• In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of the NSA
    49 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41351776] So that's a good thing? I disagree with quietism.[/QUOTE] The huge vast majority disagrees with your sensationalism
[QUOTE=scout1;41351862]The huge vast majority disagrees with your sensationalism[/QUOTE] I'd like to hope we can strike a middle-ground. Besides, opposition creates new and better ideas.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;41351911]I'd like to hope we can strike a middle-ground. Besides, opposition creates new and better ideas.[/QUOTE] A nice middle ground is reasonable interpretation of our founding constitution to fit the day and age, which is exactly what's happening in this instance
[QUOTE=scout1;41351934]A nice middle ground is reasonable interpretation of our founding constitution to fit the day and age, which is exactly what's happening in this instance[/QUOTE] I disagree, not only is there a seemingly total lack of public oversight, but also the extension of a law that was made to allow the search of bags in a terrorist emergency. Essentially it was justified due to the minimally impairing nature of the law as opposed to the nature of the objective. In the case of mass telecommunications surveillance there is no longer a minimally impairing nature to satisfy the second part of the second test of the "Special Needs Doctrine".
Its sad how far we've come. Let's be honest, even if enough people would care about this, protesting wouldnt change shit. They've been doing this all behind our backs, we are the enemy. They might say "Oh ohh, we will shut down the NSA" (which will probably never happen) and have 4 other secret agencies behind our backs doing even worse stuff. Its a sad day to say this but we must cleanse the system from within. Remove all involved politicians, corporations yadda yadda and let each and every involved person rot in prison.
And the Supreme Court doesn't stop them from acting outside the constitution because...why? That's their sole purpose, to stop blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral shit like this from happening. I don't see how anybody could possibly think this is okay.
[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;41352197]And the Supreme Court doesn't stop them from acting outside the constitution because...why? That's their sole purpose, to stop blatantly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral shit like this from happening. I don't see how anybody could possibly think this is okay.[/QUOTE] I think a lawsuit would have to be brought against them first, which hasn't happened because up until a couple of weeks ago nobody knew for sure that any of this shit was happening.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;41351744]If this is true then I feel stupid. :v:[/QUOTE] There is currently 7 exceptions to the 4th that law enfrocement uses. 1. consent 2. plain view 3. hot pursuit 4. open fields (Curtilage) 5. search incident to arrest 6. motor vehicle 7. exigent circumstances There are many more that are exceptions. You can view them here [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_warrant_requirement[/url]
I don't see the problem with this at all guys. If you had an ability to foresee the future and prevent crime, wouldn't you act upon it and help prevent that crime from happening? The government/NSA are not villains, they're here to protect their citizens so long as they don't break the law. The law is here to keep order and to prevent things from falling out of control. They're not doing anything bad at all. What would you say if the crimes they prevented were not prevented and people had died because of that? What if that person was you and they had managed to protect you from that crime? Surely you wouldn't whinge about it then would you.
[QUOTE=amdX2;41354412]I don't see the problem with this at all guys. If you had an ability to foresee the future and prevent crime, wouldn't you act upon it and help prevent that crime from happening? The government/NSA are not villains, [B][U]they're here to protect their citizens so long as they don't break the law[/U][/B]. The law is here to keep order and to prevent things from falling out of control. They're not doing anything bad at all. What would you say if the crimes they prevented were not prevented and people had died because of that? What if that person was you and they had managed to protect you from that crime? Surely you wouldn't whinge about it then would you.[/QUOTE] Well, that's kind of the issue here. Protecting your citizens is a wonderful thing but when you're (quite transparently) breaking your country's own laws and constitution in order to do so, one could argue that something went amiss. I'm sure that most of this is borne of good intentions, but the question is of how much freedom you're willing to sacrifice for security, and where does it stop? I think, in some respects, it has gone too far and it seems that many others agree.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41354509]Well, that's kind of the issue here. Protecting your citizens is a wonderful thing but when you're (quite transparently) breaking your country's own laws and constitution in order to do so, one could argue that something went amiss. [/QUOTE] According to what court?
who cares about the constitutionality? the constitution is an illegitimate document written hundreds of years ago by slave holders and fundamentalist christians. oppose something because it's wrong, not because some piece of paper told you it is illegal.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41355623]who cares about the constitutionality? the constitution is an illegitimate document written hundreds of years ago by slave holders and fundamentalist christians. oppose something because it's wrong, not because some piece of paper told you it is illegal.[/QUOTE] Well, this is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while. The Constitution is, in most respects, the very cornerstone of the United States and its legal system. You don't just throw that out because it's old, and you don't ignore rule of law in favor of your own sense of morality. If laws need to change then they get changed, but that doesn't mean we get to simply ignore them when it's convenient.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41354509]but when you're (quite transparently) breaking your country's own laws and constitution in order to do so[/QUOTE] Every court involved has said otherwise, and the NSA's actions operate on precedents established decades ago by other agencies. Nothing about this case is new, so why all the complaints about constitutionality as if it's suddenly an issue?
[QUOTE=catbarf;41355893]Every court involved has said otherwise, and the NSA's actions operate on precedents established decades ago by other agencies. Nothing about this case is new, so why all the complaints about constitutionality as if it's suddenly an issue?[/QUOTE] I'd imagine it's because a lot of people weren't aware this was taking place.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41355860]Well, this is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in a while. The Constitution is, in most respects, the very cornerstone of the United States and its legal system. You don't just throw that out because it's old, and you don't ignore rule of law in favor of your own sense of morality. If laws need to change then they get changed, but that doesn't mean we get to simply ignore them when it's convenient.[/QUOTE] if we ignore morality in favor of rule of law we will have another holocaust. the laws are meaningless if you don't believe in them. they are worthless when they turn criminals into heroes and heroes into criminals.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41355986]if we ignore morality in favor of rule of law we will have another holocaust. the laws are meaningless if you don't believe in them. they are worthless when they turn criminals into heroes and heroes into criminals.[/QUOTE] And to go to the other end of that spectrum, if we ignore law in favor of an individual sense of morality, then you have the potential for anarchy. Laws still have meaning even if you don't believe in them. Now if you believe a law is immoral or otherwise wrongful, you should absolutely speak out and fight against it, but that doesn't mean that that law doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;41356125]And to go to the other end of that spectrum, if we ignore law in favor of an individual sense of morality, then you have the potential for anarchy. Laws still have meaning even if you don't believe in them. Now if you believe a law is immoral or otherwise wrongful, you should absolutely speak out and fight against it, but that doesn't mean that that law doesn't exist.[/QUOTE] i never said the law doesn't exist, i said it's worthless. (and btw anarchy would be a pretty awesome thing) [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] the law can't tell you what's right or wrong, only what you will be punished for doing.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;41356168] (and btw anarchy would be a pretty awesome thing) [/QUOTE] ew no
[QUOTE=Glitch360;41350424]Way to go US government, you're making an exception for something that should [b]never[/b] have exceptions. Might as well make exceptions for the entire Constitution while you're at it[/QUOTE] Don't give them any ideas...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.