Snowden Situation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:05 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:56 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I know that wouldn't be even close to off the grid but if you're not on the grid then does it really matter what you do?

I understand the implied consent thing based on criminal warrants. I am saying that this should not be used for the Patriot Act or NSA spying on citizens, call it controversial all you want.

What we are trying to explain is even if you shredded the Patriot Act and Disbanded the NSA you would still have your information available to law enforcement simple through probable cause warrants (those FISA courts just speed up the process) and what you are arguing is not even possible in the current legal framework. It was never intended by the founders in the constitution for you to be able to have complete and total anonymity.

I don't think that probable cause and random spying are the same thing at all. The whole verizon-nsa thing is an easy example of how they are two different things. Here's how I feel about that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...uest-legal

What about this?

Quote:The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

Quote:If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz

Quote:The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy

Naively fighting for freedom and justice for all is never a misguided battle.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2013 03:31 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 10:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 02:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  He was impeached, he resigned before they could remove him from office. Just like Clinton was impeached, but he was never removed from office.

The House never impeached Nixon. Didn't happen.

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings and voted to recommend impeachment.

Thank you for establishing what I already admitted to being wrong about. Dodgy

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:29 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:21 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:05 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  What we are trying to explain is even if you shredded the Patriot Act and Disbanded the NSA you would still have your information available to law enforcement simple through probable cause warrants (those FISA courts just speed up the process) and what you are arguing is not even possible in the current legal framework. It was never intended by the founders in the constitution for you to be able to have complete and total anonymity.

I don't think that probable cause and random spying are the same thing at all. The whole verizon-nsa thing is an easy example of how they are two different things. Here's how I feel about that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...uest-legal

What about this?

Quote:The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry

Quote:If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz

Quote:The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
Justice Anthony Kennedy

Naively fighting for freedom and justice for all is never a misguided battle.

You're mixing your amendments here the 1st is not under attack (not in this instance) but rather the 4th

Right of search and seizure regulated

The 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.

That is the fight you are picking so quoting people on the 1st amendment is not pertinent to your case.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
28-07-2013, 03:32 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:21 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I don't think that probable cause and random spying are the same thing at all. The whole verizon-nsa thing is an easy example of how they are two different things. Here's how I feel about that: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013...uest-legal

What about this?




Naively fighting for freedom and justice for all is never a misguided battle.

You're mixing your amendments here the 1st is not under attack (not in this instance) but rather the 4th

Right of search and seizure regulated

The 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.

That is the fight you are picking so quoting people on the 1st amendment is not pertinent to your case.

Well I couldn't change the quote could I? The big picture of the quote is what I was getting at. Drinking Beverage

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:32 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:29 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You're mixing your amendments here the 1st is not under attack (not in this instance) but rather the 4th

Right of search and seizure regulated

The 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.

That is the fight you are picking so quoting people on the 1st amendment is not pertinent to your case.

Well I couldn't change the quote could I? The big picture of the quote is what I was getting at. Drinking Beverage

No it's just an irrelevant quote for this discussion. Don't just randomly quote people in a debate that is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority and you should attempt to avoid that.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
28-07-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:32 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  Well I couldn't change the quote could I? The big picture of the quote is what I was getting at. Drinking Beverage

No it's just an irrelevant quote for this discussion. Don't just randomly quote people in a debate that is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority and you should attempt to avoid that.

I was trying to get at the "... Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation..." part of it. I hardly think this is random and illogical to the discussion we are having. If you want, here you go, The Fourth Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to protect individual freedoms. Better?

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:41 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No it's just an irrelevant quote for this discussion. Don't just randomly quote people in a debate that is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority and you should attempt to avoid that.

I was trying to get at the "... Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation..." part of it. I hardly think this is random and illogical to the discussion we are having. If you want, here you go, The Fourth Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to protect individual freedoms. Better?

You're missing my point, which was a correction of your technique. You asked earlier for us to show you your errors and not just dismiss you as an ignorant teenager so I am pointing out a flawed debating technique. As a rule quotes should be used sparingly in a debate as they are just quippy. As to your specific quote Anthony Kennedy is kind of a mixed bag as far as his politics so he's not the best person to hold up.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:52 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:41 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I was trying to get at the "... Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation..." part of it. I hardly think this is random and illogical to the discussion we are having. If you want, here you go, The Fourth Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to protect individual freedoms. Better?

You're missing my point, which was a correction of your technique. You asked earlier for us to show you your errors and not just dismiss you as an ignorant teenager so I am pointing out a flawed debating technique. As a rule quotes should be used sparingly in a debate as they are just quippy. As to your specific quote Anthony Kennedy is kind of a mixed bag as far as his politics so he's not the best person to hold up.

Ok I understand where you're coming from with the appeal fallacy but still think the quote wasn't totally irrelevant. Also, I think the merits of the quote itself should be examined alone, not the past of the speaker. I thought it illustrated nicely the fact that the Bill of Rights cannot not be bargained with just because of a change in times or public opinion.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:41 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No it's just an irrelevant quote for this discussion. Don't just randomly quote people in a debate that is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority and you should attempt to avoid that.

I was trying to get at the "... Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation..." part of it. I hardly think this is random and illogical to the discussion we are having. If you want, here you go, The Fourth Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to protect individual freedoms. Better?

But now you do realize that altered and taken out of context quote can now be used to justify the government.

Yes the government recognizes the 4th amendment is inconvient. And still it's incumbent upon them to see to the safety of all it's people. If that means fast tracking a warrant so be it. Drinking Beverage


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
28-07-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Snowden Situation
(28-07-2013 03:57 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:41 PM)elegant_atheist Wrote:  I was trying to get at the "... Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation..." part of it. I hardly think this is random and illogical to the discussion we are having. If you want, here you go, The Fourth Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to protect individual freedoms. Better?

But now you do realize that altered and taken out of context quote can now be used to justify the government.

Yes the government recognizes the 4th amendment is inconvient. And still it's incumbent upon them to see to the safety of all it's people. If that means fast tracking a warrant so be it. Drinking Beverage

No no no. I would argue that fast tracking a warrant is not in anyway a win for the people. All it does is make the whole business of warrants shaky, turning them from a perfectly logical process into a secret backdoor kind of thing. I also think that under no circumstances can the government limit our privacy under the excuse of, "gotta catch those terrorists!" They are turning the warrants into technicalities which they aren't, they are a huge part of the process.

[Image: g-HitchensThinkSelf.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: