How Dare They Rip the 4th Amendment?

[iLikeFlickerstick]

Yeah, I know Truthout is a liberal rag, BIG WHOOP.
Here is an important article about FISA and beautifully written.

http://www.truthout.org/article/how-dare-they-rip-fourth-amendment - comment-5085

[brainplay]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the wiretapping thing dismissed and therefore not illegal? It was dismissed because the judge who made the ruling had something to do with the ACLU personally?

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That article is a contrived load of trash.


We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus - which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you - recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.

"...legal reason to detain you". One wonders who his target audience is. "I" will never find myself meeting the descripiton of the scumbags the recent SC ruling dealt with.



Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy - written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights - with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.


I must have missed the part of the Constitution that guaranteed me a right of privacy. If I have that right - how is the government able to interfere with anything I do in private...whether it's talking to AQ, doing crack, or huffing paint?

[Andrew Chalmers]

I must have missed the part of the Constitution that guaranteed me a right of privacy. If I have that right - how is the government able to interfere with anything I do in private...whether it's talking to AQ, doing crack, or huffing paint?


The 4th Amendment states "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."

In layman's terms - the 4th Amendment prohibits the government from conducting a search that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Government agents must have probable cause before they can conduct a search; which protects you from zealous persecution that may involve random fishing searches.

This protection is not a substantive right to privacy; but it is supposed to protect you from having your telephone conversations in your own home tapped without probable cause that you're engaging in illegal activity.

Btw - the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has been interpreted to include a substantive right to privacy. See Griswold v. Connecticut.

I think Judge Learned Hand said it best...
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.When we're not aware of our own rights and let the government walk over them in the pursuit of collective security - we're in trouble. Look at the example of Japanese-Americans being interned. They were racially targeted (German-Americans were not treated in the same manner), and collectively placed in camps based upon some paranoid suspicion (without evidence) that Japanese-Americans were disloyal. The Japanese-American men who fought in Europe liberated concentration camps; while their own relatives and friends sat in the middle of no where for being of Japanese origin. In this democratic society; measures like those were implemented because the majority was silent.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Btw - the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has been interpreted to include a substantive right to privacy. See Griswold v. Connecticut.

hank and I have argued at length about the fancy new all-inclusive right to privacy. IMO it's another new right that never existed, but was simply pulled out of the air hundreds of years after the Constitution was written, and is indefensible foolishness. No community anywhere can exist long when each member has an unabridged right to anything and everything imaginable behind closed doors.



I think Judge Learned Hand said it best... When we're not aware of our own rights and let the government walk over them in the pursuit of collective security - we're in trouble. Look at the example of Japanese-Americans being interned. They were racially targeted (German-Americans were not treated in the same manner), and collectively placed in camps based upon some paranoid suspicion (without evidence) that Japanese-Americans were disloyal. The Japanese-American men who fought in Europe liberated concentration camps; while their own relatives and friends sat in the middle of no where for being of Japanese origin. In this democratic society; measures like those were implemented because the majority was silent.

You'll also note that we got WWII over with in 5 short years, and with a decisive victory. We curtailed freedoms for a lot more people than just for American Japanese. We held people indefinitely and without trial. We tapped phone conversations of Americans in America, without warrants, even after the SC told FDR he couldn't do it any more. We massively curtailed the freedom of the press. We curtailed the free speech rights of the public, and put draconian limits on their behavior -and threw them in jail if they didn't comply.

Do I like any of these things? No I don't. However, as the current wars drag on with no real end in sight, one begins to wonder about the wisdom of today's new egalitarian wonderland where the individual is all. How many thousand lives is that worth? How many trillions of dollars? Would it be wiser to actually act as if we were at war, and get it over with? Why is it that only our fighting forces must live under these rules...we're the ones that sent them into battle - shouldn't we make the same sacrifices?

Seems to me that if we insist on a free-for-all society, then we can't send fighting forces into the jaws of certain and unending doom. They simply can't prevail without the tools they need - war is an end-to-end process. It has to be fought across the board - it's not confined to "over there". So let's resolve to have no more wars. Then we can see how long this shiny new anything-goes society can stand on it's own.

[Andrew Chalmers]

hank and I have argued at length about the fancy new all-inclusive right to privacy. IMO it's another new right that never existed, but was simply pulled out of the air hundreds of years after the Constitution was written, and is indefensible foolishness. No community anywhere can exist long when each member has an unabridged right to anything and everything imaginable behind closed doors.

The 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure has nothing to do with the substantive right to privacy. You seem to be saying - because "I don't like it" - the 4th Amendment does not exist.


Do I like any of these things? No I don't. However, as the current wars drag on with no real end in sight, one begins to wonder about the wisdom of today's new egalitarian wonderland where the individual is all. How many thousand lives is that worth? How many trillions of dollars? Would it be wiser to actually act as if we were at war, and get it over with? Why is it that only our fighting forces must live under these rules...we're the ones that sent them into battle - shouldn't we make the same sacrifices?

Seems to me that if we insist on a free-for-all society, then we can't send fighting forces into the jaws of certain and unending doom. They simply can't prevail without the tools they need - war is an end-to-end process. It has to be fought across the board - it's not confined to "over there". So let's resolve to have no more wars. Then we can see how long this shiny new anything-goes society can stand on it's own

Soldiers sign up as a profession. Let me remind you that we live in a government ruled by laws; soldiers swear an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution and the United States of America does not owe an allegiance in the reverse. If we can't "win" without violating the law; we CHANGE the law.

Don't like the 4th Amendment? Then amend it. This "it gets in my way" and therefore it doesn't exist attitude is more fitting in an autocratic government.

For example - we're fighting a war against unconventional combatants; would you support reading the 2nd Amendment to mean NO private right to bear arms? I mean - it may seem draconian; but terrorists use illegal firearms. Who cares if the vast majority of civilians who own guns have them legally and without threat to other people? We want go all the way no? Civilians should make a sacrifice too.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

Glad you guys liked it. :-|

[mi35d]

German and Italian citizens were placed into camps as well. Its just not mentioned because its more PC to shout from the rooftops, "AMERICA IS RACIST!". All three groups have recieved government reperations.

[Andrew Chalmers]

German and Italian citizens were placed into camps as well. Its just not mentioned because its more PC to shout from the rooftops, "AMERICA IS RACIST!". All three groups have recieved government reperations.

These were AMERICAN citizens - of Japanese descent that were interned without any evidence that the individuals were disloyal. Big big difference between interning enemy aliens during times of war and your own citizens.

[LineDoggie]

These were AMERICAN citizens - of Japanese descent that were interned without any evidence that the individuals were disloyal. Big big difference between interning enemy aliens during times of war and your own citizens.

Funny, I thought Fritz Kuhn was an American Citizen?

[Zoomie]

These were AMERICAN citizens - of Japanese descent that were interned without any evidence that the individuals were disloyal. Big big difference between interning enemy aliens during times of war and your own citizens.

So, it's ok with you that we can intern at will and bug anyone's homes in the US, as long as they're not a US citizen? Using that line of thought, the US should be able to tap anyone who's making an international call because they're speaking with someone outside of the country, a non-citizen of the US.

[akd]

So, it's ok with you that we can intern at will and bug anyone's homes in the US, as long as they're not a US citizen? Using that line of thought, the US should be able to tap anyone who's making an international call because they're speaking with someone outside of the country, a non-citizen of the US.

Fail. There is a difference between interring a citizen and a non-citizen. Doesn't make the latter right, but there is a difference. Call analogy doesn't work because one party is a citizen. Calling a non-citizen doesn't make them any less a citizen. I could care less if the government wants to tap calls in Russia, even calls in Russia made to the US, but tapping citizens' calls in the US is different, no matter where the call is going or coming from.

[Andrew Chalmers]

So, it's ok with you that we can intern at will and bug anyone's homes in the US, as long as they're not a US citizen? Using that line of thought, the US should be able to tap anyone who's making an international call because they're speaking with someone outside of the country, a non-citizen of the US.

The 4th Amendment should not be differentiate between aliens and citizens - whether the 4th applies depends on whether the 4th applies in a certain legal jurisdiction of US law. An American citizen abroad in Germany should not be protected by the 4th Amendment if the FBI or CIA is investigating whether the individual is selling intel to the other side.

The US government can certainly make a strong argument that they can tap an international law - but redact the content to include only the communication from the foreign-based party.

Interning enemy aliens? That's certainly something that can occur. Current immigration law already allows virtual indefinite detention of illegal aliens who can't be deported. During extreme times of war - enemy aliens can be essentially have their visas revoked; and be held in detention prior to deportation. Since enemy states rarely enter into arrangements for repatriation - the enemy aliens end up indefinitely detained.

[brainplay]

The 4th Amendment should not be differentiate between aliens and citizens - whether the 4th applies depends on whether the 4th applies in a certain legal jurisdiction of US law. An American citizen abroad in Germany should not be protected by the 4th Amendment if the FBI or CIA is investigating whether the individual is selling intel to the other side.

You're getting into the "should not" area again instead of "what they can do" area. The amendments in the constitution are for citizens of the United States only. By reference we make exception for residents and afford them with many of the same protections guaranteed under the Constitution. However, that curtesy can be removed and removed quickly when need arises.

The government can tap anyone's phone if they have a court order. The 4th only protects citizens who are not conducting criminal activity. If the government shows "compelling reason to believe" to a court that a person is conducting criminal activity or is intending to they can suspend their 4th amendment rights and tap their privacy.

I was going to say more but I can see daylight and I need sleep. Damn caffiene.. :|

[Andrew Chalmers]

You're getting into the "should not" area again instead of "what they can do" area. The amendments in the constitution are for citizens of the United States only.

Uh... no not really. For example - the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to non-citizens.

[brainplay]

Uh... no not really. For example - the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies to non-citizens.

Yes and no. Its use is tangible and cases for non-citizens often die in appellate courts. The 4th is assumed in cases of residency and where citizenship is being sought. However, the government still can and often does invade privacy of non-citizens. The extention of the 14th to non-citizens is very limited in scope.

[mi35d]

Do a little reading on the subject.

There were AMERICAN citizens of German and Italian ancestry who were put in the camps. Not to the numbers as Japanese but they were imprisoned just the same.

[akd]

Do a little reading on the subject.

There were AMERICAN citizens of German and Italian ancestry who were put in the camps. Not to the numbers as Japanese but they were imprisoned just the same.


My understanding is that in the case Germans and Italians, interred citizens were immediate family (wife, children) of enemy aliens, or were targetted specifically. Internment of Germans and Italians was not exercised without regard to citizenship (not that this means it was Constitutional).


Pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (50 USC 21-24), which remains in effect today, the US may apprehend, intern and otherwise restrict the freedom of "alien enemies" upon declaration of war or actual, attempted or threatened invasion by a foreign nation. During World War II, the US Government interned at least 11,000 persons of German ancestry. By law, only "enemy aliens" could be interned. However, with governmental approval, their family members frequently joined them in the camps. Many such "voluntarily" interned spouses and children were American citizens. Internment was frequently based upon uncorroborated, hearsay evidence gathered by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. Homes were raided and many ransacked. Fathers, mothers and sometimes both were arrested and disappeared. Sometimes children left after the arrests had to fend for themselves. Some were placed in orphanages.

http://www.gaic.info/history.html

Japanese-Americans were interred solely based on race, with zero regard to citizenship. As far as I know, there was no due process whatsoever. This is a vastly different treatment of citizens.



Also included are persons of part-Japanese ancestry: Chinese-Japanese Americans (those who had Chinese ancestry as well), Korean-Americans[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] considered to have Japanese nationality (Korea was under Japan during WWII), Japanese-Hawaiians residing in the mainland, Japanese-Cherokee (a pattern of early intermarriage with the two racial groups in California) and Japanese Latin Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American) (or "Japanese Latinos") from the West Coast of the United States during World War II. Anyone who is at least one-eighth Japanese, even if they are white or Caucasian, were eligible.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Internment

[Mastermind]

The right to illegal search and seizure and to be safe in our possessions is a very limited set of rights. Police have been violating the illegal search ans seizure laws for decades under the excuse of the "War on Drugs"...my nephew the Cop Nazi tells me all the time of the little tricks they use to get around that one....and then they go back to the cop shop and laugh about their antics. And it is all cleverly legal and even supported several times by the SCOTUS.

And the dummy public goes, "Well, if it gets drugs off the street...."

The Idiotic "War on Terror" is another "Boogeyman War" to scare the public...Sieze documents, eaves drop on private conversations, enlist all the big phone companies and satellite communications outfits....If it can prevent just one 9/11 or rebuild just one more Muslim country ...or spend just one more trillion dollars to enrich a bunch of oil thugs...it's all worth it.

That's just my feelings on it. Sorry for the rant.

[brainplay]

That's just my feelings on it. Sorry for the rant.

Its the internet. If you can't rant here then...well then comes the apocalypse.

[Mastermind]

Yeah...yer right...sorry for the apology.

[maw]

a sad day indeed.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure has nothing to do with the substantive right to privacy. You seem to be saying - because "I don't like it" - the 4th Amendment does not exist.

What I'm saying is that an American's "right to absolute privacy" did not exist before Lawrence v Texas, and now it does. The 4th amendment now means something different than it did before that SC ruling - rather than detail what I find wrong with it - you can just read Scalia's dissent which I agree with wholeheartedly.




Don't like the 4th Amendment? Then amend it. This "it gets in my way" and therefore it doesn't exist attitude is more fitting in an autocratic government.

What the 4th amendment means is apparently up for grabs, depending upon who's pushing what social agenda. People seem to be willing to disregard the realities of history and invent a new more pleasant reality, then complain when the current war doesn't match up with the Disney version. My argument is that during wartime, when people's lives are at risk every day, we stop the screwing around and act like grown ups. Forget social engineering, forget political sloganeering, just stick with reality and get the war over. The 4th amendment does not mean what many on the left would like it to mean. Our country has 230+ years of legal oppression, surveillance and generally bad behavior to cite as president. This is nothing new.



For example - we're fighting a war against unconventional combatants; would you support reading the 2nd Amendment to mean NO private right to bear arms? I mean - it may seem draconian; but terrorists use illegal firearms. Who cares if the vast majority of civilians who own guns have them legally and without threat to other people? We want go all the way no? Civilians should make a sacrifice too.

What you're suggesting here is essentially what's been done with the 4th amendment, and it's shiny new meaning, courtesy of the SC. Our ill informed, or perhaps just blatantly dishonest press (such as the source article) now feature new rights and entitlements that have never trod the Earth. As much as some people would wish it to be, there is no, and never has been any right to absolute privacy - and even those limited privacy rights that we do have can be curtailed during wartime.

[akd]

What I'm saying is that an American's "right to absolute privacy" did not exist before Lawrence v Texas, and now it does. The 4th amendment now means something different than it did before that SC ruling - rather than detail what I find wrong with it - you can just read Scalia's dissent which I agree with wholeheartedly.




What the 4th amendment means is apparently up for grabs, depending upon who's pushing what social agenda. People seem to be willing to disregard the realities of history and invent a new more pleasant reality, then complain when the current war doesn't match up with the Disney version. My argument is that during wartime, when people's lives are at risk every day, we stop the screwing around and act like grown ups. Forget social engineering, forget political sloganeering, just stick with reality and get the war over. The 4th amendment does not mean what many on the left would like it to mean. Our country has 230+ years of legal oppression, surveillance and generally bad behavior to cite as president. This is nothing new.



What you're suggesting here is essentially what's been done with the 4th amendment, and it's shiny new meaning, courtesy of the SC. Our ill informed, or perhaps just blatantly dishonest press (such as the source article) now feature new rights and entitlements that have never trod the Earth. As much as some people would wish it to be, there is no, and never has been any right to absolute privacy - and even those limited privacy rights that we do have can be curtailed during wartime.

precedent.