I'd Like My 4th Amendment Back, Please

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I have 2 things to say:

 

1st off, the second I an afford to live on the moon I am buying a 1 way ticket an interstellar U-Haul.

 

2nd off, if someone knew that Ahmed was planning on flying a plane into you house wouldn't you rather have him get a few bruises then you wake up one morning to a plane propeller 3 inches from your face?

 

 

 

On an every day instance torture is wrong, but under certain instances it can be completely justified.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully contradicted yourself. There are no circumstances, ever, that could justify torturing another human being. What if the loophole existed that allowed authorities to torture you, under suspicion of some grave charge (perhaps regicide or assassination or the like)? Would you believe that it's justified then? Probably not.

 

 

 

More to the point of this thread, my feeling is simple. If you defend one right, you are compelled to defend them all. If you waive one right, you are coerced to waive them all. I'll never support wiretaps without warrants, simply because it gives the government too much leeway into invading our privacy.

 

 

 

The phone tapping was necessary. I don't think that it is right, but it is necessary. I would rather have my phone tapped to prevent terrorism, than to allow terrorists to freely communicate in the U.S. at will.

 

 

 

Terrorists can't meet up in a coffee shop, in a park, on a bus, in a movie theater, in a library, that sort of thing...? You're telling me that by having our phones tappable without due course (read: getting the freaking warrant first), this prevents terrorism? What a load of crap.

[Dizzle229]

I have 2 things to say:

 

1st off, the second I an afford to live on the moon I am buying a 1 way ticket an interstellar U-Haul.

 

2nd off, if someone knew that Ahmed was planning on flying a plane into you house wouldn't you rather have him get a few bruises then you wake up one morning to a plane propeller 3 inches from your face?

 

 

 

On an every day instance torture is wrong, but under certain instances it can be completely justified.

 

Congratulations, you've successfully contradicted yourself. There are no circumstances, ever, that could justify torturing another human being. What if the loophole existed that allowed authorities to torture you, under suspicion of some grave charge (perhaps regicide or assassination or the like)? Would you believe that it's justified then? Probably not.

 

 

 

More to the point of this thread, my feeling is simple. If you defend one right, you are compelled to defend them all. If you waive one right, you are coerced to waive them all. I'll never support wiretaps without warrants, simply because it gives the government too much leeway into invading our privacy.

 

 

 

The phone tapping was necessary. I don't think that it is right, but it is necessary. I would rather have my phone tapped to prevent terrorism, than to allow terrorists to freely communicate in the U.S. at will.

 

 

 

Terrorists can't meet up in a coffee shop, in a park, on a bus, in a movie theater, in a library, that sort of thing...? You're telling me that by having our phones tappable without due course (read: getting the freaking warrant first), this prevents terrorism? What a load of crap.

 

 

 

It's worth it. And besides, who cares if the government listens in on you? Whatever you're saying, it's not like the guy on the other end really gives a [cabbage] about how Barbara like totally is into Casey but Casey's like OMG and she's like OMG and You're like OMG totally!

[Chained_life]

Don't have a problem with them at all, from this administration or the last one. I find it pretty funny those that bashed Bush for invading your rights, privacy, civil liberty... Whatever you want to call it; are now defending their dear leader, the hypocrisy is almost too much at this point. :lol:

[Zonorhc]

Jerusalem belongs to Israel. It's their land and no one else's.

 

Prove it.

[Lateralus]

It's worth it. And besides, who cares if the government listens in on you? Whatever you're saying, it's not like the guy on the other end really gives a [cabbage] about how Barbara like totally is into Casey but Casey's like OMG and she's like OMG and You're like OMG totally!

 

 

 

That's not the point. You could justify huge intrusions by that reasoning. The government has no right to monitor you in that way.

[Range_This11]

The Fourth Amendment protects from unlawful searches, which IS wiretapping without a warrant and the reasoning "if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be afraid of being searched" is considered a fallacious argument because it commits the fallacy of Slippery Slope reasoning. Anyone arguing with that in mind is wrong, without a doubt.

[The Dark Lord]

the hypocrisy is almost too much at this point. :lol:

 

 

 

Obama criticises Bush for his policies, but he's carrying on some of the very same policies. There's nothing special about this leader except for his rhetoric skills and charismatic personality. Other than that, he's your average politician; they don't really give a [bleep] about you.

 

 

 

Here's why I hate both parties: Democrats are usually hypocrites, and Republicans usually nominate imbeciles with a religious agenda. Neither parties are as good as they say they are, and they usually don't help civilians. (Supporting the average person would be Socialism, which is evil :roll: )

[michel555555]

 

 

 

It's worth it. And besides, who cares if the government listens in on you? Whatever you're saying, it's not like the guy on the other end really gives a [cabbage] about how Barbara like totally is into Casey but Casey's like OMG and she's like OMG and You're like OMG totally!

 

 

 

I love it when people use this argument.

 

 

 

The 4th doesn't only protect against wire tapping. It protects against searches without probable cause as well. Meaning that a cop could barge into you home without justifying himself or waiting for a warrent. Including protecting you against strip searches. 13 year old girl strip searched in front of school staff ironically the pricaples defence was the same as yours, that since they found nothing she should have nothing to complain about.

[killerbeer0]

 

The 4th doesn't only protect against wire tapping. It protects against searches without probable cause as well. Meaning that a cop could barge into you home without justifying himself or waiting for a warrent. Including protecting you against strip searches

 

 

 

Only in a perfect world. In fact I seem to notice that the 4th amendment barely exists at all.

[michel555555]

 

The 4th doesn't only protect against wire tapping. It protects against searches without probable cause as well. Meaning that a cop could barge into you home without justifying himself or waiting for a warrent. Including protecting you against strip searches

 

 

 

Only in a perfect world. In fact I seem to notice that the 4th amendment barely exists at all.

 

 

 

True. But I can dream can't I?

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

It's worth it. And besides, who cares if the government listens in on you? Whatever you're saying, it's not like the guy on the other end really gives a [cabbage] about how Barbara like totally is into Casey but Casey's like OMG and she's like OMG and You're like OMG totally!

 

 

 

I love it when people use this argument.

 

 

 

The 4th doesn't only protect against wire tapping. It protects against searches without probable cause as well. Meaning that a cop could barge into you home without justifying himself or waiting for a warrent. Including protecting you against strip searches. 13 year old girl strip searched in front of school staff ironically the pricaples defence was the same as yours, that since they found nothing she should have nothing to complain about.

 

 

 

I think I'd find a strip search or barging onto my property a fair bit more intrusive than wiretapping.

 

 

 

I can't say I'm that concerned about it to be honest. I can't bring myself to care and all the slippery slope arguments seem like over-baked conspiracy theories. It's amazing how the left and right can both play on people's emotions with fear.

[____]

I quite like this video off youtube...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Local law enforcement really don't seem to care about constitutional rights sometimes. It's more a matter of local law first, whether or not we break something higher is irrelevant, let the state department deal with it, etc, etc.

[Robert_de_Sable]

From what I saw you guys got talking about torture. Frankly, anyone who opposes torture of terrorism suspects is a moron. There's no way to mince words here. I would rather torture a thousand innocent suspects than let five thousand people die in some sort of terrorist attack. The Geneva Conventions are [cabbage].

[1_man_army]

From what I saw you guys got talking about torture. Frankly, anyone who opposes torture of terrorism suspects is a moron. There's no way to mince words here. I would rather torture a thousand innocent suspects than let five thousand people die in some sort of terrorist attack. The Geneva Conventions are [cabbage].

 

 

 

They are suspects that doesn't make them guilty at all. Also, under torture people are willing to admit to anything just to stop being tortured, you will get little accurate or usable intelligence from torture because of this. The ticking timebomb scenario is practically speaking, ridiculous - it might work for Jack Bauer in 24 but it isn't feasible in real life. Using torture just gives groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda great propaganda that they use to recruit more young disillusioned kids, what a lovely way to win hearts and minds.

[Nowayout59]

Congratulations, you've successfully contradicted yourself. There are no circumstances, ever, that could justify torturing another human being. What if the loophole existed that allowed authorities to torture you, under suspicion of some grave charge (perhaps regicide or assassination or the like)? Would you believe that it's justified then? Probably not.

 

 

 

 

Well... assassination is a believable charge for me because I have -jokingly- spoken with friends about getting rid of a certain someone but then the person who would fill his place would be even worse. There are, and here is one: there is a known attack on a large surveillance plane carrying 20 navy/marines along with classified information. They are sure of this attack and one of the accomplices is in CIA control. The attack is in 2 hrs and the guy knows exactly which of the 3 planes its going to happen to. They torture him and find out which plane it is and they send F17's to escort the plane to the final destination. Had they not done what they did, 20 more American lives would have been lost because they were too afraid to torture some crazy that only wants "death to the infidel". Would you want someone who wants to kill you hett slightly hurt or 20 Americans dead because your too much of a pussie to torture his [wagon]?

 

 

 

If I were to be tortured, which is very unlikely considering my family's history, they would have a damn good reason for torturing a 14 year old, straight A, student.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

Congratulations, you've successfully contradicted yourself. There are no circumstances, ever, that could justify torturing another human being. What if the loophole existed that allowed authorities to torture you, under suspicion of some grave charge (perhaps regicide or assassination or the like)? Would you believe that it's justified then? Probably not.

 

 

 

 

Well... assassination is a believable charge for me because I have -jokingly- spoken with friends about getting rid of a certain someone but then the person who would fill his place would be even worse. There are, and here is one: there is a known attack on a large surveillance plane carrying 20 navy/marines along with classified information. They are sure of this attack and one of the accomplices is in CIA control. The attack is in 2 hrs and the guy knows exactly which of the 3 planes its going to happen to. They torture him and find out which plane it is and they send F17's to escort the plane to the final destination. Had they not done what they did, 20 more American lives would have been lost because they were too afraid to torture some crazy that only wants "death to the infidel". Would you want someone who wants to kill you hett slightly hurt or 20 Americans dead because your too much of a pussie to torture his [wagon]?

 

 

 

If I were to be tortured, which is very unlikely considering my family's history, they would have a damn good reason for torturing a 14 year old, straight A, student.

[/hide]

 

 

 

fix that quote please, I didnt say that.

[user1991]

From what I saw you guys got talking about torture. Frankly, anyone who opposes torture of terrorism suspects is a moron. There's no way to mince words here. I would rather torture a thousand innocent suspects than let five thousand people die in some sort of terrorist attack. The Geneva Conventions are [cabbage].

 

 

 

Jesus

 

 

 

Robert_de_Sable, what would be your ideal government?

 

 

 

I'm just wondering if you're consistent in your authoritarian, totalitarian worldview.

[magekillr]

the hypocrisy is almost too much at this point. :lol:

 

 

 

Obama criticises Bush for his policies, but he's carrying on some of the very same policies. There's nothing special about this leader except for his rhetoric skills and charismatic personality. Other than that, he's your average politician; they don't really give a [bleep] about you.

 

 

 

Here's why I hate both parties: Democrats are usually hypocrites, and Republicans usually nominate imbeciles with a religious agenda. Neither parties are as good as they say they are, and they usually don't help civilians. (Supporting the average person would be Socialism, which is evil :roll: )

 

 

 

While I strongly disagree with this stance of Obama's, I don't think you're being fair to him, AT ALL. He's not carrying on "the very same policies," he is just doing that WITH THIS. Everything else, quite frankly, has been like a dream to me, and I think Obama is a conservative relatively speaking to my ideology.

 

 

 

And frankly, I love politicians like Obama. Sure I love Dennis Kucinich's and Ralph Nader's policies. However, what would they get done in government if they're [cabbage]ty politicians? Nothing. Obama is a master politician, and I love it. I know where he's [cabbage]ting (such as with this, the drug war, his lack of support for gay marriage; I know he doesn't support this but is letting power get to his head, he has called the drug war a massive failure, and a survey was found by him acknowledging support for gay marriage), but I know that he's genuinely trying to change the government for the better.

 

 

 

Unfortunately you have obstructionist Republicans who are doing nothing but saying "no" to anything he says regardless of what it is (which is why I'm hoping the right starts calling Obama out on this wiretapping nonsense), and you have pansy conservative Democrats that get in the way of important policy like Cap and Trade for carbon emissions, or lifting the trade embargo on Cuba. It takes a politician to one them up.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

It's worth it. And besides, who cares if the government listens in on you? Whatever you're saying, it's not like the guy on the other end really gives a [cabbage] about how Barbara like totally is into Casey but Casey's like OMG and she's like OMG and You're like OMG totally!

 

 

 

The very fact that the government has some sort of legal premise to listen to me must mean, in turn, that I did something wrong. If I did something wrong, I have the right to learn what I was charged with (I believe this falls in-line with your Miranda rights, correct me if I'm wrong). If I didn't do anything wrong, then the government simply needs to back off of my phone line.

 

 

 

I'll tell you this much - you never know how an agent will take your casual conversation, if they use key words often enough. Besides, why is the agent in my lines anyway? Who cares if I have nothing to hide? I have nothing for them to investigate, either.

 

 

 

From what I saw you guys got talking about torture. Frankly, anyone who opposes torture of terrorism suspects is a moron. There's no way to mince words here. I would rather torture a thousand innocent suspects than let five thousand people die in some sort of terrorist attack. The Geneva Conventions are [cabbage].

 

 

 

Oh. So just because they're terrorist suspects, that doesn't make them human? What if they genuinely did nothing wrong, would that justify torturing them? What if they were minding their business on a day in question, and they get manhandled by federal agents, and torture them to get information that he doesn't have? That's unjustifiable, not in the case of national security; not ever.

 

 

 

Congratulations, you've successfully contradicted yourself. There are no circumstances, ever, that could justify torturing another human being. What if the loophole existed that allowed authorities to torture you, under suspicion of some grave charge (perhaps regicide or assassination or the like)? Would you believe that it's justified then? Probably not.

 

 

 

 

Well... assassination is a believable charge for me because I have -jokingly- spoken with friends about getting rid of a certain someone but then the person who would fill his place would be even worse. There are, and here is one: there is a known attack on a large surveillance plane carrying 20 navy/marines along with classified information. They are sure of this attack and one of the accomplices is in CIA control. The attack is in 2 hrs and the guy knows exactly which of the 3 planes its going to happen to. They torture him and find out which plane it is and they send F17's to escort the plane to the final destination. Had they not done what they did, 20 more American lives would have been lost because they were too afraid to torture some crazy that only wants "death to the infidel". Would you want someone who wants to kill you hett slightly hurt or 20 Americans dead because your too much of a pussie to torture his [wagon]?

 

 

 

If I were to be tortured, which is very unlikely considering my family's history, they would have a damn good reason for torturing a 14 year old, straight A, student.

 

 

 

At first, I was only going to make an off-the-cuff response to your quote (which I correctly cited), but after reading it, I'm more appaled than I thought I could be. Let's start at the top.

 

 

 

1) The agent listening in on your conversation does not give a damn about your "joke". He'll simply interpret the conversation as a threat, and that's all it will take for you to be arrested.

 

 

 

2) Your entire scenario reeks of ignorance. Torturing people in real life is not only unethical, but you'll probably never get the information you want. You're telling me here that torturing (or as you so ignorantly put it, "slightly hurt") one person to save 20 lives is justified? No, it's not. There are ways to glean information from people without resorting to torture, and if you can't see that, perhaps you shouldn't be debating the issue until you really know.

[l0l0lpur34]

From what I saw you guys got talking about torture. Frankly, anyone who opposes torture of terrorism suspects is a moron. There's no way to mince words here. I would rather torture a thousand innocent suspects than let five thousand people die in some sort of terrorist attack. The Geneva Conventions are [cabbage].

 

All I can say is wow, I can't take any of your posts seriously anymore.

[Nowayout59]

 

2) Your entire scenario reeks of ignorance. Torturing people in real life is not only unethical, but you'll probably never get the information you want. You're telling me here that torturing (or as you so ignorantly put it, "slightly hurt") one person to save 20 lives is justified? No, it's not. There are ways to glean information from people without resorting to torture, and if you can't see that, perhaps you shouldn't be debating the issue until you really know.

 

 

 

 

So your saying that 20 American soldiers lives are not worth some pin [puncture]'s emotions who would most likely run into the group of the marines with a bomb strapped to him, given the opportunity? If so then you are one screwed up person.. What happened to support the troops? If the US had to kill 20 terrorists to save 15 American lives, they got my 110% support. The terrorists belong in hell, were just giving them a one way ticket. Gitmo is not as bad as they put it, the guard there watching the damn hodgies got worse treatment then them. They got 3 square meals a day, prayer time, and what do the guards get? Crap thrown at them, they sometimes go without food for a day or 2, they have to put up with the losers. In retrospect, they are barely hurt. You may not know this but torture is a reliable way, they squeal, they get sent back to their cell, the info is confirmed or denied, if it is denied the hodgie gets another visit from the conductor. This happens until the info is received.

 

 

 

If you think peace with someone will solve the problems, tell me, I will buy you a ticket there and you can talk it out. Tell me how it goes.

[l0l0lpur34]

 

2) Your entire scenario reeks of ignorance. Torturing people in real life is not only unethical, but you'll probably never get the information you want. You're telling me here that torturing (or as you so ignorantly put it, "slightly hurt") one person to save 20 lives is justified? No, it's not. There are ways to glean information from people without resorting to torture, and if you can't see that, perhaps you shouldn't be debating the issue until you really know.

 

 

 

 

So your saying that 20 American soldiers lives are not worth some pin [puncture]'s emotions who would most likely run into the group of the marines with a bomb strapped to him, given the opportunity? If so then you are one screwed up person.. What happened to support the troops? If the US had to kill 20 terrorists to save 15 American lives, they got my 110% support. The terrorists belong in hell, were just giving them a one way ticket. Gitmo is not as bad as they put it, the guard there watching the damn hodgies got worse treatment then them. They got 3 square meals a day, prayer time, and what do the guards get? Crap thrown at them, they sometimes go without food for a day or 2, they have to put up with the losers. In retrospect, they are barely hurt. You may not know this but torture is a reliable way, they squeal, they get sent back to their cell, the info is confirmed or denied, if it is denied the hodgie gets another visit from the conductor. This happens until the info is received.

 

 

 

If you think peace with someone will solve the problems, tell me, I will buy you a ticket there and you can talk it out. Tell me how it goes.

 

How do you know they are "terrorists" who will "run into the group of the marines with a bomb strapped to him, given the opportunity?" if they are being locked up without charge and waterboarded?

[Racheya]

 

2) Your entire scenario reeks of ignorance. Torturing people in real life is not only unethical, but you'll probably never get the information you want. You're telling me here that torturing (or as you so ignorantly put it, "slightly hurt") one person to save 20 lives is justified? No, it's not. There are ways to glean information from people without resorting to torture, and if you can't see that, perhaps you shouldn't be debating the issue until you really know.

 

 

 

 

So your saying that 20 American soldiers lives are not worth some pin [puncture]'s emotions who would most likely run into the group of the marines with a bomb strapped to him, given the opportunity? If so then you are one screwed up person.. What happened to support the troops? If the US had to kill 20 terrorists to save 15 American lives, they got my 110% support. The terrorists belong in hell, were just giving them a one way ticket. Gitmo is not as bad as they put it, the guard there watching the damn hodgies got worse treatment then them. They got 3 square meals a day, prayer time, and what do the guards get? Crap thrown at them, they sometimes go without food for a day or 2, they have to put up with the losers. In retrospect, they are barely hurt. You may not know this but torture is a reliable way, they squeal, they get sent back to their cell, the info is confirmed or denied, if it is denied the hodgie gets another visit from the conductor. This happens until the info is received.

 

 

 

If you think peace with someone will solve the problems, tell me, I will buy you a ticket there and you can talk it out. Tell me how it goes.

 

How do you know they are "terrorists" who will "run into the group of the marines with a bomb strapped to him, given the opportunity?" if they are being locked up without charge and waterboarded?

 

 

 

Yeah, and who's to say they're even terrorists at all? What if all this torture to 'Save American lives' encourages them in what they've been told that America is an evil ect ect out to destroy Islam ect and MAKES them terrorists?

[killerbeer0]

 

Yeah, and who's to say they're even terrorists at all? What if all this torture to 'Save American lives' encourages them in what they've been told that America is an evil ect ect out to destroy Islam ect and MAKES them terrorists?

 

 

 

It's not like they're ever going anywhere.

[Nowayout59]

Why did we ever even begin bothering them? Because they killed Americans. They are or were being held under charge, its called war crimes. You wonder how we know their terrorists? Well not ever single person walking around in those nations are terrorists and usually the ones who are not terrorists don't carry AK-17's or bomb making supplies. You know, usually they have guns on their backs... Kinda gives it away... or maybe the shots being fired at our soldiers, that just might give them a slight hint.

 

 

 

One of the reasons they are locked up is because they shot at an American, or have been identified as hostile.. Go over to the middle east, follow around a battalion, get shot at.. and then tell me the guy who shot at you is not a terrorist.

 

 

 

There are too many damn [kitties] now a-days. Peace may fix some stuff, but it is not a solution to everything and that 's just that.