Bush lawyer argues that Americans have consented to monitoring

I can't believe they voted off Chris Daughtery --whatta rip.

You knowledge and concern for this explains a lot about your inability to make a coherent argument.

You knowledge and concern for this explains a lot about your inability to make a coherent argument.

Wow, your words of wisdom have enlightened me. You are right, how could I not see it all along. You've helped me see how wrong I was, thanks

oh boy..get ready for Kendra to ask you "Why do you hate your freedoms?"

If somehow your number was linked by mistake, which seems unlikely, I don't think they would "kick in your door". The worst that would happen to you is that you would be investigated, and maybe put under surveillance, without you ever even knowing about it. After a few days they would see that you were no threat and forget about you. No harm, no foul.

The people at the FBI aren't perfect of course, but they aren't Nazis. They are dedicated law enforcement personnel who just want to get the bad guys. I really don't think they have meetings to plan how to oppress the rest of us.

at least I don't conflate NSA wiretapping with phone number data mining.

What part of the Government has given itself the power ti imprison you and torture you as an "enemy combatant" on a mere whim aren't you quite understanding?

First, this thread began with a discussion of the phone data program.

You chimed in that the Fourth Amendment is evidence that the program is illegal.

I posted a Supreme Court case that states that the NSA program is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

So, are you referring to my arguments in a different thread?

If so, please let me know where you find my error.

You posted a Supreme Court argument that doesn't even support your position. Anybody that can read can see that for themselves.

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

1. 
   
   (a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Pp. 739-741.
   

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information

The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

ok, so you are saying that the following is not relevent?


Additionally, I didn't just pick this case out of my ass. Refer to the USAToday article I posted in another thread. Here is a snipit:


So, are you still certain that it isn't relevent? again, perhaps you can point out in detail where I am confused.

I posted a Supreme Court case that states that the NSA program is not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

If the 4th Ammendment doesn't do it for you, try section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act which forbids phone companies from giving out data on the calling patterns of their customers.

Do you mean Detention of Enemy Combatants Act ?

"Whim" would be an inapporpriate way to describe the motivation allowed by the act.

Excellent! That's all I ask.

Kendra kept repeating the FOURTH AMENDMENT. Would you agree that the Supreme Court Case I linked here is relevent, or do you agree with Kendra that it has no bearing on the issue?

(10) The Executive must be allowed broad latitude to establish by regulation and Executive order the process, standards, and conditions in which a United States citizen or lawful resident may be detained as an enemy combatant. Courts must give broad deference to military judgment concerning the determination of enemy combatant status, POW status, and related questions.

That means The President can call you an Enemy Combatant --cos he sez so.

let me help you out...refer to bold text in your quote.
I simply said that "whim" is not an appropriate way to characterize the authority.

"cos he sez so" is even less appropriate

let me help you out...refer to bold text in your quote.
I simply said that "whim" is not an appropriate way to characterize the authority.

"cos he sez so" is even less appropriate

You probably should have looked at the two words directly preceeding the text you made bold... "broad latitude". That is where Kendra is getting "whim". It's much like the TOS for SL... they can pick your ass up at any time and for any reason if you look at them crosseyed (or if you don't look at them...).

The people at the FBI aren't perfect of course, but they aren't Nazis. They are dedicated law enforcement personnel who just want to get the bad guys. I really don't think they have meetings to plan how to oppress the rest of us.

Excellent! That's all I ask.

Kendra kept repeating the FOURTH AMENDMENT. Would you agree that the Supreme Court Case I linked here is relevent, or do you agree with Kendra that it has no bearing on the issue?

I agree with Kendra that this is a 4th amendment issue. I also think the case you cited is relevent and disagree strongly with the ruling. I think what our government is up to in the name of fighting "terrorists" is frightening, dangerous, irrational, and way over the top. I posted a link to an article a few months back about the justic department's data mining schemes. The revelation the other day about the collection of phone records isn't really news but I guess most people missed the earlier revelations. What they're doing is playing the six degrees of Kevin Bacon on a massive scale. Think about that for a minute, Champie. How many degrees are you away from people who hold dissenting views, or who have questionable friends, or who engage in some illegal activity? Are you guilty be assosciation? Your government thinks you might be.