Quoted: And really, let me clarify the point I was trying to make by this post. Every time a PA thread comes up, supporters of the PS say "I dont care. I'm law abiding and have nothing to hide. Why would they come looking at me?" I just proved that everyone on this board at the time of RebelGrey has probably been or could have been put in a file pertaining to a terrorism investigation. All your communications via the internet or telephone may have been  monitored. Right or wrong good or bad. Am I glad RG is doing life? You bet! I wish they hung him. Am I glad I probably was in some innocent way connected to him like we all were? No. Am I happy my e-mails, IMs and phone conversations may have been monitored because of him? Hell no? Why? BECAUSE I'm an innocent person with nothing to hide. How about all the guys on this board who bought "Voting From the Rooftops" t-shirts online? Pretty easy to put them in the terrorist pile. Wake up people, what seems innocent today, will be called terrorism tomorrow. It took about two months to start calling AR15s "weapons of mass destruction". They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

If rebelgrey was conspiring with someone on this board, should those communications not be followed up on and ignored?  Then what.  Perhaps he was conspiring to kill people or conduct some type of attack.  

What is the line you want for investigating things like this?  And if you have your way, are you going to keep your mouth shut if there are intelligence failures in the future because information could not be followed up on because you got your way.

Why the heck is everyone talking about privacy?

What does privacy have to do with the 4th Amendment?  NOTHING!

Let's say the cops come into your house without a warrant and find something.  
Based upon original intent the evidence is thrown out and cannot be used against
you.  Now, there is no privacy, everyone knows you had something illegal in your
house.  But, because no warrant was issued you get off scot free.  Privacy
has nothing to do with it.

Why are some of you so willing to let the 4th slide but get all "up in arms"
when the 2nd is infringed upon?

I just don't get it..................

I am starting to realize that ossama really has already won.

There is no right to privacy. That is a fallacy.

OK. For the sake of discussion, I'll give you that.

There is though, a right to unreasonable search and seizure and a right to have my personal property and papers secure.

I would consider looking at my e-mails and "private" internet communications as well as my phone calls, a violation of that.

Quoted: There is no right to privacy. That is a fallacy. OK. For the sake of discussion, I'll give you that. There is though, a right to unreasonable search and seizure and a right to have my personal property and papers secure. I would consider looking at my e-mails and "private" internet communications as well as my phone calls, a violation of that.

So then NSA gets a warrant to tap his telephone and his internet access.  This is ok'd by a judge.  Are you alright with this?

Then they see rebelgrey posting on internet boards.  Public internet boards that have "private" IM and email.  How should authorities get access to this info?  Do they get a judge to tap the whole board?  That is easy enough to do you know.  How is this different then what happened under the patriot act?  How is that different then any of the RICO laws that have been on the books for 50 years?

I would say it is no difference at all.

Edit:  Posting on a PUBLIC internet board is not private in any shape or form.  That is what some of you think should be the threshold.  That if someone posts something on a PUBLIC internet board, that communications should be protected.  That is utter bullshit.

If you yell something in public, that is not protected.  If you write a book admitting  a crime and have it published, it's the same damn thing.

Quoted: Why the heck is everyone talking about privacy? What does privacy have to do with the 4th Amendment?  NOTHING! Let's say the cops come into your house without a warrant and find something.   Based upon original intent the evidence is thrown out and cannot be used against you.  Now, there is no privacy, everyone knows you had something illegal in your house.  But, because no warrant was issued you get off scot free.  Privacy has nothing to do with it. Why are some of you so willing to let the 4th slide but get all "up in arms" when the 2nd is infringed upon? I just don't get it.................. I am starting to realize that ossama really has already won.

I have no idea what your point is.  An illegal search was done.  You get off of the charges.  What's the complaint now?  

The point is that warrantless searches without oath or affirmation and spcecifing a place
and thing to look for are ILLEGAL!   That is where we are going with all this
PA crap!

I think that is the point some of us are trying to make here.

My point about Ossama is that we are doing to ourselves what he alone
cannot accomplish.  That is to destory America!

I'd say that the 4th Amendment and what it stands for is an integral
part of this country.  Or at least it used to be.

And on further reflection, I hope I never read another thread on this
site where people complain about the 2nd being infringed. At least
not anyone that will similtaneously argue for the PA.

To those of you that argue that the PA is an expediant thing to do,
was it OK to confiscate guns in NOLA after the storm?  It is the same
thing.

Quoted: The point is that warrantless searches without oath or affirmation and spcecifing a place and thing to look for are ILLEGAL!   That is where we are going with all this PA crap! I think that is the point some of us are trying to make here. My point about Ossama is that we are doing to ourselves what he alone cannot accomplish.  That is to destory America! I'd say that the 4th Amendment and what it stands for is an integral part of this country.  Or at least it used to be. And on further reflection, I hope I never read another thread on this site where people complain about the 2nd being infringed. At least not anyone that will similtaneously argue for the PA.

But the Patriat act attached a warrant to a person and what they did, rather then a single phone line or ISP.  A warrant was still needed and a judges signature was still needed.

Also, unless you encrypt your email on your PC or use an encryption system when communicating with your email server, it is public information and can be read in plain text as you pull it off your mail server.

Edit:  Here's an easy way to follow your rules.  RebelGray gets his internet access tapped with a warrant.  He surfs AR15.  Authorities want to check his communications.  They get a warrant and monitor all communications to and from AR15.com.  Or, they get a warrant and have all the hardware ar15.com runs on confiscated and analyzed.  How would that work?  It's very easy to do without the PA.

Then why do we need the PA?  Isn't the 4th enough?

IMO, you arguing that the PA does not infringe on the 4th is the same
was as a leftist arguing that gun control laws do not infringe on the
2nd.

Call me slow, but it has dawned on me that the average gun owner
is just like the average ACLU member.  They are only interested
in a subset of our "Bill of Rights".

If it helps to calm everyone down, I saw on the news today that the Senate voted NOT to re-authorize the Patriot Act.  

Quoted: If catching some guy selling secrets to our enemies means that they continue to read my email, IM's and this post here than carry on. I know that the Internet has been monitored internal to the US since eight years ago at a minimum - back to the Clinton administration to be sure. So in your world you'd like both parties to have search warrants issued out on them? Every single person who might possibly call an enemy agent would require an additional warrant or just list them on the warrant too? Roving wire taps had ZERO to do with the other party. That has ALWAYS been acceptable. Roving search warrants allow agents to follow RebelGrey to the payphone or to an Internet cafe and monitor his communications. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've got your rant all fucked up!

+1 Wow, some one that has a clue!

The founders never intended for warrants to be used commonly.

"Consider the way in which the Fathers intended that 4A rights should be enforced. Under Common law pricipals, since virtually any search or seizure by a federal officer would involve a physical trespass, an aggrieved target could use the common law of tresspass to bring suit for damages against the official--just as Wilkes brought a tresspass action in Woods. If the search or siezure were deemed lawful in court, the defendant government official would prevail; but if, as in Wood, the the search wre found unlawful, the defendant would be found strictly liable.
Given this risk, government officials would obviously prefer to litigate the lawfulness of a search or seizure before it occured--to seek judicial warrant authorizing the intrusion.<snip> A lawful warrant, in effect, would compel a sort of directed verdict for the defendant government official in any lawsuit. But note what this means: a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate--a permanent government official on the .gov payroll--has had the effect of taking a later trespass action away from a jury of ordinary citizens.
Because juries could be trusted more than judges to protect against government,  warrants at the Founding were generally disfavored "no warrants shall issue, but..." And warrants had other flaws: they issued from a single person (as opposed to a judge and a jury, twelve men good and true)"

The founders understood that searches without warrants were not presumptivley illegitimate and that not every search without a warrant would require probable cause. Rather, they understood that when such a search occured, a jury, guided by a judge in a public trial and able to hear both sides of a case, could typically assess the reasonableness of government action in an after the fact tort suit. If the jury deemed the search unreasonable, the plain words of the 4A would render the search unlawful. The defendant official could thus be held strictly liable and made to pay compensatory as well as punitive damages"

That is taken from my Bill of Rights primer. The founders never intended for warrants to be used as they are today. The supremes ar the cause of that.

What this means is that we should have no search warrants. .Gov should be able to wander and look at their own peril. If they where they shouldnt, and get sued then they could be liable for damages.

If the .gov had to worry about being sued every time the did a search, they would be far more selective in who and where they look.

Some of you Americans need to read up on you rights and just what the founders intended.

captainpooby,

<sarcasm>
Can't you just give us the summary, that
is a lot of info to digest.
</sarcasm>

Quoted: Then why do we need the PA?  Isn't the 4th enough? IMO, you arguing that the PA does not infringe on the 4th is the same was as a leftist arguing that gun control laws do not infringe on the 2nd. Call me slow, but it has dawned on me that the average gun owner is just like the average ACLU member.  They are only interested in a subset of our "Bill of Rights".

It's obvious you don't understand the difference between the 4th amendment and procedures used by law enforcement to gather information.  Those procedures must adhere to the 4th, and the judicial determines that.  The PA was never found unconstitutional.

Quoted: captainpooby, <sarcasm> Can't you just give us the summary, that is a lot of info to digest. </sarcasm>

I had to transcribe that myself. It took me forever and thats why there's typos.

I never forgot it after I read it. A lot of Y'all need to do some reading.

"What this means is that we should have no search warrants. .Gov should be able to wander and look at their own peril. If they where they shouldnt, and get sued then they could be liable for damages."

NO!

It means that a guilty person walks free if evidence was gathered illegally.  Whether the person is guilty or not, they walk.

You can't sue the federal government unless they allow you to.  What planet do you live on.  

Quoted: Quoted: captainpooby, <sarcasm> Can't you just give us the summary, that is a lot of info to digest. </sarcasm> I had to transcribe that myself. It took me forever and thats why there's typos. I never forgot it after I read it. A lot of Y'all need to do some reading.

Nothing more then someones interpretation of the 4th.  That's exactly what we are discussing in this thread.      Our interpretations.

           

Quoted: "What this means is that we should have no search warrants. .Gov should be able to wander and look at their own peril. If they where they shouldnt, and get sued then they could be liable for damages." NO! It means that a guilty person walks free if evidence was gathered illegally.  Whether the person is guilty or not, they walk. You can't sue the federal government unless they allow you to.  What planet do you live on.

No. read it again. Here's what the founders intended:
Probable cause is not required if a jury decides the search was reasonable. Warrantless searches are not always unconstitutional and the probable cause requirement only applies when a warrant is issued.

The Supreme Court has lost this in its rulings.


ETA: And what planet do YOU live on? People sue the .gov evryday.

Quoted: Quoted: "What this means is that we should have no search warrants. .Gov should be able to wander and look at their own peril. If they where they shouldnt, and get sued then they could be liable for damages." NO! It means that a guilty person walks free if evidence was gathered illegally.  Whether the person is guilty or not, they walk. You can't sue the federal government unless they allow you to.  What planet do you live on.   No. read it again. Here's what the founders intended: Probable cause is not required if a jury decides the search was reasonable. Warrantless searches are not always unconstitutional and the probable cause requirement only applies when a warrant is issued. The Supreme Court has lost this in its rulings. ETA: And what planet do YOU live on? People sue the .gov evryday.

What someones interpretation of what the founders intended.  Please at least get that straight.

If I see your posts on ar15.com, you would think that that is reasonable to use as evidence.  Without the PA, things posted on a public internet board are not reasonable.  That's just plain stupid.  Do you agree or disagree that things posted in a public forum should be reasonable evidence.

you know what? i agree with pooby!

you guys seem to have forgotten the most important thing about this.

WHILE YOUR BONING AROUND BEHIND YOUR CHICKS BACK BIG BROTHER IS MESSING WITH YOUR PHYSICAL SAFETY!

Let me explain. Feds bust down my door. And as I expected, they have misunderstood the intelligence they gathered. (they screwed up).....not surprised

But now the "other" chick (or chicks) is calling the house cause the fbi is harrasing her (or them)! My girlfriend finds out and BAMM!!! I get sent to the ER because of multiple stab wounds!
Even though they didn't do it themselves, I was indirectly hurt because of those feds.

If your one of those guys saying they would rather sacrifice their privacy for safety just remember this. You will need your privacy at one point or another so don't give it up now.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: thedoctors308 sounds like him in some of his post. Yeah, I am sure those of us here who know or are learning Arabic are all going to end up like that shitstain, RebelGray.   For some like you and thedoctors308 it can happen. Edited to add: Since you know so much, what does this say? images.snapfish.com/344%3C7%3C2323232%7Ffp64%3Dot%3E2336%3D923%3D499%3DXROQDF%3E2323%3B788%3B6%3B%3B%3Bot1lsi

as I said, I am learning, this was my first semester of formal education in Arabic, I am sure thedoctors308 knows what that says.

For all of you that think the PA is a good thing and that it helps catch terriosts, remember the gov. has also asked all good citizens to be watchful and report any suspicous activity. Including your neighbors. That being said how many of you would be willing to let me snoop into your life, read e-mails, im's etc. to see if there is anything in MY opinion that the gov. MIGHT be intrested in.
All of you professing to be law abiding citizens with nothing to hid or fear from the gov. should have no problem saying yes.



Roy

I'm one of those that says there is no privacy right in the 4th ammendment. Roe v Wade created that right out of nowhere. I don't want to get into a whole subject of abortion (this isn't what the thread is about) but it is DANGEROUS to read into ammendments what was not there. That kind of thinking is why today we have local governments abusing eminent domain. If you are going to say there is a right to privacy you say it is granted by the 9th.

If I see your posts on ar15.com, you would think that that is reasonable to use as evidence. Without the PA, things posted on a public internet board are not reasonable. That's just plain stupid. Do you agree or disagree that things posted in a public forum should be reasonable evidence.

I dont understand this post at all. Anything I post here is public of course.

Me e-mails, IMs and phone conversations I do not consider public information regardless of whether they are easily retrievable by anyone. Those I consider private, regardless of how secure they may be.

Do I use those mediums as if they were secure? Not on your life.

I dont even speak face to face to people privately thinking that.

Sooooooooooooooo, if you try to sell secrets to the enemy your government will not be happy?

And the Patriot Act affects me how?

Oh hang on I get it now, if  I subvert the war effort................................nevermind Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic party.  Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe I am just not smart enough to understand our government, please tell me what I am supposed to do.

Yea right

Quoted: If I see your posts on ar15.com, you would think that that is reasonable to use as evidence. Without the PA, things posted on a public internet board are not reasonable. That's just plain stupid. Do you agree or disagree that things posted in a public forum should be reasonable evidence. I dont understand this post at all. Anything I post here is public of course. Me e-mails, IMs and phone conversations I do not consider public information regardless of whether they are easily retrievable by anyone. Those I consider private, regardless of how secure they may be. Do I use those mediums as if they were secure? Not on your life. I dont even speak face to face to people privately thinking that.

The above info in red is true.  But according to law without the PA, your posts here could not be used against you in a court of law.  It goes against what you believe, but what you believe doesn't jive with the law.

So you actually do realize that there is no such thing as a right to privacy.  We did accomplish something this evening.  Night.

So, back to the original point, the Patriot act does not effect us because of that RebelGrey moron.

It could mean that the AR15.com powers that be were presented with a warrant to see his email, but that does not mean the FBI can look at everyones email.

rebelgrey should hang

You guys all need to research the RICO statute. It's intended purpose and what it is used for today.


Then think about the PA. Think long and hard.

If you trust your government to give them a tool like the PA you just dont get it. The .gov will use everything and anything against anyone and anybody when it's convenient and suits their purpose.

If anyone here thinks it's so innocent, just post your e-mail address and password here. Got nothing to hide right?

Quoted: You guys all need to research the RICO statute. It's intended purpose and what it is used for today. Then think about the PA. Think long and hard. If you trust your government to give them a tool like the PA you just dont get it. The .gov will use everything and anything against anyone and anybody when it's convenient and suits their purpose. If anyone here thinks it's so innocent, just post your e-mail address and password here. Got nothing to hide right?

And with this statement, the need for tinfoil is verified.  

Tagged for coffee read in the AM...

WASHINGTON - The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy, dealing a major defeat to President Bush and Republican leaders.

My comment - fantastic. A blow to fascism, a proud moment in Freedom and Liberty.

When a government takes away the freedoms and privacy of it's citizens it is under the guise of "protecting the people" from a foreign threat.   Classic Nazi, Marx, Fascist behaviors.  "It is for your own protection that we will wire tap you and threaten your neighbors if they tell you we've been nosing around."  

True Homeland Security is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.   We don't need a secret police operating in darkness ABOVE the law.  The Patriot act is HORRIBLE.   I'll take care of the G.D. terrorists, sure some will get through, but I sure as HELL don't feel like being WATCHED by our own home made Gestapo in the name of "protecting the people".    

ETA - How about just controlling our boarders - THAT would be a good start for Homeland Security - nope can't do that, washington folks need cheap housekeepers and yardmen.  

Everyone hates the federal government until their social security/medicare/medicaid/prescription drug benefit check doesn't show up.  

Edit:  Or a natural disaster strikes or a terrorist attack occurs or your highway doesn't get completed or your water plant isn't big enough or your research grant isn't large enough or your federal student loan doesn't show up.

Quoted: You guys all need to research the RICO statute. It's intended purpose and what it is used for today. Then think about the PA. Think long and hard. If you trust your government to give them a tool like the PA you just dont get it. The .gov will use everything and anything against anyone and anybody when it's convenient and suits their purpose. If anyone here thinks it's so innocent, just post your e-mail address and password here. Got nothing to hide right?

I already asked, had no takers. Apparently no one has an e-mail address they are willing to share to help with the national security.
It's always the other guy the gov. wants.



Roy

Quoted: Quoted: You guys all need to research the RICO statute. It's intended purpose and what it is used for today. Then think about the PA. Think long and hard. If you trust your government to give them a tool like the PA you just dont get it. The .gov will use everything and anything against anyone and anybody when it's convenient and suits their purpose. If anyone here thinks it's so innocent, just post your e-mail address and password here. Got nothing to hide right? I already asked, had no takers. Apparently no one has an e-mail address they are willing to share to help with the national security. It's always the other guy the gov. wants. Roy

So you are saying you are a fed?

Hang on lemme check....................................................nope no JBT's at the front door.  As always, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear regardless of the Patriot Act.