[Tfug] Spy Bill Debate Comes to an End

Fri Jul 11 09:12:04 MST 2008

keith smith wrote:

Thunderbird doesn't show any line wrapping on this message.  It's kind
of hard to read.  Is this my problem?

Paul

>
> Please tell us more.  Were you successful?
>
> Have heard about cooper v. dupnik ?
>
> Defendants Taylor, Barkman, and Wright concede that they intended to
> implement a plan to continue questioning the suspect during a
> custodial arrest in this particular case, despite his request for counsel
>
> http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/458628
>
> This is a decent reference however I think it does not state the
> fingerprint analyst at TPD had failed the latent fingerprint
> certification as had her supervisor. 
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 7/11/08, Malcolm Schmerl /<mjs355 at comcast.net>/* wrote:
>
>     From: Malcolm Schmerl <mjs355 at comcast.net>
>     Subject: Re: [Tfug] Spy Bill Debate Comes to an End
>     To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
>     Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 7:36 AM
>
>     John Mc wrote:
>>     johngalt1 wrote:
>>       
>>>     The violate my rights by not obtaining a search warrant per the 4th Amendment.
>>>         
>>     Your rights are/were violated... hypothetically? If anyone thinks I'm off-base or otherwise ignorant, please explain.
>>     +++
>>
>>     Keith Smith wrote:
>>     Why would they have to give the telecoms immunity if they were aiding in helping catch foreigners in a foreign land?
>>
>>     I think there is more to the story. They are sniffing everything they can. It is called fishing. Under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution this is a violation. We are protected by the US Constitution not foreigners in a foreign land. Again why do they have to give the telecoms immunity? Something is amiss here. Does it not concern you that someone wants to take away your rights?
>>     +++
>>           The right the of 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. - U.S. Const. Amend. IV.
>>
>>     It is now a generally accepted fact that the government has been doing "data mining" of what may/could be the total electronic stream passing through the major telecoms' switching networks. This was done without any kind of court approved search warrant. Even the FISA court didn't approve this search. The reason why the Bush government didn't approach the FISA court is not for any of the reasons they have given so far. Those words were just a smoke screen. The real reason is that any search done this way, data mining, is in effect a search of the type done by the King of England prior to 1765, when the Entick v. Carrington case was decided. That was the now famous case in English law that established the need for specific search warrants. Prior to 1765, General Warrants/Writs of Assistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Assistance were the King's law. It is with the Entick v. Car
>>     rington case in mind that the Fourth Amendment was written. For further information on this subject you can start here, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA_Opinion#V._The_Fourth_Amendment and learn about what the District Court judge in ACLU v. NSA wrote on the subject.
>>
>>     Now, as to the man who posted the question, "Your rights are/were violated... hypothetically?", your inherent argument/question has been substantiated by the Sixth Circuit in the appeal of the ACLU v. NSA case. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf It was a 2-1 decision with the majority judges appointed by Bush and his dad. The dissenting opinion {pps 41-56 of the PDF} is interesting in that he takes only a few pages to explain how the majority opinion is flawed in their reasoning.
>>
>>     This is the "Standing" part of the District judge's published opinion. It is worth scrolling through. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA_Opinion#III._Standing for its simple writing style of explanation. Standing is what I believe your question "Your rights are/were violated... hypothetically?" refers. So, the Bush appointed courts have accepted your argument. However, here is a  concept to think about. What if...
>>
>>     The police/CIA/FBI or
>>      name your police state agency ACKNOWLEDGED that they were coming into people's homes, when those people weren't there, and the police agency left no trace of their entry or exit. You didn't know whether they had been there and left a wiretap (illegal since it was done without a search warrant) or whether they had come and gone, this time, without leaving any trace. Or, whether they hadn't gotten around to you just yet. But, you know that eventually, you will get searched for no reason. Just because the police want to find out if you have committed a crime for which they can prosecute you.
>>
>>     Now you might argue that electronic wiretaps are different from actual physical searches. The courts have already ruled in the case, Katz v. U.S., that both require a Fourth Amendment warrant. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA_Opinion#IV._The_History_of_Electronic_Surveillance_in_America
>>
>>     Would you feel more than just a "chill" in your emotions/feelings? Would you feel that any of your rights as an American have been violated? Some judges claim that there is no such thing as a right to privacy in the Constitution. I disagree and point to the Fourth Amendment. The entire western world has come to understand that we as human beings have a right to privacy. The concept of "General Warrants" has no basis in any kind of modern, western law.
>>
>>     Who would you feel has the necessary "Standing" to sue the government for the invasion of your privacy? Would your neighbor be able/willing to sue on your behalf? What if the government/police agency claimed the States Secrets Privilege and said that they had to do this to
>>      protect you ... and they couldn't tell you who they were protecting you from or how they were protecting you.
>>
>>     I'm not an attorney, I just have an interest in the subject. I'm also the major contributor to the Wikisource article I have cited. I am also developing an interest in why and how people develop a conservative/neo con/full power to the Presidency point of view. Some people say we are born one way or another. Other people say it is how we are raised and exposed to contemplative thought. Some people seem to be allergic to contemplative thought and some, not so much. I'm still learning.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>>     Subscription Options:
>>     http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>>
>>       
>     John, thanks for taking the time to write this. I once sued Pima
>     County for a 4th Amendment violation. I was arrested at my home
>     for "interfering in a governmental operation" and "resisting
>     arrest." All I did was ask the cop what he was doing on my
>     property. He had turned down the wrong driveway. The cop claimed
>     to be doing this for my protection. As my attorney pointed out,
>     the government cannot just do things for your protection. If they
>     could, then you could be arrested for something as arbitrary as
>     walking down the street smoking a cigarette.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
>     Subscription Options:
>     http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>   