America. His illegimate son, the governor of Virginia, sided with England and the division of this was deep enough that the writing left to us only tells us that they were never reconciled over this issue.

Ben Franklin says, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The man knows literally what he is talking about.

If you want to know that the tyranny of the current government in surveillence is the very thing they fought against. Since Ben Franklin was a printer, he wrote plenty of material. If you read his words you see that his edge of sarcasm is as fresh today as the day that it was written and printed. His writings reflected this fighting spirit of liberty and freedom of speech and the press that He has. Who else buy a printer to know it best?

Comments: The Patriot Act giving such powers is literally unconstitutional. I get fed up with special interest groups always proclaim "unconstituional".

I can say with full confidence that this is unconstitutional in its entire nature.

 

[Alarum]

The actual quote is: [size=-1]“Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.”

Other then that, I agree with you entirely.
[/size]