The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Patriot Act Reauthorization

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7
BabyJane On July 08, 2014




Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
#91New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 20:01:43
@doubtingthomas Said
And saying that your going to kill someone is "assalt" not a terrorist threat.



Not to be argumentative, but the legal definition of a terroristic threat is - "A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: cause a reaction of any type to his threats by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;" ...

There's more to the definition than that, but the point is committing the offense would be considered assault or whatever is appropriate, but stating your intentions is a terroristic threat.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#92New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 20:05:20
@babyjane Said
Yes, but they must have probable cause. They can't just randomly select people.


The law may require probable cause. The Constitution requires reasonable.

A legal person we know says that the founders expected that falsely accused person would bring a civil action if the were damaged by a search. Sometime in the next six years as we go through high school and college, we might research that for a term paper to find if it is true.
BabyJane On July 08, 2014




Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
#93New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 20:31:40
@britneylulu Said
The law may require probable cause. The Constitution requires reasonable.

A legal person we know says that the founders expected that falsely accused person would bring a civil action if the were damaged by a search. Sometime in the next six years as we go through high school and college, we might research that for a term paper to find if it is true.


Yes, but that's sort of like putting the cart before the horse. The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with pulling people over and searching them, the police, a/k/a "the law", do that and in order to do so, they must have probable cause. If a law enforcement officer acts without it, that's where the Constitution (in the form of a law suit) would come into play.
bobbimay On February 11, 2024




Tucson, Arizona
#94New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 20:41:07
@britneylulu Said
The law may require probable cause. The Constitution requires reasonable.

A legal person we know says that the founders expected that falsely accused person would bring a civil action if the were damaged by a search. Sometime in the next six years as we go through high school and college, we might research that for a term paper to find if it is true.


Here I will get you started on your research....

The 4th amendment as it reads in the constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

here is a link to all that it does not cover.

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
BabyJane On July 08, 2014




Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
#95New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 20:55:40
@bobbimay Said
Here I will get you started on your research....
The 4th amendment as it reads in the constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
here is a link to all that it does not cover.
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


Thank you Bobbi...I just wasn't up for that much work today
bobbimay On February 11, 2024




Tucson, Arizona
#96New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 21:33:33
@babyjane Said
Thank you Bobbi...I just wasn't up for that much work today


No problem....I have the library of congress bookmarked
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#97New Post! May 18, 2008 @ 22:29:50
@bobbimay Said
Here I will get you started on your research....

The 4th amendment as it reads in the constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

here is a link to all that it does not cover.

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


So in Entick v. Carrington, Carrington had a warrant, but the warrant didn't protect him from Entwick's
suit. The next question would be: Did it protect him from damages. Wow, this is totally cool.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#98New Post! May 19, 2008 @ 00:47:45
@bobbimay Said

here is a link to all that it does not cover.

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


On our first reading of this information we can see why librarians might find the Patriot Act annoying. The act requires them to protect records, that might lead the the criminal prosecution of their patrons, and the patrons might get really upset if release of the information damaged the patron in some way.

As near as we can tell, nobody has been damaged by the search of library information. Libraries have been found in contempt for destroying information.

The librarian's pissy view of this subject reminds us of when we went to Washington, DC in the eighth grade. We took a cab to a restaurant to meet our parents. We were late in the rain. The cab was stuck in heavy traffic near the restaurant. Lulu opened the door with the intent of walking through the stalled traffic to the restaurant. The driver, a big (he was huge) burly (hands bigger than our heads), black man yelled, "Chile, yal cloz dat doe. You tired a livin' or sumpin." The ever obdient Lulu shut the door.

We were annoyed at the time; but looking back on it, we thank him for being concerned for our safety.

We hope libarians and the ALA will do the same.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#99New Post! May 19, 2008 @ 13:03:28
Relevant fact: In school we've been studying European history. In one of the lectures, the teacher said something about how the Nazis used phone records to find Jews. They knew the phone numbers of some Jews. Anybody who called a known Jew was investigated to see if they were also Jews.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#100New Post! May 20, 2008 @ 02:22:45
@bobbimay Said

here is a link to all that it does not cover.

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


We wonder if some of the opposition to the Patriot Act comes from people's fear that government snooping could be used for political purposes. Politicians always look for dirt on their opponents. A History of the Internal Revenue service quotes letters from President Nixon to the Director about how Nixon might find something to use in that way. The director politely told him to pound salt.

Government snooping for political purposes has not generated much case law in the United States. One case from the above link Entick v. Carrington, was the kind of snooping that generates people's fear.

One case that we know about involved the man who invented the lazar. When he tried to sell his ideas to the Department of Defense, they took his notes because, according to them, he was a security risk. It took years of litigation to get his notes back. We don't know for sure if he ever did.

As similar case involved the man who created public key encription.

Seems like these cases would be relevant to the arguement because they both involve taking a citizens property for use by the government sort of in the manor of Entick v. Carrington.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#101New Post! May 20, 2008 @ 23:09:06
Here's a case in which the police found stolen property in a junk yard. The defense argued that the evidence was obtained without a warrant. The Court decided a warrant was not necessary.

U.S. Supreme Court New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987)

One wonders if the digital junk people leave in the bit bucket at a public library might fall into a similar category.
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#102New Post! May 30, 2008 @ 08:21:43
Torts and what's reasonable.

link
britneylulu On October 04, 2008

Deleted



Anaheim,
#103New Post! Jun 03, 2008 @ 00:09:37
People interested in the Patriot Act should consider the case of William Ayers , who, simply stated, is or was a terrorist, who tried to kill people for a political objective. His biographers say that the charges against him were dropped because of improper surveillance. We suppose that means that evidence against him was excluded due to the exclusionary rule. We think we should ask if anybody was damaged due to the surveillance of Ayers, and if not then the excluded evidence should have been allowed, and if anybody were damaged then any injured party should be due just compensation; but the court should still consider the evidence.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...5 6 7

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Sat Oct 23, 2010 @ 09:33
7 464
New posts   Pics & Videos
Thu Jun 04, 2009 @ 18:53
25 1642
New posts   Teens
Thu May 14, 2009 @ 06:05
152 7138
New posts   Law
Tue Mar 31, 2009 @ 12:35
33 2030
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Mon Nov 24, 2008 @ 16:16
3 329