[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 16:50)

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 16:32) Can a new law, at least under certain circumstances, over ride an amendment to the constitution? It is claimed with the USA PATRIOT act that the 4th amendment can be ignored, e-mails and phone taps without a warrant, for example. That's based on the argument that email interception and phone taps don't warrant the term "seizure", as nothing physical is being taken from an individual. As for the "search" aspect, I believe there's an uncodified exemption when it comes to phone and email interception as the actual act of interception doesn't take place on the property of another individual. Basically, you aren't searching owned property, only intercepting signals that emanate from owned property. To perform invasive secret recordings, a signed warrant is still required. Plus, there's the "expectation of reasonable privacy" related to emails stored on third-party servers, as was the case with United States v. Warshak.

You maybe technically right, but there seems to be an understanding from American citizens that the constitution protects them from government spying. If it is legal to have some kind of data mining program to catch certain key words and then record the conversation then that idea has been around for along time. I'm not entirely opposed to certain types of intrusion on our civil liberties if it means protection from harm, but looking around, I tend to believe that they can really do pretty much whatever they want for national security and the public will not protest it. Especially since they, most of them, are not aware and don't care.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 18:11)

You maybe technically right, but there seems to be an understanding from American citizens that the constitution protects them from government spying.

It's not an understanding, though, it's an assumption. Of course the government spies on it's people- the government of every nation does. Intelligence-led internal security policy is the primary component part of both the security side of the triad of traditional "state identifiers" in basic statecraft; a state-held monopoly on violence, a recognised territory, and a population united under a political system. I find it truly astonishing that anyone- particularly in a country which actually has a degree of mandated political education, as the US does- has these absurdly idealistic delusions about the nature of statecraft, and about any "protection from spying" or the suchlike. At the end of the day, every government must juggle the requirement for freedoms and the requirement for a secure state- but the "secure state" aspect almost always comes first. There's no point having freedom if you don't have the security to protect them; conversely, a state can exist and function with a strong security apparatus and no freedoms- though not happily, and probably not for long.

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 18:11)

If it is legal to have some kind of data mining program to catch certain key words and then record the conversation then that idea has been around for along time.

It has been- albeit primarily in relation to military and diplomatic traffic instead of civil communications, though even that has changed now. ECHELON, which is the Five-eyes (US, UK, Aus, Can, NZ) combined signals intelligence apparatus, is believe to have an incredibly complex data analysis/data mining component that does exactly what you describe. ECHELON has existed in some form or another since the late 1970s now- and with the change in the global threat landscape, it would be unthinkable to believe that such a system hadn't been re-tasked with exploring at least a certain proportion of civil communications. That said, according to all the information available, it's incredibly unlikely to be some kind of unwieldy hammer-like tool, as it is often presented by those with a hard-on over their paranoid, dystopian Orwellian fantasies; instead, it's probably far more precise than just keyword searches. I mean, there have been all these scare stories in the British press about "every phone conversation being recorded", and it's all just utter crap. Even if it were physically possible- which it isn't- then how would all that data be stored and analysed?

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 18:11)

I'm not entirely opposed to certain types of intrusion on our civil liberties if it means protection from harm, but looking around, I tend to believe that they can really do pretty much whatever they want for national security and the public will not protest it. Especially since they, most of them, are not aware and don't care.

I think you drastically overstate the issue. Look at the accountability regulations for the security services in the US, the degree of public oversight that they require to do their job, and the dazzling level of bureaucracy involved in the whole saga. Besides, if the government were really suppressing civil liberties, don't you think the first thing they would do is remove people's ability to speak out against infringements of civil liberties? Hypothetically, if I was trying to create a closed counter-intelligence state; such as modern Russia, which seems to provide an interesting comparison for many of the arguments put forward by the anti-securitisation, libertarian commentators as the "future of the US"; that's the first thing I'd do.

[Jeeebuuus]

You make very good points and I agree with them. I suppose I am using the slippery slope logical fallacy in my point of view, though most people are not as educated on the issue in America, as you seem to be. I've also heard of Englands fears of this and how some like to quote George Orwell to make their point. In the arena of ideas I have to place that point of view on the table, so to speak, as well with more reasonable approaches to issue. Ultimately I feel we are not privy to much that can ease our natural fears and have to take alot on faith.

[Irviding]

No. A new law cannot overrule the constitution. Never, ever, never. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That's why the supreme court has declared laws unconstitutional. Think about it. Starting with the judiciary act during the early federalist era.

Sivis, the answer I am 99% sure is a big no. A US citizen cannot be deported from the United States unless he/she were naturalized, in which case it is a very long and complicated procedure to do as such. I don't honestly knowio off the top of my head where that ex-citizen would even be sent after being deported if he/she had gotten in claiming political persecution, leaving a warzone, etc. I'll ask my uncle when I see him this Christmas (he is a DHS official) but it seems like a very strange situation that the government probably doesn't want its hands in very often.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 21:34)

No. A new law cannot overrule the constitution. Never, ever, never. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Well that's kind of the whole point of having a Constitution. Every law must be in accordance with it. It's supposed to limit the government power and influence. But I guess that doesn't work anymore since The Constitution can be subjected to interpretation. And the interpretation depends on those who are most influential. Not just in America but all over the f*ckin' world. Even in my country.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 23:28

[Irviding]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 17:37)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 21 2011, 21:34) No. A new law cannot overrule the constitution. Never, ever, never. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Well that's kind of the whole point of having a Constitution. Every law must be in accordance with it. It's supposed to limit the government power and influence. But I guess that doesn't work anymore since The Constitution can be subjected to interpretation. And the interpretation depends on those who are most influential. Not just in America but all over the f*ckin' world. Even in my country.

To an extent, yes. But the idea that the whole thing is just a complete joke that people can skate every law around is totally false. The commerce clause is probably the best example of the constitution being extrapolated to fit the needs of who is in power. Sometimes though, it is stretched for the good of the country. When Napoleon took over Spain and made it a puppet state during the Napoleonic wars, he offered Jefferson Spain's Louisiana territory. Jefferson didn't believe he had the constitutional authority to buy it, but he couldn't pass up the offer, so he went against his conviction and used the President's treaty signing powers in Article II and bought it that way. That, some of Lincoln's actions, some of what FDR did, is about all I can think of as valid, for the greater good violations of the constitution.


Thank god our constitution does not confer a lot of wartime powers or have a suspension clause like others do... I can only imagine what would have happened throughout the past 10 years if there were one.

[HolyGrenadeFrenzy]

Swearing an oath to a document that you can latter simply dismiss as inferior is an "interesting" position to be in.....for a dictator.




Journalism is interesting and commentary too, yet I can't help but step back and look at corporate media vs "independent media" and wonder how lost and brainwashed every side of complacency can be.




Some more from Rand Paul?






Oh me, oh my......

[Irviding]

More Ron Paul fanatics. I'll tell you, you're all just like the Obama supporters in 07/08 who had no f*cking clue about anything other than that "he'd fix stuff". Those retarded martial law points have been broken down and addressed by both sivis and I in this entire thread, yet you just prance in here and post a video and then take off again. Please, enlighten me - how is this martial law?

[Jeeebuuus]

I haven't seen those videos before and watched about half of each one simply because I already know what they are talking about. I've known for five years now. Politicians call it a "New World Order" and it is something we are going to have to get used to. If this is ultimately what it takes for the bettering of human kind, then it is what it is. Don't rebel, just submit.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 06:41)

Don't rebel, just submit.

That sounds lovely.

I don't really know much about American politicians, but why do people hate Ron Paul so much? As far as I understand, hes against wars. How is that a bad thing? People all around the world hate America because they're showing their military dick down everyone else's throats.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 09:13

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 05:30)

More Ron Paul fanatics. I'll tell you, you're all just like the Obama supporters in 07/08 who had no f*cking clue about anything other than that "he'd fix stuff". Those retarded martial law points have been broken down and addressed by both sivis and I in this entire thread, yet you just prance in here and post a video and then take off again. Please, enlighten me - how is this martial law?

It's not, basically. But don't you dare say that, he'll call you a tool and then post some vague, factually inaccurate and ramblingly nonsensical responses.

@Jeeebuuus- mentions of "New World Order" are an excuse for ridicule. It's particularly amusing as conspiracy theories go because it's nothing more than a single individual's complete inability to understand political lexicon. People have latched onto it with the same tired rhetoric "oh, it's something conspiratorial/evil, it's all about mind control/police states/one-world government". The simple fact of the matter is "new world order" is a political term for any dramatic transition in the national or international balance of power. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a "new world order". So was the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Europe. One could even argue that the Arab Spring is one. There's nothing evil, dark or suspicious about it- it's just a piece of political lexicon that's incorrectly used as a buzz-word for conspiracies, predominately by morons.

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 10:19

[GTAvanja]

Yeah, there are no evil conspiracies. It's always about the money. There's nothing mysterious about that. That doesn't mean we should be fine with what's going on in the world. But conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

I don't really know much about American politicians, but why do people hate Ron Paul so much?

I cant say Im any more knowledgeable. However, I am under the impression that its mostly because his views are simply not applicable in the real world. He seems to be for isolationism... which would never work out well for such a huge and powerful country as USA.

Also, many of his supporters are conspiracy nuts....

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 10:12)

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 05:30) More Ron Paul fanatics. I'll tell you, you're all just like the Obama supporters in 07/08 who had no f*cking clue about anything other than that "he'd fix stuff". Those retarded martial law points have been broken down and addressed by both sivis and I in this entire thread, yet you just prance in here and post a video and then take off again. Please, enlighten me - how is this martial law? It's not, basically. But don't you dare say that, he'll call you a tool and then post some vague, factually inaccurate and ramblingly nonsensical responses. @Jeeebuuus- mentions of "New World Order" are an excuse for ridicule. It's particularly amusing as conspiracy theories go because it's nothing more than a single individual's complete inability to understand political lexicon. People have latched onto it with the same tired rhetoric "oh, it's something conspiratorial/evil, it's all about mind control/police states/one-world government". The simple fact of the matter is "new world order" is a political term for any dramatic transition in the national or international balance of power. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a "new world order". So was the rise of Nazism and Fascism in Europe. One could even argue that the Arab Spring is one. There's nothing evil, dark or suspicious about it- it's just a piece of political lexicon that's incorrectly used as a buzz-word for conspiracies, predominately by morons.

Yeah I know. My statement was a little tongue-in-cheek to lighten the mood but I guess I should have expected the opposite reaction. I know its a buzz word for people who probably are too paranoid in their world-view. I agree with how you described it as a political phrase.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Okay, so I just recently came across this bill today.. along with this topic as well..


This isn't for real right? Or there's some sort of misunderstanding?


http://rt.com/usa/news/indefinite-detention-bill-senate-905/

Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.

This is some kind of joke right? If this really passed then how the hell has no one heard about it and if so, why isn't our entire country in uproar? This is f*ckin crazy...

[Irviding]

Sivis, can you just lock this? People continuously respond with random conspiracy bullsh*t with total disregard for the entire topic. This is like the third or fourth time now.

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 04:35)

Sivis, can you just lock this? People continuously respond with random conspiracy bullsh*t with total disregard for the entire topic. This is like the third or fourth time now.

Instead of complaining about how much you disagree with what is said why don't you show why the point in question is wrong and misguided? This is a part of the topic after all.

[GrandMaster Smith]

I just don't want to read through three pages of sivis extremely long posts..

It's a very simple question, does the American government now have the ability to indefinitely detain any suspected American citizen?

[Irviding]

Jeebus, I know you have good intentions here, but both myself and sivis (him moreso, since he has more patience) have taken the time to do that. I'm done arguing the same retarded, completely unfounded talking point with people who also think that the UN is trying to enslave the world.

If the point were made by one of these conspiracy theorists that JFK was actually killed by Hitler in British Columbia, there would be absolutely nothing I can say to sway them otherwise. They are the type of people who are so deluded by their bullsh*t propaganda videos on YouTube that they know no reality.

QUOTE

does the American government now have the ability to indefinitely detain any suspected American citizen?

Yup, and they're coming for you now since you know their plan.

This post has been edited by Irviding on Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 05:03

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Wednesday, Dec 28 2011, 05:00)

Both myself and sivis (him moreso, since he has more patience) have taken the time to do that. I'm done arguing the same retarded, completely unfounded talking point with a bunch of f*cking idiots who also think that the UN is trying to enslave the world. If the point were made by one of you conspiracy idiots that JFK was actually killed by Hitler in British Columbia, there would be absolutely nothing I can say to sway you otherwise. You are the type of people who are so deluded by your bullsh*t propaganda videos on YouTube that you know no reality. QUOTE does the American government now have the ability to indefinitely detain any suspected American citizen? Yup, and they're coming for you now since you know their plan.

Well, there you go. You attempted at least and I have to give you credit for that.

We really don't know, even though some like to assert that they do, what is the reality of the situation with national security. Does this mean we should jump to paranoid conclusions about Nazis in the U.S. intelligence apparatus? No. It doesn't. We the people, a long time ago, entrusted our safety to men of high renown in order to protect us from people who may be ten hairs away from being baboons and not at all interested in the evolution of mankind. We know we are not fit or qualified to handle difficult tasks and leave this up to people with courage we can only dream of. While some skepticism is healthy it is not wise to automatically lean to pessimism.