Councilman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,454
- Reaction score
- 1,657
- Location
- Riverside, County, CA.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm ok with it as long as they get a judge to sign off on it. It's the warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT act that bothers me. I mean, they have a secret court to handle these things, so it's not like there's a reasonable OpSec concern. The only reason I can think of that someone would want to bypass a secret court is that they don't think their hand-picked judge would approve the wiretap. If your evidence is that shoddy, you shouldn't be tapping that phone, jerkfaces.
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
I'm ok with it as long as they get a judge to sign off on it. It's the warrantless wiretapping under the PATRIOT act that bothers me. I mean, they have a secret court to handle these things, so it's not like there's a reasonable OpSec concern. The only reason I can think of that someone would want to bypass a secret court is that they don't think their hand-picked judge would approve the wiretap. If your evidence is that shoddy, you shouldn't be tapping that phone, jerkfaces.
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
This is the stupidest argument anyone could make on this subject. People who have nothing to hide still have Constitutional rights such as the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Seriously Korimyr, you're better than this.People who have nothing to hide have nothing to be afraid of.
So you support the government listening in our conversations to make sure we are following the laws that force us to only use environmentally friendly products in our homes. After all, California needs to catch the guy who brags to his friend in Iowa that he kept his 72 inch flat screen despite the state passing a law banning them.
edit: I mean Jesus Christ, your argument is basically "if I'm not currently exercising the right there's no reason for me to have it!"
People who have nothing to hide still have Constitutional rights such as the right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
And your argument is that the reason people have rights is so that they can get away with breaking the law. Somehow, that doesn't sound right, either.
Your statement only works in a world where the government is perfect, never making any mistakes about the potential guilt or innocence about a person. My right against unreasonable search and seizure protects me in the event that some cop has a personal grudge because I looked at him funny or have a bumper sticker on my car he doesn't like. Or maybe just mistakes me for someone else.
He can plant dope on you just as easily in a "reasonable" search and seizure and falsifying probable cause is easier than falsifying evidence. There are mechanisms in place to guard against this kind of corruption, and I like to think they work fairly well, but they're not perfect. Wiretapping doesn't "produce" evidence unless there is actually a crime being discussed. It's not like CCTV cameras on street intersections or Feds in an unmarked van would suddenly gain the ability to falsify footage-- and if they're willing to go that far to screw you, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments and the Code of Hammurabi combined aren't going to save you.
The 4th and 5th amendments exist mainly to protect innocent people, not criminals.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?