What is Digg?105 Comments
- mbfielding, on 01/26/2009, -3/+88Holy crap, a fair and just judge who understands the constitution. He must be just about the last of his kind.
- ChloeMS, on 01/06/2009, -5/+87Absolutely right!
There is no lawful reason for a warrant-less search in the USA. Our Constitution provides protection against such searches.
Congress gave the government a little leeway on this by providing a special court for issuing secret warrants based on secret information, but there is NO law that has repealed the 14th Amendment as it relates to searches, except in the mind of that dictator King George. - Groller, on 01/07/2009, -4/+62"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin.
- mparker21311, on 01/08/2009, -1/+38I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about this topic, he said "if you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?"
WTF!!! People are just gullible, that's all there is to it. - kemp34, on 01/08/2009, -1/+25Tyrants love that logic.
- beatle42, on 01/08/2009, -2/+22I have nothing to hide when I'm going to the bathroom either, but I don't really want people watching me do it.
- SteelChicken, on 01/08/2009, -1/+20No warrant-less wiretaps under *ANY* conditions. That's the way Americans want it, period!
- Peregrination, on 01/08/2009, -2/+16Actually, there are a lot of judges that understand the constitution and do the right thing, but we don't hear about them because people say they are just "doing their jobs". It's like lawyers and cops; the good stories (at least the ones popularized on sites like digg/reddit/etc.) about authority figures come when they are ***** up and ***** all over the constitution and people's rights and not when they have done right by themselves and others.
So how about, just this once, we could send him an email or phone him and say what a good job he did, and to keep up the good work. - Peregrination, on 01/08/2009, -1/+15Just remind him that while he might not be worried about this particular instance of invasion of privacy or just that he has 'nothing to hide', he should worry about the steady progression of corruption that comes from this type of abuse of power by the government.
I have to remind my parents (staunch old school republicans) of this all the time. Hopefully, one day it will sink in. - floorman56, on 01/08/2009, -1/+13The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Edmund Burke - Ouze, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11Yeah, I did read the constitution. Especially this part
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ...
Funny how conservatives claim to want smaller government, but are all in favor of granting it virtually unchecked power and authority. - humptyz, on 01/08/2009, -0/+11So basically the government's argument was, "You can't sue us unless you have proof, and since we're not going to give it to you you can't sue us."
- everyunitone, on 01/08/2009, -1/+12I am tired of that quote being so damn relevant..
- moulin1, on 01/07/2009, -1/+12As sound and just as this decision may be it is still a consolation prize. The founders of Al Haramain were already convicted in a trial where the defence was not allowed to produce any evidence to the jury. Lawyers who saw the evidence via the justice departments mistake were threatened with arrest if they even discussed the evidence much less presented it at trial. How can it be that the evidence is kept from the criminal trial but allowed 'in camera' for the civil counter-suit?
- ChloeMS, on 01/08/2009, -3/+13Your right, my mistake... the 4TH Amendment, not the 14th (I always do that, get 4 and 14 mixed up.)
- LJSeinfeld, on 01/08/2009, -0/+10This is the guy who will be the first one to rat you out when the time comes. Funny thing is he'll think he's doing you a favor.
- Nerys, on 01/08/2009, -0/+9Thats a CIRCULAR argument
there is no valid "retort" to a circular argument because its SELF ENFORCING (ie the circular part)
The only way to expose it is to show the reverse circular and make it a "fact"
SO if I have nothing to hide "WHY DO YOU NEED TO LOOK?" - souljaboytellem, on 01/08/2009, -1/+10any Reason You typed it Like This?
- inc595, on 01/08/2009, -1/+9Checks and Balances finally being put to work
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -1/+9Lawful hasn't meant constitutional in a very long time.
They can lawfully take you away to gitmo for absolutely no reason if they feel like it. And then torture you, lawfully. - mrgarci1, on 01/07/2009, -1/+9So it takes an international lawsuit to put this stuff before the courts, eh? Damn right - state secrets my ass!
- derekmas10, on 01/08/2009, -1/+8the sad thing is that this is probably true.
- Dustin00, on 01/08/2009, -0/+6WOOT!
It's OUR government. WE paid for it. I'm sick of secrets. NO MORE. NONE. The cold war is over. - Nerys, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7GOOD maybe if we RAM it into enough skulls people will suddenly GO WAIT hey your RIGHT what the hell are we doing.
That quote keeps getting repeated because they keep making the SAME DAMNED MISTAKES over and over and over again and no one DOES anything. - shipwreck58, on 01/08/2009, -3/+9One step closer to restroing the Constitution to its state before that War Criminal Bush got in office.
- SilverBlade2k, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7Wow, is hell freezing over??
- Nerys, on 01/08/2009, -1/+7Your mistake is thinking that what was called a "republican" 100 years ago is even REMOTELY similar to what is called a "republican" today.
Your error. - maz2331, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6I can understand not releasing the classified information, but still can't understand why courts just don't treat it as a "stipulation" as they would any other refusal to cooperate with discovery. "For the purposes of this suit, we will assume the facts are as alleged due to the Government's refusal to release..."
- jba68, on 01/08/2009, -6/+11He shall soon be eliminated...
- bowens44, on 01/08/2009, -0/+5ah bubba , put out the smoke, put down the beer and read the article. This law suit is about getting the government to follow the Constitution. This is why you cons can't win an election without stealing it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and everyone knows it.
- carbonfilament, on 01/08/2009, -1/+6I have, in fact, read the constitution, and many other legal documents surrounding this issue. For your perusal, all of this information comes from the NSA wiki:
"The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations within the United States constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must generally obtain a warrant before undertaking such domestic wiretapping."
"Article I vests Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) provides in relevant part that "the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted.""
"The Report "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information", published by The Congressional Research Service:"..."makes clear the Congressional view that intelligence gathered within the U.S. and where "one party is a U.S. person" qualifes as domestic in nature and as such completely within their purview to regulate"
"Under the National Security Act of 1947, §501-503, codified as 50 USC §413-§413b,[66] the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed of U.S. intelligence activities, "consistent with ... protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters." For covert actions, from which intelligence gathering activities are specifically excluded in §413b(e)(1), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the so-called Gang of Eight.[67]"
"Article II vests the President with power as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," and requires that he "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". - inactive, on 01/08/2009, -4/+9You can sue for anything.
It's the winning part that is hard. - RogueGenius, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4Not even remotely correct. The only 'civil right' republicans are responsible for is ending slavery, and that was 150 years ago And even that is when the party was liberal. When a party only does something for you once a century it's time to find a new party. EVERYTHING that you could ever call a 'civil right' came from liberals - all the way back to the revolution (who were beyond liberal, they were radicals). The parties have changed ethos over the years, but the ethos is eternal.
liberal = pro civil rights
conservative = anti-civil rights
That's how it is now, how it always has been, and how it always will be. - Ouze, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4"I knew my post would go over your heads..."
Your post isn't going over anyone's head. You're just wrong.
Even though I'm fairly certain that you're just trolling (either that, or you have a incredibly high level of save vs reason) but i'll bite.
By all means, explain to me (remember, I'm a stupid lib so use small words) how when the constitution says that "the people shall be secure in their homes, papers and effects from searches and no warrants will be issued without probably cause" that what it actually MEANS is "the president can listen in to any american's communications, at any time, without probable cause or a warrant?" - Zarokima, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4That's the way the supreme law of America (that's The Constitution, for you people in government) orders it.
- davidkshepherd, on 01/08/2009, -3/+7TMI
- Zarokima, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I was about to digg this story for being interesting and containing surprising good news, but now I can bury it based solely on who submitted it, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the story itself.
- derekmas10, on 01/08/2009, -1/+5I'll be fappin to fatty.
- Gndoab, on 01/08/2009, -0/+4rock solid, isn't it?
- adkenc, on 01/09/2009, -0/+3@souljaboytellem - me? or groller? mine was because i didn't feel like asking groller your question.
@ nerys - yawn. nope. "people who are stupid will be stupid no matter what we tell them." -adkenc
@everyunitone - word. - RogueGenius, on 01/08/2009, -3/+6The end of the Republican era. The Swastikas are being removed from all the letterheads and logos. Welcome back America!
- inactive, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3Because you might have something to hide. There's no way to know without looking.
It's not a circular argument. Circular argument: God exists because the bible says so and it was written by God.
It's a logical argument, but it leads to a burden of proof because of the right to privacy.
I don't have to demonstrate why you should NOT search me, you have to demonstrate why you SHOULD search me.
But then, the fact that you are refusing to be searched is probable cause.
It really has nothing to do with logic.
Probable cause gives a right to the state and privacy is a right you have against the state. It's a stale mate. All that is left is emotion.
Rights aren't logical. There's nothing logical about the sanctity of the life of a man who killed 90 people in very cruel ways. But he still has the right to fair treatment. - Ouze, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3You can't stipulate to evidence not admitted. Which is the whole crux of the case - without this document, they don't have any standing to sue.
Additionally, what possible interest would the government have in doing such a thing? "Yes, your honor, we agree that this totally incriminating document, which we won't provide, totally is in fact utterly compelling and irrefutable evidence of all the wrongdoing of which we are accused"? - TheDrinkNinja, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3I really wonder if the people who write this ***** really believe it.
- Nerys, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4Sadly the article is mistaken. They did not establish there "right" they acquired the Priviledge.
IE they had to "get permission" if you need permission its not a right.
The very DEFINITION of a right means I DO NOT NEED YOUR permission.
Thats the sad state of affairs for our constitution today.
1st Amendment? Toast
2nd Amendment? Toast
4th Amendment? Burning but mostly Toast
etc... - DarkerMaster, on 01/07/2009, -6/+8Santa Is Real!
- lawlzbot, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2Freamon and McNulty are gonna be piiiiissed
- carbonfilament, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2 "googling the constitution is one thing, actually understanding it is quite another."
Clearly, since you didn't understand my well referenced reply to your thinly veiled claim of superiority in my post above.
If you feel strongly about your position, why don't you come up with some real arguments with citable sources to back it up?
For example, In the last 50 years, how many times did the government deem it necessary to have some sort of economic stimulus package?
Answer: 5 : 1964, 1971, 1975, 1981 and 2001
You will also notice that LBJ was president in '64. He was the only democratic President in office during an economic stimulus. The rest were Republicans, Nixon (x2), Reagan, and Bush (Sr.).
I challenge you to prove through citable sources that
A) Liberals are the only party of the government with the desire to provide stimulus packages
B) They want the result of same to subsidize people who do not work.
Or really anything else that you throw out in this thread. - Gndoab, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2probably not very.
- vbullinger, on 01/08/2009, -0/+2Constitution Nazi :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is