[Britfunclubs]

It's the 4th Amendment.

[erepsysoulptnw]

1st? If we're going to complain about it, wouldn't it be the 4th Amendment?

Edit: Damn you, Imran!

[nasxbrtyol]

Hey shouldn't it be teh 4th amendment?

[ForumMasta]

Wait a minute...

Isn't it the 4th Amendment?

[hereiamguy]

41 Dem Representatives and 16 Dem Senators (and Lieberman) voted to cover for Big 25%'s lawbreaking. What a bunch of tools.

The only consolations is that it'll sunset in six months...

[njfeedd3w]

The answer is not to handcuff our intelligence agencies with outdated regulations from the vacuum tube era (that no longer apply to criminal surveillance) and ridiculous seperations between criminal and intelligence activities (ie Janet Reno's wall) the answer is strict congressional oversight by the intelligence committees. If we cant trust the congress to stand up when something is really wrong then we may as well go home and hide under our beds.

[PefeFoesk]

You'll likely be kicking in his door like the stormtrooper you are, no doubt.

[Enjknsua]

I think we need a poll about which is the best amehndehmehnt

[agiopwer]

In reality dems destroy both 4th and 1st as a twofer. Because they love banana republiks.

[Corporal White]

Darth Cheney is happy that all is proceeding according to plan.

[zzbust]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Why is it U.S. authoritarians cannot see anything between warrantless searches and no searches?? The 4th Amendment allows the government to search anything as long as a warrant is issued, and standard for getting a warrant is low. More to the point anything can be searched and seized in many instances without a warrant as well.

Customs anyone?

DUI roadblocks?

and many others as well.

[EarnestKS]

The dark side is strong with that one. The force lightening has caused irreversible wrinkles to appear.

[choollaBard]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Her Majesty Empress Hillary the First of the United States of America and its Territories, Lord Protector of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands, and Shah of Iraq I stand corrected.

[bumxumer]

With or without a woodchipper involved?

[Friend_Joe]

Does that have a USB port? Definitely needs teh external knee jerk attachment drive.

[RildFiemodo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
More to the point anything can be searched and seized in many instances without a warrant as well.

Customs anyone? Implied consent.

DUI roadblocks? Unconstitutional IMHO.

and many others as well. Inventory search, pat-down, yeah yeah yeah. But there's reasoning behind all of these.

Here, all I'm seeing is the wholesale searching of citizenry for no purpose which has been articulated.

[POMAH_K]

Alberto "I don't recall" Gonzales' opinion is not exactly a universally recognized standard of reasonableness. This rubber stamp legislation allows Speedy Confession to get past FISA review (lax as it is) at will. This amounts to arbitrary executive power.

[JosephNF]

Foreign communcations that may involve American citizens located in the US. And even domestic communques that Gonzo "reasonably believes" one party is foreign. And these intercepts can be used for further court orders. Unconstitutional asshatery

[goctorsurger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It's the 4th Amendment. QFT

[vSzsgifP]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anyway, IIRC this is about our ability to tap conversations between two people on foreign soil which happen to pass through the US. Which is obviously something we should be doing. So Ramos of the world, quit whining I think you recollect incorrectly. I think it's about the ability to tap conversations involving someone on foreign soil but also an American (even a citizen) on the other end of the conversation.... as long as the target is the guy on foreign soil.

So not necessarily two people on foreign soil (which wasn't a problem in the first place, IIRC).