[excon]

Hello:

Some people say that it's really OK if the NSA spies on us because they're ONLY listening to phone calls where one person is OUT of the country... Besides that, they're NOT terrorists, so they don't have anything to worry about, EVEN if their phone calls are listened to..

I, of course, said, there was a REASON why our founders wrote the Fourth Amendment. They called me a wishy washy liberal... I said it was an OPEN door for the state to SPY on us. They poo pooed me - said I wasn't a patriot..

Of course, in the face of new REVELATIONS that the CIA and NY City cops developed a program to spy on WHOLE segments of the population, they'll say "well, I'm NOT one of them", and go on about their way...

They know not what they have unleashed... I do.

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

excon

[tomder55]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

One of the biggest suggestions that came out of the 9-11 investigations was to break the wall that stifled cooperation between intel agencies and law enforcement agencies. Appears to me that the NYPD is being proactive. When the CIA would launch drone attacks in Pakistan there were the NYPD linguists experts (16 officers fluent in a total of at least five languages )taking to the streets in predominantly Paki neighborhoods looking for possible terrorist activity . The CIA played an advisory role,although I hear these guys are so good at what they do that they could school the CIA.

They have prevented attacks like a subway bombing in 2004 .

Their job is to prevent crime. You think they should sit on their thumbs until a crime is committed. It is not unreasonabable to prevent crimes .Therefore I see no rights violation.

It is equally preposterous to make the claim that the NSA ;listening in on terrorists communications into the US is equivalent to" spying on us".

[excon]

Their job is to prevent crime. You think they should sit on their thumbs until a crime is committed.

Hello again, tom:

Actually, it's NOT. That's like calling our soldiers "peace keepers".. That ISN'T what they do, and preventing crime is NOT what the cops do.

But, even if I agreed with you, PREVENTING crime MUST be consistent with the Constitution... Certainly, coming into your house WITHOUT a warrant IS an attempt to "prevent" crime, but I remember that you didn't like that too much... So, there are SOME Constitutional protections you like, and others you don't...

Or, maybe it's NOT a Constitutional question for you.. Maybe it's WHO is being investigated. I think Muslims are on your list.

excon

[tomder55]

I think Muslims are on your list

If there was a credible threat that abortion clinics were going to be bombed ;and the NYPD was infiltrating a fundi church to prevent it I would find that equally reasonable and constitutional. I also think that if there was a real threat of tea party terrorism ;it would be reasonable for the NYPD to take similar steps .

I find it amazing that you don't think a police dept's role includes preventing crime.

[excon]

if there was a credible threat that abortion clinics were going to be bombed ;and the NYPD was infiltrating a fundi church to prevent it I would find that equally reasonable and constitutional.

Hello again, tom:

I don't disagree in the slightest... You're speaking about Constitutionally required PROBABLE CAUSE... IF there was a THREAT by a fundi church, THAT'S probable cause to investigate and seek warrants...

However, the mere SUSPICION that EVERYBODY in the Muslim community poses a threat, ISN'T probable cause to investigate. It's not even close. You CAN tell the difference, can't you?

excon

[tomder55]

No I can't... It is not unusual for police to work undercover inside a community if there is a credible threat from inside the community ,or segments of the community ,even though it is understood the whole community is not suspect. Being an Italian American I take no offense if the police were working undercover to take out the mafia . I applaud those efforts as I'm equally sure the majority of Muslims in NY/NJ applaud efforts by the police to remove the jihadists amongst them who would commit acts of terrorism . Jihadistan uses the same terror tactics on their own as any other gangster mob uses on their own regardless of ethnicity . The way they terrorized fellow Sunni Muslims in Iraq proves that ;the way they terrorized their own when the Tailban ran Afghanistan proves it.
Where you are wrong is in saying that because the police are working in the community there is an assumption therefore that everyone in the community is suspect.

[twinkiedooter]

I'm tired of all the boogey man crap happening now and the latest snooping on the citizens being blamed for this excuse. There is no excuse to spy on Americans. The terrorists will attack us anyway whenever they want. Can we just get back to where we were a few years ago and stop all this craziness?

[talaniman]

Oh come on guys, one bomb going off in any American city, and all the rules are off. Just get the b@atards. We know how this goes. Didn't you believe Cheney when he said its OK to do whatever it takes to save American lives? To hell with the Law, and the Constitution, I mean who believes in THAT piece of paper any way?

Racial profiling only needs a good excuse to be reasonable. There are no exceptions are there? Same with warrant less wiretapping. And ex, that link didn't work.

[odinn7]

The thing of all of this is... I'm all for preventing terrorist attacks but not at the price of my supposed freedom. The so-called Patriot Law that was put into effect is crap. We let them kick down a door without a warrant because they "suspect" terrorist activities now, what's to stop them from completely overlooking the constitution completely? Nothing.

That's what worries me. The Government and police are getting entirely too powerful and have way too much say as it is... where will it end?

[smoothy]

You don't have a constitutional right to conspire to commit a crime. In fact, that is a crime in itself.

[paraclete]

You don't have a constitutional right to conspire to commit a crime. In fact, that is a crime in itself.

No you have to read them their rights first or you can't charge them with a crime, Conspiracy can only be proven after the event

[smoothy]

No you have to read them their rights first or you can't charge them with a crime, Conspiracy can only be proven after the event

No... actually if the event takes place... thats another separate crime that can be charged.

Unless it's a conspiracy to cover something up that already occurred then it can be after the fact rather than before. But you don't have to actually go through with it to be guilty of a crime. Planning a crime... is a crime.

Consider all the nut cases the Secret service catch... and charge. They never got a chance to carry out their plans in many cases (because they are real good at what they do).

The Miranda rights have nothing to do with flapping your gums off to third parties, or being overheard doing so.

[paraclete]

Conspiracy is more than flapping your gums otherwise every time we critise the government we are guilty of conspiracy, conspiracy must include intent, that can be difficult to prove

[talaniman]

You mean we can't arrest smoothy for wanting to overthrow the government?

[smoothy]

You mean we can't arrest smoothy for wanting to overthrow the government?

If I took the Obama approach via election fraud... you could...

I however would rather see the scumbag impeached... tried and convicted and removed through legal means. BEFORE the next election, which isn't a crime.

[smoothy]

conspiracy is more than flapping your gums otherwise everytime we critise the government we are guilty of conspiracy, conspiracy must include intent, that can be difficult to prove

Which is why conspiring to commit a CRIME... is a crime.

You don't conspire to watch a football game. Or Conspire to go to a concert or dinner.