Court rules wiretaps can continue

Yaboosh

Diabloii.Net Member
But if you want to say that, then you can say that there is no real guarantee, but we are approaching the boundary of both of our limited knowledge on the subject, so, barring a rapid devolving of this thread into, well, the typical OTF thread, I say we stop arguing about things that neither of us really know that much about, heh.
 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
I can agree with that. The only real guarnentees would be the things that are literally described in the constitution...anything else would just be implied interpretation...which we've been doing for well...two-hundred years... :shocked:
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Stompwampa said:
My apologies. I should re-word my argument slightly:
There is no direct right to privacy in the Constitution. Any privacy laws derived from it are all implied through a series of amendments.
The 4th Amendment in and of itself doesn't say anything about privacy. It says we have a right to be secure, which could mean any number of things under any number of interpretations. Also, "unreasonable" and "probable" are highly suggestive to interpretation as well.
Um, first off, distinguishing the Constitution from its Amendments is an odd thing to do.

Secondly, although really the 4th and searches/seizures is the relevant thing here, if you want to find a general argument for "constitutional right to privacy" you might want to look at, I dunno, about the last thirty years of hotly contested abortion jurisprudence. Not so applicable in this issue though, perhaps you should avoid the term "right to privacy".
 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
dondrei said:
Um, first off, distinguishing the Constitution from its Amendments is an odd thing to do.

Secondly, although really the 4th and searches/seizures is the relevant thing here, if you want to find a general argument for "constitutional right to privacy" you might want to look at, I dunno, about the last thirty years of hotly contested abortion jurisprudence. Not so applicable in this issue though, perhaps you should avoid the term "right to privacy".

I'm not seperating the Constitution and it's amendments. But after I read that again, it came accross that way. Regardless, "right to privacy" is implied through a series of the amendments. And yes, it has been upheld with a long line of court cases, inluding the abortion jurisprudence. I think we should all avoid the term "right to privacy." Since it doesn't really exist as an obviously constitutionally given right.
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
I know that every piece of counter terrorism leglislation passed recently has only been used to fight terrorism and there have been no extensions on the scope of it's use beyond combating terrorist activities.
But is it possible that the government will make an exception and start to use this for a much broarder range of purposes?
 

HAMC8112

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
But is it possible that the government will make an exception and start to use this for a much broarder range of purposes?
Would it surprize you if they did?

I am surprized it is not happening already.
 

PatMaGroin

Diabloii.Net Member
ModeratelyConfused said:
Great, I guess I'll have to stop talking to all my friends about building that uranium enriching plant in my backyard now.
Dammit, now they're watching this thread.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Stompwampa said:
I'm not seperating the Constitution and it's amendments. But after I read that again, it came accross that way. Regardless, "right to privacy" is implied through a series of the amendments. And yes, it has been upheld with a long line of court cases, inluding the abortion jurisprudence. I think we should all avoid the term "right to privacy." Since it doesn't really exist as an obviously constitutionally given right.
Well, in this case yes. Whether or not there is a constitutional right to privacy is the subject of heavy controversy.
 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
But is it possible that the government will make an exception and start to use this for a much broarder range of purposes?

It's possible...but I don't think it would get far. That war time exceptions the government is allowed to take are pretty strict afaik. If the government tried to step over those resrictions, I think the courts would slap them so fast thier heads would spin.


dondrei said:
Whether or not there is a constitutional right to privacy is the subject of heavy controversy.
Which is precisely my point. Most of the controversy comes from the constitutional purists who essentially read the constitution literally, and take very little leway in interpretation. But the fact that privacy laws have been upheld in the courts, I'm not going to argue that we have a right to privacy through case law.
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Stompwampa said:
It's possible...but I don't think it would get far. That war time exceptions the government is allowed to take are pretty strict afaik. If the government tried to step over those resrictions, I think the courts would slap them so fast thier heads would spin.
So when the government declares that the war on terror has been won and America is no longer under a terror threat these laws will be revoked... Oh good, here was me worried the government would try find a way to keep those powers for the future.
 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
So when the government declares that the war on terror has been won and America is no longer under a terror threat these laws will be revoked...
Yes, that would be correct.
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Stompwampa said:
Yes, that would be correct.
So... The wiretapping is going to be on the statute books forever...

"We have Seikh Someone al Suchandsuch bin Whoever here as the leader of "Terror" who has agreed to sign a peace treaty with the United States. People of America, your constitutional rights to Free Speech, Right to a Fair Trial and Freedom of Unwarrented Search and Seisure are now restored to you"

Does anyone else see any other scope for civil rights curtailment if the US defines itself as being permanently at war?
 

Stompwampa

Diabloii.Net Member
They can declare to be at war, or "in danger" all they want, but they have to prove it to the courts sould someone sue the governemtn for having thier rights violated. If the government can prove a "Clear and present danger" then that person would likeley lose the lawsuit, unless the infringment they suffered was too severe for the circumstances.
This is not some sort of giant government conspiracy, it's a simple matter of our government doing what they're allowed to do under these circumstances. I don't necessarily like it either, but I have enough faith in our judicial system to use our checks and balances to hold the government in thier place.
 

Talga Vasternich

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
Does anyone else see any other scope for civil rights curtailment if the US defines itself as being permanently at war?
Would you be so kind as to list the civil rights that you have had curtailed?
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Talga Vasternich said:
Would you be so kind as to list the civil rights that you have had curtailed?
Me personally? The right to protest within 1000m or parliament square without asking the governemnt nicely first and the right to not be held without charge. Soon the right to leave my house without an ID card.

You yanks:
As i understand under the recent bill Bush passed he can arrest someone and never have them brought to trial simply by declaring them a terrorist suspect/supporter.
This also presents a huge threat to freedom of speech of people who disagree with terrorist suspects being locked up indefinately as they could be very easily be labeled terrorist supporters.
And the right against unwarrented search and seisure is gone for telephone calls - how long until it's gone completely?

So - Right to a Speedy Trial (or any trial...), Freedom of Speech under threat, Rights against searches and seisures violated.
 

Talga Vasternich

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
Me personally? The right to protest within 1000m or parliament square without asking the governemnt nicely first and the right to not be held without charge.
How often had you previously protested within 1000m of parliment square?
I hadn't heard of the British loss of the right to not be held without charge. How many have been held without charge so far?
PFS said:
Soon the right to leave my house without an ID card.
So this doesn't apply yet.
Also, how is this a loss of rights? Would you be jailed if you did not have one? Fill me in on the details, please.

PFS said:
You yanks:
As i understand under the recent bill Bush passed he can arrest someone and never have them brought to trial simply by declaring them a terrorist suspect/supporter.
This also presents a huge threat to freedom of speech of people who disagree with terrorist suspects being locked up indefinately as they could be very easily be labeled terrorist supporters.
The law reads that it does not apply to American citizens. It may affect you, but not me. I firmly stand behind my country's right to pass laws concerning the treatment of foreign terrorists.
PFS said:
And the right against unwarrented search and seisure is gone for telephone calls - how long until it's gone completely?
I mainly use a cellular phone, so anyone can listen in anyway, if they've got the right gear.
Even if I apply this to my home phone, I know of no one who has been jailed due to these domestic wiretaps. I'm sure someone will correct me and point out how many have been arrested and detained due to these domestic wiretaps, though.
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Talga Vasternich said:
How often had you previously protested within 1000m of parliment square?
Only once so far. But no I no longer have the right to.

I hadn't heard of the British loss of the right to not be held without charge. How many have been held without charge so far?
The governemnt can currently hold a terror suspect for 30 days without trial, but can then have that extended at the end of that 30 days. Rinse. Repeat. They are currently trying to extend the repeat cycle to 90 days.

So this doesn't apply yet.
Also, how is this a loss of rights? Would you be jailed if you did not have one? Fill me in on the details, please.
I'm pretty sure you can be arrested, you can definately be fined and then jailed if you refuse to pay up. Kinda like speeding tickets.

With a little thought of possible consequences there is plenty to be worried about when a government demands you carry a card at all times. Oh - they also want to put GPS tracking devices in every car.

The law reads that it does not apply to American citizens. It may affect you, but not me. I firmly stand behind my country's right to pass laws concerning the treatment of foreign terrorists.
Hmmm... I thought it applied to Americans too. My bad. Does it only not apply to citizens, or does it also not apply to legal residents and people there legally on visas?
What happens if you have a terrorist with American citizenship?

I mainly use a cellular phone, so anyone can listen in anyway, if they've got the right gear.
They can listen, they just can't do it legally.
Even if I apply this to my home phone, I know of no one who has been jailed due to these domestic wiretaps. I'm sure someone will correct me and point out how many have been arrested and detained due to these domestic wiretaps, though.
It is still a constitutional protection/freedom/right that is being violated. You can't let these guys chip away at these things. Once you lose it you won't get it back.
 

Talga Vasternich

Diabloii.Net Member
PFS said:
I'm pretty sure you can be arrested, you can definately be fined and then jailed if you refuse to pay up. Kinda like speeding tickets.
With a little thought of possible consequences there is plenty to be worried about when a government demands you carry a card at all times. Oh - they also want to put GPS tracking devices in every car.
Thanks for filling me in. I agree...having to show ID to be out in public is a horrible idea.
GPS tracking devices in cars isn't a bad idea in my opinion. GPS tracking devices in people...bad idea.

PFS said:
Hmmm... I thought it applied to Americans too. My bad. Does it only not apply to citizens, or does it also not apply to legal residents and people there legally on visas?
What happens if you have a terrorist with American citizenship?
Legal residents and citizens would be charged with treason, most likely. At the very least, we'd be in violation of existing laws and arrested and jailed under those laws.

PFS said:
It is still a constitutional protection/freedom/right that is being violated. You can't let these guys chip away at these things. Once you lose it you won't get it back.
True. This is why there are judicial reviews of these laws. Defining what is and is not an illegal Constitutional violation is best left to those who have made a career of studying the laws as they pertain to the Constitution. We can all have opinions, but that's all they are without detailed, pertinent knowledge.
 

PFS

Diabloii.Net Member
Talga Vasternich said:
Thanks for filling me in. I agree...having to show ID to be out in public is a horrible idea.
GPS tracking devices in cars isn't a bad idea in my opinion. GPS tracking devices in people...bad idea.
Ironically the tracking devices in cars are not for monitoring terrorists but for charging people to use every road in the country by mile driven. I can see that going down in America like diarrorea in a spacesuit.

In the UK you're on camera almost all the time anyway - it is not that big a deal. Also you're in a public place. But but but... Just don't trust a future government not to misuse this.

Legal residents and citizens would be charged with treason, most likely. At the very least, we'd be in violation of existing laws and arrested and jailed under those laws.
So legal reidents cant be held indefinately under the new terrorism detainment rules?

As an aside - just so you don't think I'm some America hating guy who rants about another countries laws when they don't even affect me, my very soon to be wife is American, my future kids will be Americans and there's a decent chance I'll end up as one too (gotta check how that works with my other citizenships). And there's a good chance i'll be raising my future family there - so I consider I have sufficient reason to have a strong interest in the goings on over there and decent grounds to piss and moan about stuff I don't like.
 
Top