[Tfug] Spy Bill Debate Comes to an End
keith smith
klsmith2020 at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 11 09:26:33 MST 2008
I think it might have something to do with cutting & pasting.
------------------------
Keith Smith
(520) 207-9877
PHP Programmer
--- On Fri, 7/11/08, Paul Scott <waterhorse at ultrasw.com> wrote:
From: Paul Scott <waterhorse at ultrasw.com>
Subject: Re: [Tfug] Spy Bill Debate Comes to an End
To: "Tucson Free Unix Group" <tfug at tfug.org>
Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 9:12 AM
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
>
_______________________________________________
Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
Subscription Options:
http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tfug.org/pipermail/tfug_tfug.org/attachments/20080711/d97a8ee4/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the tfug
mailing list