Prussian_Roulette: Immaculate_Misconception,

None of that has ever been acceptable. Criminal's civil liberties go with them into the slammer when we prosecute them.

Yes, they do, yet somehow you'd strip these liberties from those who haven't even been accused of a crime, based solely on their race and religion?

BTW, don't equate terrorism with domestic crime fighting. Countering infiltration and attacks from overseas is called fighting a war.

I'll tell you what, when the 'terrorists' attack us with tanks and bombers I'll call it a war, until then it's international crime as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to completely ignore everything that happened before 9/11, as if it was just an isolated event. That's why you'll never comprehend the threat.

I haven't ignored anything at all. But you ignored my request for you to back up your assertion.

I comprehend more than you think, don't go making assumptions about folks you don't know, it's bad form.

Funny, the piles of dead terrorists and the ones we have in chains around the world don't seem to match up with that assertion. Taking out two state sponsors of terrorism* isn't too shabby either. (*Whether Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 is irrelevant - he allowed Iraq to be a transit stop and safe haven for terrorist groups - including Al Qaeda - and paid blood money for Palestinian suicide attacks)

Iraq? nubian puhleeze!

They posed no threat, period. Unless you have NEW information, you can STFU about this one, we've all heard it, and that dog won't hunt.

Why don't you outlaw heart disease? Maybe send the 101st to invade cancer. What kind of analogy are you trying to make? "People die, live with it?" Uh...no. People die and people get murdered. Diabetes isn't going to kill you because you sold weapons to Israel.

Don't purposely be obtuse. You understood the analogy, and so did everyone else reading this thread. To disregard it so blatantly is intellectually dishonest.

Uh, I think you were previously griping about silly, inconvenient security measures.

No, I wasn't, you're wrong.

And targeted scrutiny is called efficiently using your resources by concentrating on the most likely suspects. You can't watch everyone all the time, but you can increase the odds of success by not wasting time on low probability threats.

It's also unconstitutional, you keep using combat jargon to describe a domestic issue, this is where you are making your crucial mistake. People in this country have a right NOT to be scrutinized based on their race or religion. And last time I checked war had not been declared, so as I said before the provisions of Article II that you mentioned above are not currently in effect.

I don't have to check the polls. I just have to know who's running the country.

Was this in dispute?

Are you really this childish?

We'll see how it all works out after the next election.

I mean hell, five years of total fcuking control and this is the best your party could do? Pathetic.

You've just been going on about how your convenience was more important than the lives of what you think are apparently a statistically insignificant number of Americans. Apparently you feel entitled to that convenience at the expense of those lives.

Again, no I haven't, I think you're confusing the word CONSTITUTION with CONVENIENCE. They are not interchangeable. Maybe if you would take the Con-law course I suggested earlier you'd understand this. Nowhere in this thread have I mentioned "convenience", period.

Ah, reminiscent of the Democrat's "bring out the vet" response. Which is supposed to force me to trump you, otherwise my opinions are invalidated.

Not at all. Just don't attempt to paint me with your broad brush, I don't fit into your neat little stereotype, not in the least.

Sorry, you'll have to wonder whether your contributions outweigh mine or not. I make a point about not tainting an argument by playing the credentials card. If an idea can't stand on its own, it's probably pretty weak.

I don't wonder. I know that the positions you support do more to hurt this great country than anyone could ever accuse me of, and that's good enough for me.

nuclear_asshat: The day Mormons, under the guise of Latter Day Saintism declare the US the enemy and vow all will burn in hell by their own hand is the day vans sit outside their temples with radiation detection equiment.


And it will be unconstitutional then as well.

Denial

I hate to sound Clinton-esque but...

"define wrong?" Is "Not agreeing with the administration" Wrong? I know it sounds extreme, and I know that I this is pushing it, but what happens if saying "I Disagree" become "unpatriotic" and "Unsafe" and are grounds to be monitored because "you pose a threat"

Never mind if you say these things are are non-white.

One of the Patriot act provisions that went nowhere was the one where they wanted mail carriers, and local people to basically spy on neighbors and report "suspicious" activity. It died, in part, because who in the hell can define "suspicious"? Same thing applies here... There is always a sliding scale of "wrong"

Sorry for the Clinton-esque response, but this is the slippery slope people worry about.

Prussian_Roulette said:
Taking out two state sponsors of terrorism

Y'know, if there's one thing to be learned from this whole mess, it's that we probably shouldn't have supported those states like we did in the first place. Perhaps this hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars lesson will help our policy makers to avoid making the same mistake again in the future.

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

/Sure it will

There are plenty of spying people can do that requires no warrent.

Leave your trash on the corner past the sidewalk? No warrant necessary, it's public.

Can I hop on your wifi network legally? Hell no....Can I check and see if you have a wifi network? HELL YES!!!

Can I get a scanner and listen to your cordless phone calls? Not sure. You used to be able to...

Can I get a boom mike and parabolic dish and sit outside your place and record everything you say???

Yep. Legal.

Can I shoot a laser that touches the glass on your widows and use the rattling of the glass to transmit audio??

No. You need a warrant.

Can I follow you to work?
Can I engage you in IM chat and pretend to be someone else?
Can I watch you in line at Wally Word, Grocery Store, and develop a profile based on what you buy??
Can I estimate your activities by getting the publicly available power usage from a utility bill?

Yes to all of those.

There is a ton of stuff you can legally do to try and decide if this is a person of interest worth dedicating additional resources.

I warrant is not required to investigate. A warrant is required to invade your privacy that is not viewable from public spaces.



If you don't get it, then try this on. Almost everything the Paparazzi does is ENTIRELY LEGAL!!!!

You think any terrorists could get a damn thing done with that sort of surveillance????

Hm.......Get Porter Gross on the phone, I have a new Intelligence Strategy....call it...... "The Lohan Project"

DeadpoolNakago: I feel loved. Immaculate Misconception finally noticed me. I was wondering when I was gonna get a pat on the back for what I've been doing.

/seriously, that made me smile.


It's all good man. >:)

Nuclear_asshat

I love it... Some other names to consider

Operation Brangelina's "Family Photo Album"

Mission: Trailer Trash Brittney and her tragic husband

The Lohan Project: Where did all the hotness go?

Kerry and Bush both agreed nuclear proliferation was a major threat (2004)

I'd prefer we check everywhere in America...

I personally don't feel like this is a violation of my freedom...because the opportunity to gain more information while doing these operations = the same as a cop passing by your house and looking...

And given limited resources, I'd prefer we check logical places... On my list of logical places, mosques = pretty high...

No need to search churches... they already figured out how to destroy our country through their voting.

coolbeans56: The Lohan Project: Where did all the hotness go?


Her WMD's went missing and it pissed me right the hell off....

I swear before Congress that I saw her bumbling jubblies, and they looked great..now they are amiss....hidden in the sand in the desert.....some say they were never there....BUT THEY EXISTED DAMMNIT!!!

Call out the military. I must find Lohan's bumbling jubbies and fine red hair...The 82nd must be deployed.

Immaculate_Misconception: And it will be unconstitutional then as well.


How do you figure. Really?

Wifi. Radiation. If you are sending out Electromagnetic waves, I can sit out in the street and pick it up all I want. It's a public area.

How is my wireless network detector picking my neighbors signal different than using my Geiger Counter?

Sorry, but that is not unconstitutional.

Denial: if youre not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.


Wow, your username really fits, huh?

The police in my area drive around with dogs hanging out of the back window. They are doing the same thing but looking for meth cookers, pot and god knows what else. I know a good meth lab explosion could burn down a few houses and I wouldn't put it passed the idiots as there is so much money in it. I don't mind them searching.

Thank god I learned that dogs are not trained to sniff out growing herb, only the nicely dried stuff.

If they want to drive around with radiation and explosive detectors, go a head, I am not giving up any rights and if it saved someone's life it would be worth it.

// my 2 cents

nuclear_asshat: How do you figure. Really?

Wifi. Radiation. If you are sending out Electromagnetic waves, I can sit out in the street and pick it up all I want. It's a public area.

How is my wireless network detector picking my neighbors signal different than using my Geiger Counter?

Sorry, but that is not unconstitutional.


Okay, maybe we're talking about different things here.

Like I said earlier, there's nothing illegal about detecting radiation in public places, but THIS story mentioned the authorities entering properties, I wish they'd have been more specific.

I'm not prepared to argue in court that this behavior is clearly unconstitutional, but if the ONLY reason these places are being checked is because they are owned by Muslims, then it's clearly religious profiling, and it violates the equal protection clause. This would be true for Baptists or Mormons as well I suppose.

A little Primer on 4th Amendment and electronic surveillance from Katz v US (1967) Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize.

This is why trash does not require a warrant.

Florida v. Riley (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no expectation of privacy (and thus no search) where officers hovered in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house and conducted surveillance.

Measuring radiatino from street? Perfectly legal. Perfectly Constitutional. They don't have to have a reason.

Hell, buy a geiger counter and drive around yourself if you feel its your duty. Neighborhood watch for the 21st Century.

Sorry Immaculate, you are wrong on this one.

It is simply wrong to focus on a group because of their religion, whether it makes common sense or not, it is against one of the most basic principles that our nation was founded upon.

This is serious business folks. The precedents set today will possibly be in effect for decades. Who's to say the next great threat won't be comprised primarily of Christians, or non-believers, or whatever fcuking group YOU belong to?

Nice post nuclear.. best thing i've learned on a fark in a few months.

Immaculate_Misconception: I'm not prepared to argue in court that this behavior is clearly unconstitutional, but if the ONLY reason these places are being checked is because they are owned by Muslims, then it's clearly religious profiling, and it violates the equal protection clause. This would be true for Baptists or Mormons as well I suppose.

I think the law would disagree with you on this one as well.

Take your average Roscoe P. Coltrane. He has the radar on as the cars are speeding by. He just has to prove he is hitting some other folks as well.

With radiation vans scouring major cities on occasion as well as container vehicles and satellites, I am sure they have no problem proving that burden.

Here is how they get around walking in the building.

Church sign says "All are welcome for Morning Worship at 11am"

Disco. Thanks. I now have my trusty WI-FI/Geiger Counter in my pocket. Sign says all are welcome.

Pretty tough to claim privacy in the mosque with open worship hours....

Mormon temples only admit Mormons, so their secret nuke program is safe...

Unless I am missing something. If so, fill me in on your perpsective.

nuclear_asshat: A little Primer on 4th Amendment and electronic surveillance from Katz v US (1967) Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable"that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize.

This is why trash does not require a warrant.

Florida v. Riley (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no expectation of privacy (and thus no search) where officers hovered in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house and conducted surveillance.

Measuring radiatino from street? Perfectly legal. Perfectly Constitutional. They don't have to have a reason.

Hell, buy a geiger counter and drive around yourself if you feel its your duty. Neighborhood watch for the 21st Century.

Sorry Immaculate, you are wrong on this one.


Are you retarded? You said the exact same thing I said, but then called me wrong?

I only said that it may be unconstitutional if they were entering properties. And that I wasn't sure here because the article wasn't detailed enough. And yes, profiling based upon an individual's religious background is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. Were this a state issue it would be covered by the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment, but seeing as we're talking about the federal government this would be unconstitutional because it would violate the due process of the 5th Amendment.

WTF?

This is serious business folks. The precedents set today will possibly be in effect for decades. Who's to say the next great threat won't be comprised primarily of Christians, or non-believers, or whatever fcuking group YOU belong to?

So basically society has to eliminate all lurking variables that deal with race/religion.

IE: Lets say a black man is 25x more likely to rob a store. A cop drives by and sees a white man entering a store, doesn't stop.. Sees a black man entering the store...stops

On one hand, effective police work is based on playing probabilities.

On the other, social damage may be done.

The question is, is the good (criminals caught) worth the social damage.

I don't know the answer.. I think it depends on the degree of the social damage/danger it can prevent.

Let me be clear though in terms of intelligence.

High Yield results and Fairness are often not in the same sentence.

I am not saying profiling is okay. But lets be honest. Even when fighting the civil rights battle, plenty of southerners in who were friends with members of the KKK were profiled exactly for that reason.

We "profile" serial killers (ingore black americans) serial rapists (we ingore the elderly) sex crime (ingore homosexuals) to our benefit.

We profile all the time. The better the profile, the higher yield. When our profile discludes us, we feel good, when it includes us, that sucks.

Our doctors do it, advertisers do it, and our insurance do it to the detriment of us more than probably anyone.

Do we not profile? Or do we refine to so we don't waste these good people time?


Imagine this scenario....

A good Christian Lebanese family (my best friends in high school) gives money to some local charity called the "Lebanese school for kids who don't read goood and stuff..."

Now, what our good Lebanese family who pays taxes doesn't know, but our spooks do know, is that charity is one of hundreds of front groups for what eventually gets funnelled into a group that funds suicide bombers.

Do you investigate them??? You don't know if they know or not. He works for Gulfstream aircraft in avionics and has a great deal of technical expertise. In fact, his brother back in Lebanon has chemical expertise, and a friend of his has ties to Hezbollah.

This could be a number of families in the U.S., who have done nothign wrong, but circumstance would mean you might want to do just a little investigating.

nuclear_asshat said:
Here is how they get around walking in the building.

What if it's a private residence, as mentioned at the top of the article?

TFA said:
private homes

+

In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance

= ?

The only problem I have with this is I just don't get how it would work. I guess the idea is that the terrorists would not have the radioactive material properly shielded, allowing them to detect it, but then wouldn't the terrorists die from radiation poisoning before they were able to do anything anyways? Seems like a bit of a stretch.

Neurochemist: The question is, is the good (criminals caught) worth the social damage.

thats why you need to attack the root of the problem and fight poverty instead of being a reactionist

xtremdav45: I cant stand that people are thinking that since we havent been attacked since 9/11 that it wont happen again, and there is no reason to be monitoring anybody.

There is a difference between monitoring people and flat out breaking the laws put in place to not allow the public servants the ability to control the masses

No law breaking was needed to catch the 9-11 hijackers, just common sense and doing your job, which the FBI, CIA, and Bush administration failed to do. Yet now we are all supposed to sit here while they throw out all the laws they want and say "trust us, we need to do this!"

Bullshiat, if you can learn anything from history, it is DO NOT TRUST THOSE WITH POWER, THEY WILL ABUSE IT.

/obvious

nuclear_asshat: I think the law would disagree with you on this one as well.

Take your average Roscoe P. Coltrane. He has the radar on as the cars are speeding by. He just has to prove he is hitting some other folks as well.

With radiation vans scouring major cities on occasion as well as container vehicles and satellites, I am sure they have no problem proving that burden.

Here is how they get around walking in the building.

Church sign says "All are welcome for Morning Worship at 11am"

Disco. Thanks. I now have my trusty WI-FI/Geiger Counter in my pocket. Sign says all are welcome.

Pretty tough to claim privacy in the mosque with open worship hours....

Mormon temples only admit Mormons, so their secret nuke program is safe...

Unless I am missing something. If so, fill me in on your perpsective.

What a law enforcement agent can 'claim' to 'meet the burden' and what has actually taken place are often entirely different things. I see it all the time in court. they have perfect little scripted answers which have been designed to ensure that they 'meet the burden', so to speak.

You're attempting to argue specifics, and I am not.

What I am asserting is that to single out these locations based solely upon their religious significance (the mosques), or the race or religion of their owners (the private homes) is unconstitutional.

You can call it legal, but if it is challenged in the courts, I will bet money that it will be deemed unconstitutional and disallowed.

You're attempting to make an argument where there is none. And you're attempting to make me wrong when I am not.

Like I have said numerous times, it's perfectly legal to detect radiation in public places. But NOT EVERY place mentioned in this article is public. For authorities to enter my property without having obtained a warrant, based solely on my race or religion is clearly a violation of my civil rights, period. And that is exactly what I read has occurred in the article.

Immaculate_Misconception said:
I only said that it may be unconstitutional if they were entering properties. And that I wasn't sure here because the article wasn't detailed enough.

Didn't the article specifically say they were going on to the properties (including private residences), implying that it was being done in a manner that requires a warrant?

nuclear_asshat: We "profile" serial killers (ingore black americans) serial rapists (we ingore the elderly) sex crime (ingore homosexuals) to our benefit.

but the police do not use that white serial killer profile to look at whites with questionable thinking and follow them, etc. They do this with blacks, hispanics, and anyone else other than a white person. that makes it racist.

And as I said above, that also says something about the situation in America, where poverty causes crime. Fight poverty and you will lower crime, ignore poverty and continue to give tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations, let corporate criminals go free while arresting anyone with illegal drugs and you will only be a reactionist and never solve the actual problem

thats why you need to attack the root of the problem and fight poverty instead of being a reactionist

This will be our right of passage... just like the great societies to fall before us...we will continue to ignore forsight... our reaction time will continue to wane... and this lumbering beast will fall apart.

Immaculate_Misconception said:
You can call it legal, but if it is challenged in the courts

Who said anything about it going to the courts?

There are no "courts" in the Ministry of Love.

yeah, that's STRANGE.......

Deep Hurting: Didn't the article specifically say they were going on to the properties (including private residences), implying that it was being done in a manner that requires a warrant?

I guess the distinction for me was that it didn't specifically state that they were entering private buildings, or even public ones outside of public hours.

That's why I avoided the subject of warrants.

For them to walk about outside these buildings is generally within the limits of what's okay to do without a warrant, as long as they are not jumping fences, or violating "no trespassing" signs. But again, I'm taking issue with how these subjects are being selected in the first place.

If the government comes out with evidence that would justify initializing investigations against these entities, I wouldn't have a problem with any of it. But if (as the article suggests) the scrutiny is based on nothing more than race or religion, it's unconstitutional and needs to be stopped.

Immaculate_Misconception,

My older quotes and yours are tagged in the same italics. I'm getting tag cramps.

None of that has ever been acceptable. Criminal's civil liberties go with them into the slammer when we prosecute them.

Yes, they do, yet somehow you'd strip these liberties from those who haven't even been accused of a crime, based solely on their race and religion?

BTW, don't equate terrorism with domestic crime fighting. Countering infiltration and attacks from overseas is called fighting a war.

I'll tell you what, when the 'terrorists' attack us with tanks and bombers I'll call it a war, until then it's international crime as far as I'm concerned.

You changed the subject. You were previously equating deaths from terrorism with deaths from crime. And now you acknowledge that you think terrorism is just international crime. Just like John Kerry. I don't agree. War isn't defined by the tools, it's defined by the motives. Terrorists aren't trying to take our stuff and go home, they're trying to impose their will on us.

You seem to completely ignore everything that happened before 9/11, as if it was just an isolated event. That's why you'll never comprehend the threat.

I haven't ignored anything at all. But you ignored my request for you to back up your assertion.

I comprehend more than you think, don't go making assumptions about folks you don't know, it's bad form.

Because you won't associate prior terrorist attacks with the ones that follow them, nothing I say short of Osama personally ordered this attack, then that one, will satisfy you. Terrorism doesn't end with Osama's head on a platter.

Iraq? nubian puhleeze!

They posed no threat, period. Unless you have NEW information, you can STFU about this one, we've all heard it, and that dog won't hunt.

No, you choose to ignore the 911 hijackers that passed through Iraq, already cited by the 911 Commission. Nobody just "passes through" Saddam's Iraq. You choose to ignore Ansar al-Islam, the guys our SF and the Kurds caught toying with ricin and botulinum when we overran their camps in the north. Nobody just runs a bioweapons smokehouse that could be turned against the regime. And Saddam's payments to the families of suicide bombers, well, screw any Americans that get in the way while they're attacking the Jews. Couldn't hurt to kill them while they're available though. You just pass it off as, "well, Saddam didn't tell any of the above to attack us, so they're no threat to us or anyone else." Do you walk with a cane, because that's pretty shortsighted.

Why don't you outlaw heart disease? Maybe send the 101st to invade cancer. What kind of analogy are you trying to make? "People die, live with it?" Uh...no. People die and people get murdered. Diabetes isn't going to kill you because you sold weapons to Israel.

Don't purposely be obtuse. You understood the analogy, and so did everyone else reading this thread. To disregard it so blatantly is intellectually dishonest.

I'm glad everyone else understands the analogy that equates death from disease with murder, because I don't. Dead is dead, so why get upset about the cause, especially when one cause is stopped with research and drug treatments when the other is stopped with bullets, if you can administer them in the right place and time. Was that your point?

And targeted scrutiny is called efficiently using your resources by concentrating on the most likely suspects. You can't watch everyone all the time, but you can increase the odds of success by not wasting time on low probability threats.

It's also unconstitutional, you keep using combat jargon to describe a domestic issue, this is where you are making your crucial mistake. People in this country have a right NOT to be scrutinized based on their race or religion. And last time I checked war had not been declared, so as I said before the provisions of Article II that you mentioned above are not currently in effect.

Funny, congress voted twice to go to WAR. We keep spending gobs of money on the WAR effort. The troops are obviously shooting and getting shot at by somebody overseas with the stated goal of not having to hunt down and shoot those same people in the US. We're engaged in what is universally labeled by others as an illegal WAR. The Supreme Court will decide if Bush violated Article II, not the New York Times, but I'm guessing he'll get off, NSA intercepts and all, on exercising powers he's allowed under times of war.

I don't have to check the polls. I just have to know who's running the country.

Was this in dispute?

Are you really this childish?

We'll see how it all works out after the next election.

I hate to bring up Kerry again but, like him, you seem to confuse polls with votes. Bush was elected. He is not - EVER - obligated to listen to polls. He's going to be gone in 2008, not because he was kicked out, but because he's required to by law. In 2008 polls will still mean nothing when people vote.

I mean hell, five years of total fcuking control and this is the best your party could do? Pathetic.

From the party that nominated John Kerry, that means a lot. I read his service records, the transcripts from back in the day when he came back stateside, his voting record, his participation in the political process when it really mattered. Someone should've done a little more research before exposing that rock to the sun.

You've just been going on about how your convenience was more important than the lives of what you think are apparently a statistically insignificant number of Americans. Apparently you feel entitled to that convenience at the expense of those lives.

Again, no I haven't, I think you're confusing the word CONSTITUTION with CONVENIENCE. They are not interchangeable. Maybe if you would take the Con-law course I suggested earlier you'd understand this. Nowhere in this thread have I mentioned "convenience", period.

Point taken. That spilled over from my responses to Yankees Team Gynecologist.

Ah, reminiscent of the Democrat's "bring out the vet" response. Which is supposed to force me to trump you, otherwise my opinions are invalidated.

Not at all. Just don't attempt to paint me with your broad brush, I don't fit into your neat little stereotype, not in the least.

It's not a stereotype. It's a tactic. One that I noted was similar to one Democrats seem to like to use to deflect criticism. Devalue the attacker if you can't devalue the idea.

Sorry, you'll have to wonder whether your contributions outweigh mine or not. I make a point about not tainting an argument by playing the credentials card. If an idea can't stand on its own, it's probably pretty weak.

I don't wonder. I know that the positions you support do more to hurt this great country than anyone could ever accuse me of, and that's good enough for me.

Apparently the voters disagreed when the positions were stated and the opportunity to choose was on hand.

This has been fun, but I have to bail.

Later.

I think you are fighting from a universal standpoint that focusing on race/religion is wrong in all cases.

However, let me present a scenario for you:

1% of Muslims are going to commit a terrorist act... religion being the only common thread we find
result: a medium % of society would be more than willing to target them
10% of Muslims are going to commit a terrorist act...religion being the only common thread we find
result: a larger % of society would be more than willing to target them
75% of Muslims are going to commit a terrorist act...religion being the only common thread we find
result: a huge % of society would be more than willing to target them

In the first scenario, I'd like to think I could keep a cool head... But in the last, I know damn well I want every single muslim checked.. They have to lose their freedom to ensure that a greater freedom is not taken from society. (Ie: a few dozen people losing their lives)

This issue is not black and white, universal right and wrong.. There is a probability where it becomes acceptable IMHO

Immaculate_Misconception: Are you retarded? You said the exact same thing I said, but then called me wrong?

On bad days, I could probably qualify for mildly retarded..

Deep Hurting: private homes

+

In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance

= ?

What I am trying to say, and obviously not communicating effectively, is that there are a lot of loopholes.

It is perfectly reasonable to be on private property and it still not require warrant.

The phrase "I am gonna need to search your place, is that okay?"

Is phrased very differently than...

"I want to search your apartment, but I don't have a search warrant. Is that okay."

Both are legally equivalent. One will get you in the door or on the property, and the other won't.

If they just walked on the property, then yes that is in violation.

But is there an instance where the could do it legally? Sure. In the case of Mosques, open worship would be an example.

In terms of private residence, there are tons of loopholes as well.

Now, does it should shady? Sure. Can we assume because they were on private residences or moque that it was illegal?

No.

I am sure many are skilled manipulators. How hard would it really be to get on the property legally if they thought about it?

Not hard.

Hell, my mother or girlfriend would have let them check their email on my laptop and made them lemonade too.

Prussian_Roulette: Funny, congress voted twice to go to WAR. We keep spending gobs of money on the WAR effort. The troops are obviously shooting and getting shot at by somebody overseas with the stated goal of not having to hunt down and shoot those same people in the US. We're engaged in what is universally labeled by others as an illegal WAR. The Supreme Court will decide if Bush violated Article II, not the New York Times, but I'm guessing he'll get off, NSA intercepts and all, on exercising powers he's allowed under times of war.

I read the rest of your post and found this to be the only tidbit worth responding to.

You show me a formal declaration of war against the soverign nation of Iraq, and I'll STFU, ok?

He violated Article II by using powers that aren't bestowed upon the President unless war has been declared by congress.

authorization of force != formal declaration of war

Prussian_Roulette said:
Because you won't associate prior terrorist attacks with the ones that follow them, nothing I say short of Osama personally ordered this attack, then that one, will satisfy you. Terrorism doesn't end with Osama's head on a platter.

Terrorism doesn't end ever. You can't defeat an idea like "terror" either by destroying it or securing its surrender. That's the whole idea.

Perpetual war against vaguely-defined and changeable enemies. Did you know George Orwell's original title for Nineteen Eighty-Four was The Complete Idiot's Guide To Cultivating And Maintaining Control Over Fascist Police-States?

/And the original title for War And Peace was War, What Is It Good For?

Neurochemist: This issue is not black and white, universal right and wrong.. There is a probability where it becomes acceptable IMHO


I don't disagree. But I do believe that if the threat were ever large enough to justify this type of large scale targeting we'd probably be fighting in the streets any fcuking way.

Just my initial thought on your point.

Immaculate_Misconception: Your analogy doesn't fit the discussion. Your suspects were not selected for scrutiny based upon their race or religion, they were selected because of money they contributed.

Are you sure they weren't selected for that reason?

What if some old ass white lady in your neighborhood gave to the same group?

No. Their donation in addition to their race, or the other way around would ensure they were investigated.

Some old lady who donates to the same cause? Probably not.

I stand by my analogy.

Or how about vacationers. I bet a lot more Whitey's visit the holy land than Arab americans do. (terms of sheer numbers) who gets a look? Now tie in my analogy you don't like.

Now, old layd starts writing crazy propoganda? Okay. She get a look now.

I don't disagree. But I do believe that if the threat were ever large enough to justify this type of large scale targeting we'd probably be fighting in the streets any fcuking way.

Well now on to our big problem... since we are in agreement...

What probability are we going to legislate? What % of society has to agree that it is for the greater good..

...and while we are figuring this out..society is changing randomly.. 3 hours after 9-11, 95% of the "pro muslim" post in this thread would of been on the opposite side of the argument.

/These are nasty issues and I want nothing to do with them.

nuclear_asshat: Are you sure they weren't selected for that reason?

Not according to your analogy they weren't.

What if some old ass white lady in your neighborhood gave to the same group?

I don't know, was she checked out too? You didn't mention that.

No. Their donation in addition to their race, or the other way around would ensure they were investigated.

That would be based on more than JUST their race, now wouldn't it. But we're not really talking about race here, we're still talking about their nation of origin (a huge difference), you never mentioned what race they were. You only mentioned that they were Lebanese.

Some old lady who donates to the same cause? Probably not.

What country does she come from, what is her religion?

I stand by my analogy.

I can't see how.

Or how about vacationers. I bet a lot more Whitey's visit the holy land than Arab americans do. (terms of sheer numbers) who gets a look? Now tie in my analogy you don't like.

Well, you're talking about Israel now. The last time I checked our Constitution didn't apply there, so i guess they can profile any damn way they choose.

Now, old layd starts writing crazy propoganda? Okay. She get a look now.

She might have gotten a look before, I don't know, you keep asking me to buy into this analogy, but you don't provide enough facts to paint a clear parallel between your analogy and the context of this conversation.

It is simply wrong to focus on a group because of their religion. Not really, particularly if they are the ones that have attacked you. I think they focused on catholic priests didn't they?

Neurochemist: Well now on to our big problem... since we are in agreement...

What probability are we going to legislate? What % of society has to agree that it is for the greater good..

...and while we are figuring this out..society is changing randomly.. 3 hours after 9-11, 95% of the "pro muslim" post in this thread would of been on the opposite side of the argument.

/These are nasty issues and I want nothing to do with them.


I don't believe such things can be legslated. What I meant to imply by "fighting in the streets" is that if such a large threat did exist inside our borders we'd have probably declared martial law, and there would be a limit on the rights of the people anyway.

19 guys hijacked some planes and killed a bunch of people. But these 19 men in no way represent the Muslim population in the U.S..

I wouldn't imagine that terrorist sympathizers make up anywhere near a tenth of a percent of Muslims in this country, if that many. Hell, there are probably as many if not more Christian anti-Government "terrorists" within our borders, but yet the focus remains on one group. One group which is constantly misrepresented as one race, or one nationality because the people who are afraid of them are too ignorant to learn about anyone different from themselves.

I want just as much to do with these issues as you do, unfortunately my profession requires me to give a shiat. I wish sometimes that I could erase what I know about our laws, then this shiat wouldn't bother me like it does. I could live in ignorant bliss or blind stupid fear like half of our nation apparently does.

Gee, the Fark-Asshole meter is in full swing today.

You know, McVeigh blew up the Murray building, and those KKK people commit some heinous crimes, let's put tabs on all those pesky Chrisitans...

Oh, and Pollard, the Rosenbergs, and Abramoff were caught passing top secret material (including nuclear) to our enemies and so-called-allies, let's watch all those pesky Jews too...

I'm sorry, those of you supporting this deserve to be ruled by an imbecile. What is obvious, I think, is that this stupid program, using your tax dollars, produced nothihg, zero, zilch, except maybe widen the divide in American society.

RancidOne: Not really, particularly if they are the ones that have attacked you.

Ok, so it's not wrong, that's just my opinion. But it is unconstitutional, and that's a fact.


I think they focused on catholic priests didn't they?

That depends on exactly which case you're talking about, but no, they didn't just run around violating priests rights based on their religion, they did however pursue relevant investigations based on evidence like victims accounts and church records. Your broad generalization doesn't even begin to fit this subject.

Again, we're talking about actual crimes and the prevention of crimes that have not been committed. Apples and oranges I'm afraid.

Well, it's been fun, y'all have a Merry Christmas now.

/didn't know us Godless liberals still said that did ya?

If freedom isn't free why do you insist and letting it go without a fight?

That said, I got no problem with this program

-UKerupt-

["A policeman can go "onto" my property, up to my fron door, ask if he can seach my house, I can say 'no thanks' and he'd be on his way."]

Mind if he stands on your porch and looks in your window for a while?

Beemer : "That's right, folks. Leaking information about illegal surveillance being conducted by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies: bad. Leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer who specialized in weapons of mass destruction monitoring for political purposes: good."

Or, restated,,,,

Beemer Translated : Leaking info about surveillance (and since I don't like any surviellance done by Bushies, I'll call it illegal) designed to prevent the mass murder of American Civilianss : Good. Fark the casualties, I get to feel self-rightous! That's the important thing.

and...

Beemer Translated : Leaking info about a CIA agent who was covert over seven years ago - MUCH much worse. Because I hate Bush. And I believe that anything wrong done by someone in his administration is proper grounds to impeach, convict, and shoot the top-most bast*rd - in whichever order.

and as to the following tirade....

"Patrick Henry thinks you're a bunch of cowardly little pussies. And so do I."

"What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

How farking dumb do you have to be to take Patrick Henry's famous call to arms and use it as a call to do nothing. And then call those unwilling to twiddle their thumbs (or other thumb-sized appendages) while Rome, NY (or any other US City) burns "cowardly little pussies" because they actually want to prevent evil being done unto our citizens, rather than trust in the good will of those without any.

And found nothing ?