This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
He frequently resorts to this mixture of a strawman/ad hominem argument: "you're scared of politicians being liars and having grand schemes... if you weren't, you'd think like I do."It's ironic as well, given the only justification for his argument justifying what the government is doing is the fear of terrorism.
Of course it's up for debate. We've been debating it the entire time. Are you 100% positive that if this issue goes before the Supreme Court, they will agree with you?There is no question that data regarding my private business relationship with Verizon, and their private business relationship with me, is private. This is NOT up for debate.The question is whether or not the data, as collected in mass numbers, is considered "private" and thus subject to the 4th Amendment. I hold that it is "absolutist" to regard it as such- just as it is absolutist to regard shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as free speech, just as it is absolutist to regard all gun control laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.Government not having access to private data is not "absolute". There is already a process in place for the government to take if they need to collect private data. It is not "absolutist" to believe the government should go through that process BEFORE collecting private data. It is simply stating the government should use the process the Bill of Rights gives it.Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.) I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?"facts"I think you meant: "unverifiable claims". Pretty interesting that nobody is claiming that PRISM has stopped attacks, only telephone data. And that our great Patriot Feinstien is publically implying that we've been using viruses to sabatouge the Iran nuclear program.
Slapdash accuses me of putting words in his mouth, and you agree and as evidence, you put into quotation marks a statement I never made nor even implied. Do you find this the least bit ironic?
The bolded is why this is one of the the longest worthless debates ever had at FBG. You're debating something that is not up for debate.I'm pretty certain the opinion of the Supreme Court will be that it is private data, but that's not what the court will be ruling on. They will be ruling on whether the government has the right to get it without warrant even though it is private data. I'd say it's highly likely we will see a ruling like what happened with ObamaCare, where we were all so focused on the whole interstate commerce clause, when the court began to say the government can't do ObamaCare via the commerce clause, the rumors began flying that Obamacare was rulled unconstitutional... but then the court said "BUT" and proceed to say the government can do it because of the government's right to tax. In cases regarding PRISM, the court will probably do the same. They will say it is private data, but here is a little bit of wordage over hear in this part of the constitution that says the government can collect it before having warrant.Of course it's up for debate. We've been debating it the entire time. Are you 100% positive that if this issue goes before the Supreme Court, they will agree with you?There is no question that data regarding my private business relationship with Verizon, and their private business relationship with me, is private. This is NOT up for debate.The question is whether or not the data, as collected in mass numbers, is considered "private" and thus subject to the 4th Amendment. I hold that it is "absolutist" to regard it as such- just as it is absolutist to regard shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as free speech, just as it is absolutist to regard all gun control laws as violations of the 2nd Amendment.Government not having access to private data is not "absolute". There is already a process in place for the government to take if they need to collect private data. It is not "absolutist" to believe the government should go through that process BEFORE collecting private data. It is simply stating the government should use the process the Bill of Rights gives it.Good. Thanks for the clarity (although I knew that would be your answer.) I agree with you 100%. The ends never justifies the means, and we must protect the Bill of Rights. Our only disagreement is how we interpret those rights, and this bill.When Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that free speech doesn't give one the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, he expressed the principle that the Bill of Rights have to be weighed against each other. No data mining plan is going to survive the absolutist interpretation of the 4th Amendment that you appear to want. But Holmes' wisdom suggests that absolutism is not the proper way to approach these rights. If we can infringe upon the 1st Amendment by not allowing someone to shout "fire!" and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 1st Amendment, as Holmes intended, then I think we can infringe upon the 4th Amendment by allowing these sorts of programs, and yet maintain the overall integrity of the 4th Amendment. That is my viewpoint, anyhow.No. It wouldn't. The end does not justify the means.The Fed should fight terrorism, but they are obligated by the Constitution of the United States to do it without violating the Bill of Rights.Is it relevant to you anyhow?Suppose, for the sake of argument, I could provide you unequivocal proof that these programs have prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. This isn't a "gotcha!" question- I don't have the proof (I would have posted it a long time ago otherwise)- but suppose I did? Suppose you were convinced that these programs were effective. Would you change your mind?"facts"
[SIZE=10.5pt]There are only so many times I can repeat that intent to harm is not the issue. I have pointed it out to you several times which you never respond to. Getting real sick of repeating myself when you bring up these strawmen. [/SIZE]
Yes, it is ironic. But I don't hesitate doing it because I'm 100% certain I did not misrepresent your argument. You've made it over 100 time already.
Not really. Unless you want to finally address why Operation Vigilant Eagle is, along with terrorism, a valid reason to throw away the privacy of Americans.
Well, you're wrong. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you're the only person in this thread attempting to support your idea? And no, this isn't a Copernicus moment for you.
What you fail to see is that Oliver Wendall Holme's point that rights are not absolute is already address within the words of the 4th amendment. The words of the 4th show that the government not having access to private data is not an absolute right held be a person. It states how the government CAN get access to private data.PRISM collects data without even attempting the right the 4th amendement gives the government to get access to it.So the burden is not to show a persons rights are not absolute. The 4th already reckognizes that. Your burden is to show why the government needs to redraw the line.
If I were a betting man, they would probably end up buying into how these searches are "unreasonable" because they're just so damn easy to do. As tim was arguing several pages ago.
Although, Politician Spock did point out that the federal courts may want some standard of harm established before hearing the ACLU's case. Nikki then helpfully quoted from the ACLU's brief a possible standard that the courts may or may not accept.
They aren't using the same definition of harm that Tim is though. The ALCU thinks they are harmed when the communications are intercepted. Tim thinks the harm is some mysterious X down the line. Which doesn't seem to include detaining veterans for what they post online.
None of which makes any difference in your statement that if the tax code didn't include the word voluntary it would violate the 5th Amendment. Which isn't true because it's not voluntary and isn't a criminal case in which you're bearing witness against yourself.
OK. lets tackle that. I meant to do so yesterday but I got sidetracked so I forgot.
The courts requirement that harm must have taken place for them to hear a case, does not insinuate that everyone arguing that their 4th amendment rights are only opposed to it because of certain "intents" the government may have.Personally I find the Bill of Rights only being enforced when harm can be proven to be a flawed system. The Bill of Rights should have a process of being enforced even when no harm has occured, AND FOR ANY INTENT THE GOVERNMENT HAS FOR VIOLATING IT! (the capitalized is directed specifically at you timschochet)
It's hardly a Copernicus moment, because there are plenty of people outside this thread who share my opinion on this matter. I have posted a few of them. But even if they didn't exist, so what? Are you suggesting that majority opinion is what counts here?
There's no oversight, there's nothing from preventing this from happening for ANYONE that they want to view individually, I use Dorner as an example because it is still fresh in our minds when the L.A.P.D. were shooting up cars without even identifying the passengers:
Once again, I agree with you. (Damn, that's twice now in a few hours!)
I disagree. The code specifically states it is voluntary, and if it didn't we would be mandatory for us to give the government evidence that can be used to incriminate us.This is a debate for another thread, unless of course timschochet wants to continue with the argument that the NSA can continue collecting private data without warrant because no one has ever had Bill of Rights issues with what we tell the IRS when we file our taxes. The IRS/Bill of Rights issues is one of the most highly debated issues this country has ever had. Part of me wishes he would attach the NSA issue to the IRS debate. It would be like attaching his argument to a 100 year old skunk.
I'm saying in examining the meaning of the Bill Of Rights, you've failed to make any statements supporting your assertion that it's not being circumvented in this case - and no one else has either. It means there's nothing to support your insistence that what the government is doing isn't a violation of our rights.
That's great that you agree with what I just said. Can you somehow bridge the gap between believing that AND believing the Bill of Rights only works when we trust the government to enforce it?
What happened to Brandon Raub... and what is supposedly happening to many veterans, should NOT be happening AT ALL!!! I don't care what the intent is. There is no justification for it.
Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
I have both sympathy and empathy for whoever it is happening to. It should not be happening at all. I agree with you.
Yes. I have a feeling if this does go to the SCOTUS, they are going to be agitated once again that it is all in their hands instead of the legislative and executive branches passing legislation and acting in accordance with our Constitution. The choice will be between ####-canning an $80 billion government "project" and putting X people out of work or taking a huge jab at the fourth amendment, potentially setting precedents for more BS in the future. I would imagine they, as humans, would want to try to avoid ruling on this at all costs. And honestly, they really shouldn't be put in that position in the first place. Our legislators have the same duty to uphold the Constitution as the courts do.
In this thread people are appealing to sympathy and empathy to stop invading rights. In your example people are doing it to take away rights. That is a giant difference IMO.
The burden of proof does NOT lie on the people proving why the program should be ended.
There's also a petition to pardon Edward Snowden from all criminal charges that the White House has to issue an official response to if it gets 100,000 signatures by July 9 and they are well over half way there. I know the petition isn't going to jack. I do however want to see how they respond to it.
NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you.Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
Hey Tim, your fear of terrorism is giving the terrorists exactly what they want - something they could never, ever obtain on their own without your willing compliance. Honoring the rights set forth in the Bill Of Rights is infinitely more important than protecting you from terrorist boogiemen if your goal is to avoid giving in to what the terrorists desire.
Your stance on background checks, allowing the government to create a national database, and giving the government a blank check to inventory every electronic message is perfectly consistent, congratulations. It also goes to show how completely wrong you are.Knowledge is power and you want the U.S. Government to become as knowledgeable and powerful as possible, at all costs.
What their intent is doesn't matter. They already posses the right. The burden is on the government to show why that right needs to be limited or taken away. To suggest they must have a good intent suggests the burden is on them to proove why they should be given such right. That's a bogus argument. They already have the right.NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you. Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points. To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
No it doesn't. Accidental harm causes as much damage as intentional harm, therefore if a program such as this can cause harm of a severe or wide enough scope it should be abandoned.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom. In both cases, you are arguing that freedom should be curtailed as long as the people in power do not intend to do greater harm than what they purport to prevent.Setting aside the Bill of Rights, the government has tons of programs that they constantly evaluate in terms of harm. Unintended consequences are all over the place in our government, but we shouldn't keep them just because they're well meaning. Being a well meaning bureaucrat does not give you carte blance to ignore the consequences. Maybe you think it should.NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you. Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points. To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
This would be true if I had made the argument that we need to sacrifice the Bill of Rights in order to fight terrorism. But I have never made that argument, nor will I. You're fighting against a straw man here.
Regarding your statement, "the Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom", (which is the whole basis for everything else you argue) I must again raise the question of Oliver Wendall Holmes and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Or, to repeat an argument made by a Supreme Court justice in a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in his backyard?Wrong. The Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom. In both cases, you are arguing that freedom should be curtailed as long as the people in power do not intend to do greater harm than what they purport to prevent.Setting aside the Bill of Rights, the government has tons of programs that they constantly evaluate in terms of harm. Unintended consequences are all over the place in our government, but we shouldn't keep them just because they're well meaning. Being a well meaning bureaucrat does not give you carte blance to ignore the consequences. Maybe you think it should.NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you. Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points. To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
And as I stated one post earlier, you've yet to show that it does not - nor has anyone else. You're just plain wrong about that, and it's not really a matter of opinion, there's no shade of gray to be had. In light of that, defending this government intrusion is tantamount to arguing we should sacrifice the Bill Of Rights.
If your definition of "not violate" means to ignore me like a cheap piece of trash then I agree with you.Seems pretty obvious to me however that the NSA completely ignored the 4th on this one. If the courts say the government can continue to do this, they will need to do it by saying it gets the power to do it from somewhere else in the constitution that overrides the power of the 4th.
The fourth amendment is not absolute. The government is allowed to search you and seize your property. BUT they must do so after establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant from a public court. Which part of PRISM do you not think actually violates the actual words in the Bill of Rights. Where's the loophole? Which quote are you referring to in the text that leads you to say that "My argument is that this program does not violate the Bill of Rights."Regarding your statement, "the Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom", (which is the whole basis for everything else you argue) I must again raise the question of Oliver Wendall Holmes and shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Or, to repeat an argument made by a Supreme Court justice in a discussion about the 2nd Amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in his backyard?Wrong. The Bill of Rights places freedom above the potential harm that may result from that freedom. In both cases, you are arguing that freedom should be curtailed as long as the people in power do not intend to do greater harm than what they purport to prevent.NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you.Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points.Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
The bold is completely circular. No matter how much harm there is, you are going to rationalize that it won't continue. In your mind, the ends justify the means no matter what the means are. As long as the people running these programs believe they are doing the right thing, harm is irrelevant.
My point is that evil intentions don't need to be in place to cause harm and for that harm to be morally wrong. Your point seems that the harm doesn't matter as long as people mean well.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?
Setting aside the Bill of Rights, the government has tons of programs that they constantly evaluate in terms of harm. Unintended consequences are all over the place in our government, but we shouldn't keep them just because they're well meaning. Being a well meaning bureaucrat does not give you carte blance to ignore the consequences. Maybe you think it should.
The justices have long recognized that none of these rights are absolute. All of them have some limitation, and public safety is a justifiable reason for that limitation. It is the proper role of the courts to set up those boundaries.
Depends on the conversation apparently - but most of the time I believe that's his foundation.
Huh? Isn't that exactly her argument?NO NO NO! It appears I am not getting through to you.Not this Orwell vs. Kafka crap again
Harm can never be justified no matter how it occurs. But using harm as a reason to stop the program requires intent, IMO. Those are two very different points.
To use my gun control analogy again: if Diane Feinstein proposed to you banning assault rifles, in order to stop massacres like the one at Newtown, and you argued that most people who buy assault rifles do not use them for such a purpose, and then she replied, "I don't care what their intent is, so long as these guns are legal, this sort of harm might occur," what your response be? Would you accept, in that situation, the argument that intent doesn't matter, and that we should base our decisions on the possibility of unintended consequences?
