What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Blatant Abuse of Power by Federal Law Enforcement (1 Viewer)

chet

Footballguy
Story Here

In summary, a controversial "sneak and peek" power given to Federal Law Enforcement officials in the Patriot Act to combat terrorism is now being used overwhemingly in drug investigations.

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?

 
Law-and-order politicians and many (but not all) law enforcement and national security officials see the Bill of Rights not as the foundation of a free society but as an obstacle that prevents them from doing their jobs. Keep this in mind when they use a national emergency to argue for exceptions to those rights.

I thought this was an interesting take, given some of the other Police vs. Citizens conversations going on.

 
Law-and-order politicians and many (but not all) law enforcement and national security officials see the Bill of Rights not as the foundation of a free society but as an obstacle that prevents them from doing their jobs. Keep this in mind when they use a national emergency to argue for exceptions to those rights.
I thought this was an interesting take, given some of the other Police vs. Citizens conversations going on.
This is always the case but I will add that some government officials always seem to silently ask what is the point of power if it is unexercised. Apparently some at the FEC want to regulate political web content.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Law-and-order politicians and many (but not all) law enforcement and national security officials see the Bill of Rights not as the foundation of a free society but as an obstacle that prevents them from doing their jobs. Keep this in mind when they use a national emergency to argue for exceptions to those rights.
I thought this was an interesting take, given some of the other Police vs. Citizens conversations going on.
This is always the case but I will add that some government officials always seem to silently ask what is the point of power if it is unexercised. Apparently some at the FEC want to regulate political web content.
If only government were considered service instead of power. :rainbowsandunicorns:

 
Just to be clear what this is, this explanation from 2001 when the PA was being passed:

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.PATRIOT §213 allows delayed notification of a search for "a reasonable period" that can be "extended for good cause shown" to a court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. This is problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Also, the presumption here is that the PA minimizing of civil rights was purely for the purposes of fighting terrorism and that this use in other areas has just been incidental. I don't think that's true.

 
Just to be clear what this is, this explanation from 2001 when the PA was being passed:

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.PATRIOT §213 allows delayed notification of a search for "a reasonable period" that can be "extended for good cause shown" to a court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. This is problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Also, the presumption here is that the PA minimizing of civil rights was purely for the purposes of fighting terrorism and that this use in other areas has just been incidental. I don't think that's true.
Just ask yourself how the people you voted for back then voted on the PA.....

 
Just to be clear what this is, this explanation from 2001 when the PA was being passed:

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.PATRIOT §213 allows delayed notification of a search for "a reasonable period" that can be "extended for good cause shown" to a court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. This is problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Also, the presumption here is that the PA minimizing of civil rights was purely for the purposes of fighting terrorism and that this use in other areas has just been incidental. I don't think that's true.
Just ask yourself how the people you voted for back then voted on the PA.....
Now ask yourself how the people you voted for voted on extending it...

 
Just to be clear what this is, this explanation from 2001 when the PA was being passed:

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.PATRIOT §213 allows delayed notification of a search for "a reasonable period" that can be "extended for good cause shown" to a court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. This is problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Also, the presumption here is that the PA minimizing of civil rights was purely for the purposes of fighting terrorism and that this use in other areas has just been incidental. I don't think that's true.
Just ask yourself how the people you voted for back then voted on the PA.....
Now ask yourself how the people you voted for voted on extending it...
Sadly, many of the same people did both...

 
Just to be clear what this is, this explanation from 2001 when the PA was being passed:

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.PATRIOT §213 allows delayed notification of a search for "a reasonable period" that can be "extended for good cause shown" to a court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. This is problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
https://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Also, the presumption here is that the PA minimizing of civil rights was purely for the purposes of fighting terrorism and that this use in other areas has just been incidental. I don't think that's true.
Just ask yourself how the people you voted for back then voted on the PA.....
The people I vote for usually don't get elected. I think I voted for Landrieu and I'm guessing she was a yes. I voted against Jefferson and Vitter and I think they were in office then. I wouldn't be surprised if even Jefferson voted for the PA but I don't know. It was pretty much a chorus back then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SacramentoBob said:
Ditka Butkus said:
mcintyre1 said:
Ditka Butkus said:
I like it....Get rid of the drug dealers.
Yeah, #### personal rights, am I right?
in my book if you are a criminal you have no rights.
So all government has to do to take away your rights is to declare you a criminal.
Yep ....guilty until proven innocent...
Weak shtick.
 
Yeah there is no slippery slope except when there is. Same thing happened with the RICO act. In fact same thing has happened every ####### time we give more power to the police. But we never learn a damn thing. We keep doing it over and over. And they keep abusing it over and over.

 
Yeah there is no slippery slope except when there is. Same thing happened with the RICO act. In fact same thing has happened every ####### time we give more power to the police. But we never learn a damn thing. We keep doing it over and over. And they keep abusing it over and over.
As a nation we are unrivaled in our naiveté and inability to learn. It's part of what makes us so exceptional.

 
Yeah there is no slippery slope except when there is. Same thing happened with the RICO act. In fact same thing has happened every ####### time we give more power to the police. But we never learn a damn thing. We keep doing it over and over. And they keep abusing it over and over.
As a nation we are unrivaled in our naiveté and inability to learn. It's part of what makes us so exceptional.
Good point. As Winston Churchill once said " You can count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else."

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?
Im not taking a side since I didnt read the article, but am I in the minority in that the police dont know me?

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?
Im not taking a side since I didnt read the article, but am I in the minority in that the police dont know me?
What people don't seem to get is when Jon MX, for example, has his rights trampled your protections get weaker. And if we let it go far enough none of us will have any real rights. It will all be smoke and mirrors. Getting there.

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?
Im not taking a side since I didnt read the article, but am I in the minority in believing that the police dont know me?
Yes.

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?
Im not taking a side since I didnt read the article, but am I in the minority in that the police dont know me?
What people don't seem to get is when Jon MX, for example, has his rights trampled your protections get weaker. And if we let it go far enough none of us will have any real rights. It will all be smoke and mirrors. Getting there.
I agree with that in priciple. I just dont know anyone worth a damn in society that the police know well enough to not like.

 
I didn't have time to read the entire article, but going off your summary, I don't see the problem unless you're dealing with drugs. :shrug:
So if police do not like you they can go fishing for any type of crime you might have committed and you are OK with that?
Im not taking a side since I didnt read the article, but am I in the minority in that the police dont know me?
What people don't seem to get is when Jon MX, for example, has his rights trampled your protections get weaker. And if we let it go far enough none of us will have any real rights. It will all be smoke and mirrors. Getting there.
I agree with that in priciple. I just dont know anyone worth a damn in society that the police know well enough to not like.
The NSA knows everyone.

 
This is what's ridiculous about this provision: a court could just strike it down when it comes to just plain ol' criminal behavior. Arguably the risk and magnitude of a terrorist plot would be enough to justify overriding the warrant requirement but not ordinary criminal activity. A court should strike down the application of the law when it comes to a particular case while leaving the law intact to do what the people were told it would do.

The sad thing is our courts just outright ignore the Constitution. We have a law that is above all other laws that says:

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top