Warrantless Wiretapping

[jamesrage]

That's circular logic. You need reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to legally require someone to present ID - but you are getting that suspicion from the fact that the person is not presenting ID?

What?

Most people know the police check for warrants.Refusing to indentify yourself could be seen as though you are trying to evade capture as though you are trying to run from the law.

 

[Engimo]

Most people know the police check for warrants.Refusing to indentify yourself could be seen as though you are trying to evade capture as though you are trying to run from the law.

Except the cops have no legal basis on which they can demand that you show identification. You have a legal right to not show ID, and as long as there is no reason to suspect that you have committed a crime, they cannot legally arrest you.

 

[Navy Pride]

You know, Ohio just passed a law (or is trying to pass it, anyway....I heard this on the news the other night) saying that a police officer can stop anyone at anytime and ask for ID, and if they don't provide it they can be arrested.....I thought it sounded kinda....well...dumb.

You would have to show me a link on that one because I think they still need probable cause or a warrant to stop someone....

 

[Lefty]

Refusing to identify yourself can be seen as though you are hiding something perhaps several dozen warrants or you are on the run from the law.

Could be. Could be someone in a rush to get to work. Could be someone that just doesn't have photo id on them. The fact is that you may say "oh they ccould be hiding something," but the law is the law... and the fact is that refusing to present id or refusing to allow an officer to search you when you aren't breaking the law, is no reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing. You may find it suspicious... but... not the case legally.

 

[Stace]

You would have to show me a link on that one because I think they still need probable cause or a warrant to stop someone....

I saw it on my local news, so I'll have to dig a little to find the story....but they were saying that anyone that was even just walking down the street could be stopped and told to show identification......I'll see what I can find and get back to you though.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Except the cops have no legal basis on which they can demand that you show identification. You have a legal right to not show ID, and as long as there is no reason to suspect that you have committed a crime, they cannot legally arrest you.

Actually that's not true at all it's called refusing to disclose your identity and they can hold you with no charge until your fingerprint identifications are returned.

 

[Kandahar]

Allowing the Justice Department, or the president, or the police, or whoever, to tap someone's phone without a warrant is a terrible idea. While you might say that if you aren't talking to terrorists you won't be wiretapped, the potential for abuse here is immense. Even if this particular president has only wiretapped people he truly believes are affiliated with al-Qaeda, there would be no check and balance on his ability to wiretap whomever he wants. What if he decides his political opponents need to be wiretapped?

Furthermore, there's no reason he can't get a warrant from a judge if he truly has reasonable suspicion. This can be done quickly, discreetly, and easily. To bypass the warrant makes me suspect that he may NOT have a reasonable suspicion in all cases.

It really boils down to trusting the president to do the right thing, just because he's the president. Historically, this has not been a good idea. This is a scary proposition, and one I will never accept no matter who the president is. If he wants to wiretap someone, he can get a warrant. Period.

 

[Stace]

I saw it on my local news, so I'll have to dig a little to find the story....but they were saying that anyone that was even just walking down the street could be stopped and told to show identification......I'll see what I can find and get back to you though.

Alright, found some links, just had to hit upon a good combination of search words :mrgreen:

'Ohio Patriot Act' has problems and lacks solid reason to exist

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place

‘Ohio Patriot Act’ May Soon Become Law

 

[Stace]

Saw an article this morning that says 56% of respondants to an AP-Ipsos poll want the administration to obtain warrants when wiretapping.

WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.

Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

The rest of the article can be found on Yahoo.

 

[Engimo]

Actually that's not true at all it's called refusing to disclose your identity and they can hold you with no charge until your fingerprint identifications are returned.

That is patently untrue. Unless a crime has been committed, no one can demand to see an ID. This is rather obvious, as there are no laws requiring you to have an ID at all times. Please show a source indicating that this is a crime, as you say.

 

[Pacridge]

That is patently untrue. Unless a crime has been committed, no one can demand to see an ID. This is rather obvious, as there are no laws requiring you to have an ID at all times. Please show a source indicating that this is a crime, as you say.

Laws vary state to state. I know here in Oregon law enforcement can't simply stop and demand some one show their ID without probable cause. That cause can be just about anything though. If some person approaches an officer and tells them "that guy's got drugs or a weapon on them." That's probable cause. Same thing if an officers is investigating something and in questioning someone and is told something to this effect. Heck speeding is probable cause to ask for ID. Though here in Oregon it's not probable cause to search a vehicle.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

I think if states do pass laws requiring people to show ID or risk arrest it will most likely end up in federal court as a fourth amendment issue. That's if it makes it's way past the higher state courts.

 

[Engimo]

Laws vary state to state. I know here in Oregon law enforcement can't simply stop and demand some one show their ID without probable cause. That cause can be just about anything though. If some person approaches an officer and tells them "that guy's got drugs or a weapon on them." That's probable cause. Same thing if an officers is investigating something and in questioning someone and is told something to this effect. Heck speeding is probable cause to ask for ID. Though here in Oregon it's not probable cause to search a vehicle.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/

I think if states do pass laws requiring people to show ID or risk arrest it will most likely end up in federal court as a fourth amendment issue. That's if it makes it's way past the higher state courts.

Exactly, like I said. Unless there is reason to suspect that you have committed a crime, there is no legal basis to demand you show an ID.

 

[Pacridge]

Exactly, like I said. Unless there is reason to suspect that you have committed a crime, there is no legal basis to demand you show an ID.

I think the fourth amendment is pretty clear. But courts can be funny things. If an officer does find a crime has taken place it can be amazing what becomes probable cause. I was in court one day and the case before mine was a motion by a def. attorney claiming his clients rights had been violated. The officer in the case told the judge "I'm certain someone told me he was carrying a gun." The officer ended up finding some drugs on the guy. The court allowed the case to proceed. The officer never produced a name of who told him the guy had a gun. This would be normal, not only should the officer had got the witnesses name he should gotten his birth date as well.

 

[Vandeervecken]

No act of congress can supersede the Constitution. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant.

As to top secret classifications, it is also a part of the law that you cannot use classification to cover up illegal acts. The whistle blower is in fact protected by law for bringing this knowledge out.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken:
No act of congress can supersede the Constitution.

Then what do you call Amendments?

 

[Vandeervecken]

Then what do you call Amendments?

I'd call them far more than an act of congress. To amend the Constitution either the House (and by a 2/3 Majority) or via a Constitutional Convention as called by 2/3 of the states, an amendment is proposed. Then it must be ratified by either 3/4 of the states or 3/4 of the Convention respectively.

No simple act of congress alone can amend the Constitution.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken:
I'd call them far more than an act of congress. To amend the Constitution either the House (and by a 2/3 Majority) or via a Constitutional Convention as called by 2/3 of the states, an amendment is proposed. Then it must be ratified by either 3/4 of the states or 3/4 of the Convention respectively.

No simple act of congress alone can amend the Constitution.

If you were going to summarize that whole process, wouldn't you call that an act of Congress?

 

[Engimo]

If you were going to summarize that whole process, wouldn't you call that an act of Congress?

No. The state legislatures have to ratify amendments.

 

[Vandeervecken]

If you were going to summarize that whole process, wouldn't you call that an act of Congress?

No, I wouldn't. Something that requires the same action by 39 separate legislative bodies located in 39 different cities is far more than an act of congress.

Congress proposes scads of amendments. Last time I saw a figure it was over 50,000 in this history of our republic. So far it had only done so 27 times. The first 10 of those in one fell swoop. So only 18 times has the Amendment process happened fully.

If I were going to summarize the process I'd simply say they are amending the constitution. Either they will know the process or not and then I can explain. However calling an amendment an act of congress is as inaccurate as calling a salamander a fish because both spend part of their lifespan in water.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken:
No, I wouldn't. Something that requires the same action by 39 separate legislative bodies located in 39 different cities is far more than an act of congress.

Congress proposes scads of amendments. Last time I saw a figure it was over 50,000 in this history of our republic. So far it had only done so 27 times. The first 10 of those in one fell swoop. So only 18 times has the Amendment process happened fully.

If I were going to summarize the process I'd simply say they are amending the constitution. Either they will know the process or not and then I can explain. However calling an amendment an act of congress is as inaccurate as calling a salamander a fish because both spend part of their lifespan in water

I see your point. I'm not sure I agree with you conclusion. But that's no big thing.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I see your point. I'm not sure I agree with you conclusion. But that's no big thing.

I'm curious as to how you could dispute that amending the constitution is more than an act of Congress? Since it requires other bodies it seems rather self-evident to me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Vandeervecken:
I'm curious as to how you could dispute that amending the constitution is more than an act of Congress? Since it requires other bodies it seems rather self-evident to me.

I'm not saying that it is more than an act of Congress. I'm saying that it is an act of Congress. Since the only ones voting on whether an Amendment becomes an Amendment or not, are the members of Congress.

 

[Vandeervecken]

I'm not saying that it is more than an act of Congress. I'm saying that it is an act of Congress. Since the only ones voting on whether an Amendment becomes an Amendment or not, are the members of Congress.

Not if there is a Constitutional Convention. An amendment CAN happen without the Congress at all. An Amendment CANNOT happen without the actions of other bodies.

There is no way to call it an act of congress with any accuracy. Part of the process CAN be an act of congress, but not all of it a and not necessarily that either.

 

[chgalacher]

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Vandeervecken
Not if there is a Constitutional Convention. An amendment CAN happen without the Congress at all. An Amendment CANNOT happen without the actions of other bodies.

There is no way to call it an act of congress with any accuracy. Part of the process CAN be an act of congress, but not all of it a and not necessarily that either.

So your saying that an Ammendment to the Constitution can be added without a single vote from any member of the Senate or House of Representatives?