Are you bothered by the possibility of the government spying on you?

[Madcowhunter]

The level of enforcement of our laws is not supposed to be pending on speculation or our state of trust. The Constitution clearly prohibits the government (to which the Secret Service, the CIA, and the NSA are all part of) from participating in searches and seizures without a necessary warrant. I don’t care how trustworthy the authorities are, I don’t care how devoted to duty they are, I wouldn’t care if my entire family was in the CIA and neither should you. The law is the law. And just because you believe they are accomplish thier duty with integrity, it doesn’t mean they are above the law. We have laws in the country, good laws, and for a damn good reason. And we shouldn't allow anyone to place themselves above the law for the sake of self-preservation or convenience.

[RIGHT in the middle]

I agree with you on that one Madcowhunter. Although, terrorists that are not from this country, the rules don't apply. The constitution is for us and us only. It isn't for everyone in the world. And if you want to blow up Americans then the rules shouldn't apply to you either. For that would make you a trader and the rules state that you can be shot were you stand during a time of war wich we are in. (not you literally) Now when and if the CIA and all of those guys start kicking in doors of innocent Americans or Americans at all with out a warrent, then and only then can you bitch. Why do people think taht the CIA are tapping innocent people phones. That is so retarded it's pathetic. They don't care about us. They care about people talking to known terrorists and taht is the bottom line.

[Madcowhunter]

That is so retarded it's pathetic. They don't care about us. They care about people talking to known terrorists and taht is the bottom line. But this isn't true. The Federal Government is in fact wiretapping the telphones of American citizens. It happens, and it has been happening for several years. The fact is the Federal Government cannot call an American citizen a terrorist unless it is proven so in the court of law. The Patriot Act grants them the authority to wiretap without a warrant; under those conditions, there are no safegaurds to regulate the authorities to limit their wiretapping only to "known terrorists".

[RIGHT in the middle]

This is true, but at some point ou HAVE to put your faith in our government. You have to come to a conclusion that know one wants to hear about some elses favorite recipe when they are supposed to be listening in on bad guys that want to kill us. Think of it. If I or you for that matter was in charge of that, wouldn't we be listening in on the bad people? I fully agree on questioning our government and believe that we need proteters in order to keep or government in check. Although there comes a time when you just have to let them do what ever they have to do to protect us. Everything short from torture is OK in my book. I have my faith in them having the right guy.

[Superman4ever]

This is true, but at some point ou HAVE to put your faith in our government.

I am in agreement with you, Ritm, at some point, you have to trust our gov. to protect us. Hopefully, this would be in accordance with the law. This is why Pres. Bush and the majority of the Republican Party and even some Dems wanted the Partiot Act.

If you view(ed) the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, then you probably view the Iraq war as unconstitutional, since Congress did not "declare war". That would hold true for all the wars and conflicts since WWII.
What about the terrorist prisoners at Gitmo in Cuba. They are being held without charges or due process. What do we do with them? Do we owe these people constitutional rights, even when they are not U.S. citizens? That might be a good question for another thread.

My point here is that our gov. is trying to protect us. It is like the little dutch boy using all his fingers to plug the holes in the dike, but the dike has more holes than the boy has fingers.

[Madcowhunter]

No safeguards and no regulations equal no trust. If my government wants to protect me, then they can do in accordance with the law.

If you view(ed) the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, then you probably view the Iraq war as unconstitutional, since Congress did not "declare war". The president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, as declared by the Constitution. As defined by the War Powers Act, he is able to utilize his power as Chief Executive to use the military as a “police force” in foreign and domestic situations. This is legal so long as it is approved by Congress. And Congress has authorized military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our founders took advantage of this power as well.

What about the terrorist prisoners at Gitmo in Cuba. They are being held without charges or due process. What do we do with them? Do we owe these people constitutional rights, even when they are not U.S. citizens? Those men in Guantanamo Bay are foreign prisoners of war. Not only that; they are “un-uniformed” prisoners of war. They don’t officially belong to a country or a recognized army. They are singled out from American citizens and enemy soldiers. Their rights are not the same.

It is like the little dutch boy using all his fingers to plug the holes in the dike, but the dike has more holes than the boy has fingers. How so? You keep saying that the government will only wiretap “known terrorists”… Well, if they are “known terrorists” and American citizens, then there should be no problem obtaining a warrant, something that nowadays can be done over the phone. You guys think that our laws are binding the government much more than they actually are.

[Superman4ever]

Dear Madcowhunter,
I agree with you on every point, but let me play devil's advocate,......as much as I hate too.

quote: Madcowhunter:
"The president is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, as declared by the Constitution. As defined by the War Powers Act, he is able to utilize his power as Chief Executive to use the military as a “police force” in foreign and domestic situations. This is legal so long as it is approved by Congress. And Congress has authorized military force in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our founders took advantage of this power as well."

The Constitution Party views otherwise. (Wadi suggested I check them out.)

quote from The Constitution Party platform:
"We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution."
Constitution Party link:http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Terrorism%20and%20Personal%20Li berty

Which is it?

Here's another one:
"The Constitution Party is unalterably opposed to the criminal acts of terrorists, and their organizations, as well as the governments which condone them. Individuals responsible for acts of terrorism must be punished for their crimes, including the infliction of capital punishment where appropriate. In responding to terrorism, however, the United States must avoid acts of retaliation abroad which destroy innocent human lives, creating enmity toward the United States and its people."

Do you want to treat these people as "criminals?" If you do, they should have certain rights and holding them in prison without charges or due process, is illegal.
If you define them as prisoners of war, or war criminals, that flies in the fact that Congress has not "declared war."

quote Madcowhunter:
"How so? You keep saying that the government will only wiretap “known terrorists"

I don't recall saying "known terrorists".
Thats the problem. How do you know who the terrorists are until they pop up on someones radar screen as someone that needs a closer look...for a warrant, wiretap, or further investigation.
Before you can obtain a search warrant, the investigating agency needs to have some evidence or "probable cause" that a crime has been commited, or will be commited.
That's the catch-22 of the situation. Most people who want to commit an act of terrorism against the U.S. know this, and if you look at the past acts of terrorism around the globe, the terrorists' first overt act is the commission of the crime.
In essence, organizing the funding for the crime, buying or obtaining the explosives, recruiting the poor sap, who is the suicide/homicide trigger man,... on and on. Each of these things, in itself does not constitute a crime. Buying blackpowder, or farming fertilizers, or for that matter, buying box cutters are not crimes.

So how do you investigate these activities without a warrant? Without probable cause?
This is usually how......... You end up sifting through the rubble for clues......

[Madcowhunter]

The Constitution Party views otherwise. (Wadi suggested I check them out.)I'm not a member of the Constitution Party. But anyways, I'm familiar with Article 1 Section 8. But just refer back to my post; the Iraq Conflict is unconstitutional under the Presidential War Powers, and the fact that armed force was authorized by Congress.

Do you want to treat these people as "criminals?" If you do, they should have certain rights and holding them in prison without charges or due process, is illegal.First off, I'll start by saying that Constitution does not state that it protects all people... I believe only American citizens and our allies are entitled to Constitutional rights. When dealing with enemy combatants, we have the Geneva Conventions. Also, the rights of these terrorists are limited. Since they are "un-uniformed", they are unlawful combatats, and must be treated as such.

I don't recall saying "known terrorists". My bad. RITM must have said it. I have also had numerous people bring up the term during debates over the Patriot Act.

In essence, organizing the funding for the crime, buying or obtaining the explosives, recruiting the poor sap, who is the suicide/homicide trigger man,... on and on. Each of these things, in itself does not constitute a crime. Buying blackpowder, or farming fertilizers, or for that matter, buying box cutters are not crimes. Buying black powder, box cutters, etc. are not illegal: True. They do not seem dangerous when singled out. So lets say a man purchased some blackpowder... Not too bad. But lets say he purchased the powder, several cellphones, technical gear, other materials that can be used to craft explosives, and lets say he is in constant contact with someone in Kabul. All of this information mixed together should be probable cause for obtaining a warrant.

[Superman4ever]

Buying black powder, box cutters, etc. are not illegal: True. They do not seem dangerous when singled out. So lets say a man purchased some blackpowder... Not too bad. But lets say he purchased the powder, several cellphones, technical gear, other materials that can be used to craft explosives, and lets say he is in constant contact with someone in Kabul. All of this information mixed together should be probable cause for obtaining a warrant.

First....
1. How does the gov. (FBI), know that he has purchased black powder or some other legally purchased explosive?
2. How does the gov know that he has purchased several cell phones?
3. How does the gov. know he has purchased technical gear.(wiring, circuit boards, etc)?
4. How does the gov. know he is in constant contact with someone in Kabul?
(Keeping in mind, however, that he didn't buy them all at once at his local Walmart, while talking to Afghanistan on his cell phone, while being overheard to say the words, "Osama" and "Jihad", several times in an angry tone.)

I would say this would first require this man, doing something to tip the U.S. Gov. off that he is plotting something against its citizens.
What is that something?
AND,
Does that something rise to the level of "probable cause" for the FBI/NSA to legally obtain a warrant?
A warrant to legally tap his phone, obtain copies of his bank records, and credit card transactions, search his garbage, and obtain whatever else is deemed necessary to uncover his intentions.
This is what is required to obtain a search warrant.

All of this sounds alot like the U.S. Gov. "spying" on its citizens.

[Madcowhunter]

1. How does the gov. (FBI), know that he has purchased black powder or some other legally purchased explosive?
2. How does the gov know that he has purchased several cell phones?
3. How does the gov. know he has purchased technical gear.(wiring, circuit boards, etc)?
4. How does the gov. know he is in constant contact with someone in Kabul?

There is no definitive way to answer these questions. There are dozens of ways that this kind of information can be attained while under the respective order of the law. Perhaps a concerned citizen tipped off the feds. Or perhaps an agent attained this information while tailing the individual for whatever reason. Maybe they got it through bribery, or maybe they government has someone on the inside.

Now, I have a question… Obviously, to obtain a warrant, there has to be probable cause. Now it is either you or Right in the Middle (or perhaps both) who keeps bringing up this point: The government will not be wiretapping the phones of random Americans. Do you agree? If you do agree, then please explain exactly who they will be monitoring. If it’s not random Americans, then who is it? Is it terrorists or Americans with ties to terrorism? If it is, then how does the government know that they are terrorists before the wiretapping? Obviously, since the Federal Government isn’t going to be wiretapping the phones of random people, they have probable cause of whomever it is they’re monitoring in the first place. If this is true, then why can’t they share the probable cause and obtain a warrant?

All of this sounds alot like the U.S. Gov. "spying" on its citizens. Is it spying? Yes it is. But if they obtained a warrant, then at least the American people can feel safe with the fact that the spying is justified through probable cause.

I have said this before; if the government is allowed to wiretap without a warrant, then who is to stop them from abusing that power? The Patriot Act would say that this power would only be used on people who are deemed a threat to the country. But there is no authority to hold them true to this statement since they can bypass the process of obtaining a warrant.

[Superman4ever]

Madcowhunter,
Alot of what I am going to say is conjecture, because I don't know exactly how the Feds (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security), go about their investigtions. I can only speak to how I was involved in law enforcement.
It should be noted, however, that 99% of your local/state law enforcement is conducted "re-actively" and not "pro-actively".
In essence, a string of burglaries are committed, and through evidence left at the scene, fingerprints, witnesses, the stolen items are pawned, who pawned them, etc. The investigator can piece together the evidence and hopefully come up with a suspect. Then the investigator can get a judge to sign off on your search warrant and/or warrant of arrest. A definite re-active approach to crime, since the crime(s) have already taken place. You're just trying to prevent any further of the same.
Now, when you address foreign and/or domestic terrorism, I am hoping that the feds would be addressing it from a pro-active position. In essence, you have to stop the crime before it is committed. That is the real challenge. It is like the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report", except you don't have the psychics to tell you who, where or when the crime is going to happen.

To get to your questions:
quote Madcowhunter:
"The government will not be wiretapping the phones of random Americans. Do you agree? If you do agree, then please explain exactly who they will be monitoring. If it’s not random Americans, then who is it? Is it terrorists or Americans with ties to terrorism?"

I agree, from the standpoint, that if it were my job in the FBI, assigned to counter-terrorism , taping random American phones would be pointless and a huge waste of time. It would be akin to me suspecting every man with a mustache, as a suspect in a burglary, because the burglar that was seen had one.

If it were me, I would first want to know who the Americans, or resident aliens, are that have ties, or, who are sympathetic toward terrorist groups, i.e., Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas, the Talaban, etc.
How do you know they are sympathetic, or have ties? Maybe they have a family member who is a "known terrorist", but lives overseas. Maybe they are known to have given charitable donations to a "known terrorist organization" or front. It is these people, who I would want to wiretap, because of their obvious connections.

All of this comes from good intelligence gathering, which is at the heart of this matter.
You need the CIA working in conjunction with the FBI, NSA, ATF, and whatever other organizations are required.

Now, if I went to the federal judge, and asked for a warrant to tap Achmed's phone, because he has two brothers in Hezbollah, and has been observed regularly attending a mosque with a radical imam, and is a regular attendant at pro-islam/anti-american rallies and war protests, I am sure the judge wouldn't sign my warrant because there is no probable cause that a crime is being committed, or will be committed.
(Note: Notice I used the middle eastern angle here because I do believe in racial profiling, but, I am sure it is unconstitutional and couldn't be used here.)

I would need something more,....like Achmed has received alot of money from one of Hezbollah's front organizations, and he is studying how to make bomb's over the internet.
But, once again, these areas of investigation require a warrant to search his bank records, and computer files.

quote madcowhunter:
"That is Obviously, since the Federal Government isn’t going to be wiretapping the phones of random people, they have probable cause of whomever it is they’re monitoring in the first place. If this is true, then why can’t they share the probable cause and obtain a warrant?"

Because the feds have reasons to "monitor" someone, doesn't mean those reasons rise to the level of "probable cause" for a warrant.
"Probable cause" is defined in the law as; "reasonable and prudent grounds for a belief that a crime has been committed." So if your evidence doesn't rise to that standard, you don't get the warrant.
That's where, I believe, a hole in this situation exists. How do you get a warrant for someone who is acting suspicious, but no evidence exists he is breaking any law.

quote Madcowhunter:
"There are dozens of ways that this kind of information can be attained while under the respective order of the law. Perhaps a concerned citizen tipped off the feds. Or perhaps an agent attained this information while tailing the individual for whatever reason. Maybe they got it through bribery, or maybe they government has someone on the inside."

Just look at the 9/11 attacks, you had men enrolled in pilot training who weren't interested in taking off or landing the plane. Somehow this didn't raise any eyebrows, or cause concern for anyone to tip off the feds.
Agents tailing someone for "whatever reason". I would want a reason to tail someone. (maybe you could clarify this point.) but, tailing someone might give you some of the info above, but what if this guy is smart, and he is doing his shopping and evil correspondence over the internet and from the safety of his home.
"Maybe they got it through bribery or someone working on the inside."
"Snitches" have always been a good source of criminal intelligence, but with the terrorists we face today, they have a tendency to be very closed off and distrusting of outsiders who aren't a proven member of their group. This holds true for the Jihadists and the Timothy McVeighs'.
I do agree with you, that in certain situations, a warrant should be obtained, but what do you do with those others that don't fit the mold?

[Madcowhunter]

It should be noted, however, that 99% of your local/state law enforcement is conducted "re-actively" and not "pro-actively".
This may be true. However, this fact alone is not a result of a flaw in the Constitution, or some inadequacy of our laws. If the police are not pro-active, then it is a problem with the specific individual or law enforcement. But should we allow the government to commence unconstitutional searches just because the officers are not pro-active? Negligence or derelictions of duty on part of the law enforcement are not adequate reasons to change our laws. Now, I don’t necessarily blame law enforcement for this. I doubt their resources or manpower do not leave much room for a great deal of pro-active law enforcement. However, when it comes to the Federal level, and when the investigation is a matter of national security, then all law enforcement should be entirely pro-active.

Now, if I went to the federal judge, and asked for a warrant to tap Achmed's phone, because he has two brothers in Hezbollah, and has been observed regularly attending a mosque with a radical imam, and is a regular attendant at pro-islam/anti-american rallies and war protests, I am sure the judge wouldn't sign my warrant because there is no probable cause that a crime is being committed, or will be committed.
Our nation was built of compromises; and in that essence, I would be willing to make a compromise between the definitions of “probable cause” in certain cases. In the Supreme Court decision of Illinois v. Gates, the definition of probable cause was taken to a milder stance. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the prerequisites for commencing searches and seizures in a school were specially crafted, ruling that searches could be commenced without a warrant as long as it the search was reasonable. I do not agree that we should allow the Federal Government the same power to commence warrant-less searches, however I would compromise in the stance that we make the definition of probable cause milder when it is an issue of absolute national security.

I do not support this power being used on American citizens who are only utilizing their 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble and speak their mind as to the war or the government in general. However, if the nature of the supposedly “peaceful assemblage” consisted of giving moral support to the enemy or wishing violence onto Americans, then the circumstances would call for a different course of action. When people carry signs that say “Support our Mutineers” or “Support the Iraqi Resistance”, then perhaps there is probable cause that indicates their support for terrorism, and the possibility of their involvement in covert terrorist activities.

When it comes to racial profiling, I have no disagreement. The Constitution does not protect people for being profiled for whatever reason. As long as the profiling doesn’t lead to unconstitutional searches and seizures, I have no problem with it.

[Superman4ever]

quote Madcowhunter:
"However, when it comes to the Federal level, and when the investigation is a matter of national security, then all law enforcement should be entirely pro-active."

I believe that this is how Homeland Security is trying to approach terrorism.
Being re-active is just the nature of your state and local law enforcement agency. If they were on the level of operating pro-actively, you would see a police officer on nearly every corner. Something resembling a police state, and nobody wants that.

quote Madcowhunter:
"I do not agree that we should allow the Federal Government the same power to commence warrant-less searches, however I would compromise in the stance that we make the definition of probable cause milder when it is an issue of absolute national security."

I agree with you 100%. But some would view that as further erosion of our constitution.

quote Madcowhunter:
"However, if the nature of the supposedly “peaceful assemblage” consisted of giving moral support to the enemy or wishing violence onto Americans, then the circumstances would call for a different course of action. When people carry signs that say “Support our Mutineers” or “Support the Iraqi Resistance”, then perhaps there is probable cause that indicates their support for terrorism, and the possibility of their involvement in covert terrorist activities."

In my opinion, some of this has already happened. Example, at the so called "peace rallies" in Washington, where people carried similarly disgusting signs, vandalized the capital, and spit on a returned serviceman.
Some, however, would argue they are simply exersizing their freedom of speech.
That raises another question. Does giving "moral support" to the enemy, or "wishing violence onto Americans", violate the law of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." If that were true, Jane Fonda should have been charged with treason during Vietnam.

[RIGHT in the middle]

Buying black powder, box cutters, etc. are not illegal: True. They do not seem dangerous when singled out. So lets say a man purchased some blackpowder... Not too bad. But lets say he purchased the powder, several cellphones, technical gear, other materials that can be used to craft explosives, and lets say he is in constant contact with someone in Kabul. All of this information mixed together should be probable cause for obtaining a warrant.
And how do you think they got all of this info. The terrorists are playing us with our own rules. Hell, we will even teach them how to fly the damn plays they use to kill us with. It is Homeland securities job and the CIA's job to protect us from people that want to do harm to the USA. Therefor the people they are going to be in contact with, the majoity of them, aren't US citizens and therfor the constitution does not apply to them. The Geneva Convention does though. So go back through history and look up what all the CIA and the MI5 and the KGB has done in order to protect there country.

Like I have said before, if the local police and FBI for that matter doing this then I would be upset.

It was me saying known terrorists.

[san clemente]

I personally don't care. It's a safety issue and nothing more. I do however, unerstand why it is an issue with some.

[thumbelina]

Welcome, san clemente. San Clemente, as in here (http://www.google.com/maps?q=San+Clemente,+CA,+USA&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1&iwloc=addr)?

[KSigMason]

A little, but I don't really care. If they wanna listen to me talk to girls on the 900-Talk-Dirty numbers then they are really bored.