This isn't news to me. They can kill you without a warrant, so violating privacy isn't going to be an obstacle for them.

O-Trap;1425133 wrote:They're spending a bunch of money on the building and maintenance of an infrastructure to make sure they're not missing any money collected in taxes ... does that sound about right?

Gotta spend money to make money....right?

believer;1425230 wrote:Gotta spend money to make money....right?

If you're spending it on a profitable venture, sure. However, this would be a financial sinkhole within years.

believer;1425004 wrote:The ACLU is a leftist nut-case organization. Make no mistake about that.

So....I take it you don't like civil liberties, no? Your post by default means you are pro fascism.

Tell me what you don't like obout the ACLU? Yhe ACLU tries to enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens. Somehow that makes them a "leftist nut case organization". I guess the Ron Paulista crowd is "leftist nut case group" as well.

Footwedge;1425729 wrote:So....I take it you don't like civil liberties, no? Your post by default means you are pro fascism.

Tell me what you don't like obout the ACLU? Yhe ACLU tries to enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens. Somehow that makes them a "leftist nut case organization". I guess the Ron Paulista crowd is "leftist nut case group" as well.

Technically, the post doesn't mean he's pro-fascism, necessarily. It may indeed mean he doesn't believe the ACLU does what it purports to do.

Not that I agree or disagree with him. Just thought I'd maybe offer a potential alternative.

Footwedge;1425729 wrote:So....I take it you don't like civil liberties, no? Your post by default means you are pro fascism.

Tell me what you don't like obout the ACLU? Yhe ACLU tries to enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens. Somehow that makes them a "leftist nut case organization". I guess the Ron Paulista crowd is "leftist nut case group" as well.

The ACLU's pet causes almost always lean left. Asserting my constitutional right to free speech by speaking the truth - or at least my humble opinion - about the ACLU doesn't necessarily mean I'm pro-fascist.

O-Trap;1425730 wrote:Technically, the post doesn't mean he's pro-fascism, necessarily. It may indeed mean he doesn't believe the ACLU does what it purports to do.

Not that I agree or disagree with him. Just thought I'd maybe offer a potential alternative.

For every time I agree with their stance, there are at least 5 times where they're fairly obvious fringe wackadoodles.

Footwedge;1425729 wrote:So....I take it you don't like civil liberties, no? Your post by default means you are pro fascism.

Tell me what you don't like obout the ACLU? Yhe ACLU tries to enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens. Somehow that makes them a "leftist nut case organization". I guess the Ron Paulista crowd is "leftist nut case group" as well.

They pick and choose those cases which they choose to support and constitutionally support. A true Constitutionalist organization would fight for all constitutional rights.

gut;1424194 wrote:Are people really dumb enough to send emails like this to their accountant?

"BILL, DID YOU REMEMBER TO DEDUCT MY WIFE'S CAR AND THAT NEW 80" PLASMA????"

If people are dumb enough to fall for Nigerian scam letters, they're dumb enough to do this. Easily.

queencitybuckeye;1425746 wrote:For every time I agree with their stance, there are at least 5 times where they're fairly obvious fringe wackadoodles.

this

Con_Alma;1425752 wrote:They pick and choose those cases which they choose to support and constitutionally support. A true Constitutionalist organization would fight for all constitutional rights.

and this

I wasn't picking a side on that discussion here. I only wished to point out that if someone doesn't like them, it doesn't mean that person doesn't like what they say the stand for. It can mean that the person doesn't believe they stand for what they say they stand for. That's all.

believer;1425004 wrote:The ACLU is a leftist nut-case organization. Make no mistake about that.

for a fascist you are correct. The ACLU has defended the KKK. They are all about civil liberties which of course fascists could give a crap about. It is a shame there are so many American fascists.

Zombaypirate;1429626 wrote:for a fascist you are correct. The ACLU has defended the KKK. They are all about civil liberties which of course fascists could give a crap about. It is a shame there are so many American fascists.

I think the point was they sometimes imagine civil liberty violations where it suits pushing their liberal agenda.

Footwedge;1425729 wrote:Tell me what you don't like obout the ACLU? Yhe ACLU tries to enforce the constitutional rights of the citizens. Somehow that makes them a "leftist nut case organization". I guess the Ron Paulista crowd is "leftist nut case group" as well.

Here's one for you - There are stories out today that the Boston Marathon Suspect #2 was not read his Miranda Rights last night. If this is true, the ACLU will be sending lawyers his way. It will be their sworn duty to get him set free. It wouldn't be the first time they stepped in to defend the indefensible. Is that a good enough reason not to like them?

Before anyone pipe's in about how Miranda rights aren't negotiable, please let us all know how their lawsuits against drone attacks on Americans, the status of their cases vs. the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act as it pertains to the 4th Amendment, and how they are defending the illegal searches and seizures of cars without warrants are coming along.

BGFalcons82;1430475 wrote:Here's one for you - There are stories out today that the Boston Marathon Suspect #2 was not read his Miranda Rights last night.

Not sure of the technical specifics, but if he hasn't been formally arrested then they don't have to have read him his rights yet. The clarification I heard wrt Graham was if charged as an enemy combatant then he would not be read his rights. So I think a conscious decision was made to take him into custody but wait to see how they will proceed.

It actually came up with the other 3 roommates they took in. Officials said specifically "in custody, not under arrest". They are not free to go of their own will but they've not been charged with a crime. They can hold you 24-48 hours before they have to charge you, but maybe that's just Hollywood.

Boat raised the question on whether he can be charged federally. I don't know. That COULD be why they might want to charge him as an enemy combatant because MA does not have the death penalty. Although I'm also not sure facing state and federal trials are mutually exclusive - my understanding is that is not double jeopardy.

gut;1430572 wrote:Not sure of the technical specifics, but if he hasn't been formally arrested then they don't have to have read him his rights yet. The clarification I heard wrt Graham was if charged as an enemy combatant then he would not be read his rights. So I think a conscious decision was made to take him into custody but wait to see how they will proceed.

It actually came up with the other 3 roommates they took in. Officials said specifically "in custody, not under arrest". They are not free to go of their own will but they've not been charged with a crime. They can hold you 24-48 hours before they have to charge you, but maybe that's just Hollywood.

Boat raised the question on whether he can be charged federally. I don't know. That COULD be why they might want to charge him as an enemy combatant because MA does not have the death penalty. Although I'm also not sure facing state and federal trials are mutually exclusive - my understanding is that is not double jeopardy.

From my understanding, under public safety exception suspect doesn't have to be immediately informed of Miranda Rights regardless of arrest. The scope of admissible questions is "narrow" under this exception and can only cover situations that still present a danger to law enforcement or the public.

In this situation I see no way the suspect could answer questions about "public safety" (ie remaining bombs, co-conspirators, or plots) without incriminating himself, and thus violating the 5th amendment.

To go along with this IRS no warrant topic, if CISPA passes nobody in law enforcement will ever need a warrant. Every website and ISP will have the option to give up info "voluntarily" with no warrant required.

Mulva;1430661 wrote: In this situation I see no way the suspect could answer questions about "public safety" (ie remaining bombs, co-conspirators, or plots) without incriminating himself, and thus violating the 5th amendment.

I think they probably already have enough to prosecute. And I don't believe he's been formally charged yet.

Sounds like there is also a secondary issue with intelligence people having ongoing access to him for questioning.

Mulva;1430661 wrote: To go along with this IRS no warrant topic, if CISPA passes nobody in law enforcement will ever need a warrant. Every website and ISP will have the option to give up info "voluntarily" with no warrant required.

Technically it's their info, not yours. No different than going into a business and asking for a sales record, that business can choose to share that with or without a warrant. They provided a service, and they should be able to choose whether or not they want to provide details of that service. Let the marketplace decide - if you are uncomfortable with your ISP potentially disclosing something, then use a different ISP...or don't use it to conduct illegal activity. Seems like more of a provider/consumer issue than Big Brother.

It really is a gray area. It's a tug-of-war with people wanting to expand their privacy outside their home and property, and private actions, to "public" situations. I struggle a bit to understand why my digital doings, utilizing a public service of the internet, would be entitled to greater privacy than if I bought a coffee at Starbucks.

gut;1430680 wrote:Technically it's their info, not yours. No different than going into a business and asking for a sales record, that business can choose to share that with or without a warrant. They provided a service, and they should be able to choose whether or not they want to provide details of that service. Let the marketplace decide - if you are uncomfortable with your ISP potentially disclosing something, then use a different ISP...or don't use it to conduct illegal activity. Seems like more of a provider/consumer issue than Big Brother.

It really is a gray area. It's a tug-of-war with people wanting to expand their privacy outside their home and property, and private actions, to "public" situations. I struggle a bit to understand why my digital doings, utilizing a public service of the internet, would be entitled to greater privacy than if I bought a coffee at Starbucks.

Per US Constitution - "Secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

No difference in sending an email than making a phone call or sending a physical letter. It's just a different method of communication. If you want to monitor it, get probable cause that a crime has been committed. There doesn't seem to be anything grey about that. Treat citizens like citizens, not criminals. And if you think they are criminals, get probable cause (an extremely low standard of guilt) to secure a warrant. How hard is that, honestly?

It's innocent until proven guilty. Not monitor because you might be guilty.

Mulva;1430789 wrote:Per US Constitution - "Secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

No difference in sending an email than making a phone call or sending a physical letter. It's just a different method of communication. If you want to monitor it, get probable cause that a crime has been committed. There doesn't seem to be anything grey about that. Treat citizens like citizens, not criminals. And if you think they are criminals, get probable cause (an extremely low standard of guilt) to secure a warrant. How hard is that, honestly?

It's innocent until proven guilty. Not monitor because you might be guilty.

Email is one thing. What sites you visit, even who Mulva is is definitely a gray area. That's information you are, technically, putting out in the public and information your service provider technically owns.

It really is more complicated than you acknowledge. You can't be recorded without your knowledge, but everyone knows digital comm is "recorded". That digital information is the property of your service provider, just like a sales receipt at your local Starbucks. Starbucks owns that info - all this says is they don't need a warrant if Starbucks wants to voluntarily turn over that info.

I don't see anything in "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" that would apply to a digital footprint. I don't dismiss the argument that you've voluntarily given up some expectation of privacy when you log onto the internet. Like I said, it's a tug of war between people wanting to expand their privacy bubble and the gubmit wanting to expand its monitoring net.

gut;1430861 wrote:Email is one thing. What sites you visit, even who Mulva is is definitely a gray area. That's information you are, technically, putting out in the public and information your service provider technically owns.

It really is more complicated than you acknowledge. You can't be recorded without your knowledge, but everyone knows digital comm is "recorded". That digital information is the property of your service provider, just like a sales receipt at your local Starbucks. Starbucks owns that info - all this says is they don't need a warrant if Starbucks wants to voluntarily turn over that info.

I don't see anything in "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects" that would apply to a digital footprint. I don't dismiss the argument that you've voluntarily given up some expectation of privacy when you log onto the internet. Like I said, it's a tug of war between people wanting to expand their privacy bubble and the gubmit wanting to expand its monitoring net.

Starbucks isn't located in my home. Huge difference between logging into a public internet cafe and your own internet connection. If you established the wifi service within your home, then why shouldn't "secure within their houses" apply? What about people logging into the internet for the purpose of emailing or online banking? How does one monitor that with no warrant without invading "papers or effects"?

I still don't understand why it's such a big deal to produce probable cause and obtain a search warrant rather than fishing.

BGFalcons82;1430475 wrote:Here's one for you - There are stories out today that the Boston Marathon Suspect #2 was not read his Miranda Rights last night. If this is true, the ACLU will be sending lawyers his way. It will be their sworn duty to get him set free. It wouldn't be the first time they stepped in to defend the indefensible. Is that a good enough reason not to like them?

Before anyone pipe's in about how Miranda rights aren't negotiable, please let us all know how their lawsuits against drone attacks on Americans, the status of their cases vs. the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act as it pertains to the 4th Amendment, and how they are defending the illegal searches and seizures of cars without warrants are coming along.

Here ya go: http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombing-suspect-still-hospitalized-guarded-072110364.html

Mulva;1430869 wrote:Starbucks isn't located in my home. Huge difference between logging into a public internet cafe and your own internet connection. If you established the wifi service within your home, then why shouldn't "secure within their houses" apply? What about people logging into the internet for the purpose of emailing or online banking? How does one monitor that with no warrant without invading "papers or effects"?

I still don't understand why it's such a big deal to produce probable cause and obtain a search warrant rather than fishing.

Some people on here believe that in the name of fighting terrorism that they are willing to let a few things slide in order to feel a little safer from the terrorists. That if it doesn't have an effect on you on a daily basis, then it really isn't a big deal.

gut;1429645 wrote:I think the point was they sometimes imagine civil liberty violations where it suits pushing their liberal agenda.

pure imagination and bias. The ACLU is a GREAT organization for civil liberties, people need to stop with the liberal nonsense. What the hell is a liberal?

gut;1430572 wrote:
It actually came up with the other 3 roommates they took in. Officials said specifically "in custody, not under arrest". They are not free to go of their own will but they've not been charged with a crime. They can hold you 24-48 hours before they have to charge you, but maybe that's just Hollywood.

this is true. in ohio i even believe it may have been 72 hours.