Thread: The Patriot Act, part 2

Originally Posted by mhailey

And who wouldn't. but this just supports the legality of the wiretapping. If you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to your orifices, yet they are subject to search (hopefully not seizure) when entering the country, why does an international phone call in which only your voice is being searched carry some greater degree of protection?

Matt

Your law degree is showing Matt!

If they were to read this thread, would it be possible they might find something that could be considered subversive? And if the thoughts expessed here could be considered subversive, wouldnt a search either with or without a warrant be considered reasonable?

Originally Posted by WaterBoo

When I went to VietNam as a just turned 19 year old Marine, I believed what my government told me.

Two years later I returned home and haven't trusted/believed my government since then.

Politicians, all of them, left and right and center, seem to be into it all for themselves and power. Frankly, I don't think one can be a successful politician and be honest at all times too. And that folks, is our government, the politicians, not the people.

WaterBoo

An honest man would never get that far, and as Harry Truman once said "If you want a friend in Washington youd better get a dog."

Originally Posted by mhailey

why does an international phone call in which only your voice is being searched carry some greater degree of protection?
Matt

hooray for digital communication and encryption! Crypto-anarchists unite! but seriously, I encourage everyone here to take their own privacy into their own hands if they want it respected at all.


(anyone wanting a free copy of some better-than-military-grade encryption software I wrote, PM me)

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

If they were to read this thread, would it be possible they might find something that could be considered subversive? And if the thoughts expessed here could be considered subversive, wouldnt a search either with or without a warrant be considered reasonable?

If it is an international phone call, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy no matter what they find in any post you may make in the internet.

Wasnt it Benj. Franklin (signer of Decl. of Ind. & in on the Constitution thing too, I believe) who said, "Anyone who would give up their essential liberty for security, deserves neither.)

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Wasnt it Benj. Franklin (signer of Decl. of Ind. & in on the Constitution thing too, I believe) who said, "Anyone who would give up their essential liberty for security, deserves neither.)

Yes, Benjamin Franklin was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and he was a signatory to the Constitution. That means he was one of the founding fathers that gave the Government the power to conduct a reasonable search and seizure. Therefore, he must not have felt that there was any loss of essential liberty in a reasonable search or reasonable seizure.

Which brings us back to the original question I posed. Who thinks that tapping an international phone call to a country that knowingly harbors terrorists, and supports terrorist activiteis, is unreasonable? If you feel this way, support your position.

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

And who wouldn't. but this just supports the legality of the wiretapping. If you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to your orifices, yet they are subject to search (hopefully not seizure) when entering the country, why does an international phone call in which only your voice is being searched carry some greater degree of protection?

Matt

Originally Posted by mhailey

Yes, Benjamin Franklin was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and he was a signatory to the Constitution. That means he was one of the founding fathers that gave the Government the power to conduct a reasonable search and seizure. Therefore, he must not have felt that there was any loss of essential liberty in a reasonable search or reasonable seizure.

Which brings us back to the original question I posed. Who thinks that tapping an international phone call to a country that knowing harbors terrorists, and supports terrorist activiteis is unreasonable? If you feel this way, support your position.

Matt

Hard a$$!

All kidding aside, I agree with your position, and although I am sure others will disagree, I don't think there is a logical argument that will stand up against yours!

Originally Posted by mhailey

And who wouldn't. but this just supports the legality of the wiretapping. If you should have a reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to your orifices, yet they are subject to search (hopefully not seizure) when entering the country, why does an international phone call in which only your voice is being searched carry some greater degree of protection?

Matt

Because, though being accused of it from time to time, I don't talk out my ass. My voice communicates all sorts of things, and it's not the privilege of my government to listen in. In both cases, there had better be a reasonable reason to search my orifices or my communications. If I don't look like I have something stuck up my ass or I'm calling dangerous people in dangerous places, then leave me alone.

If this just pertained to calls to other countries I wouldn't be so against it. But it's not...this lets them listen into me calling a buddy to see if he wants to grab lunch, calling my grandma, or calling SWMBO and talking dirty. So, as long as this lets them do domestic spying on Joe Shmoe, I'm against it.

In all honesty I dont care what they do with foriegners and their calls, its the privacy of citizens that concerns me. My banter with you thus far is simply fun.

BTW: You must be an attorney.... truly a splitter of hairs!