I gotta give credit where credit is due...

[nova]

At least Al Franken can read parts of the Constitution and not twist them all to pieces...

The Washington Independent » Al Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”

 

[Accountable]

Well I'll be damned. Way to go Al. :clap

 

[Tangerine]

Does it matter to anyone that provisions of the Patriot Act were vital in tracking down this latest dude who was plotting to acquire bombs for use in NYC?

 

[Accountable]

That's the problem with these omnibus-type bills hundreds of pages long. Too much bad can be hidden under the relatively rare good. How many of these provisions would have passed standing on their own, d'ya reckon?

If someone had the money to challenge each provision, how many of them do you think would pass the constitutionality test?

 

[Tangerine]

That's the problem with these omnibus-type bills hundreds of pages long. Too much bad can be hidden under the relatively rare good. How many of these provisions would have passed standing on their own, d'ya reckon?

If someone had the money to challenge each provision, how many of them do you think would pass the constitutionality test?

I'm fairly certain that the "roving warrant" provision was key in building the case against Zazi. Would that particular provision be one of the ones you'd want challenged and removed?

 

[Accountable]

I'm fairly certain that the "roving warrant" provision was key in building the case against Zazi. Would that particular provision be one of the ones you'd want challenged and removed?

Just as this heathcare monstrosity, I want to see the whole damn thing disassembled into its parts and passed piecemeal. Separate bills would give voters better access to exactly what's going on, as well as a better view of how our representatives truly think we want.

 

[Alien Allen]

Correct me if I am wrong. As accountable said these damn bills are too lengthy to really fully comprehend.

There are warrants issued. He is not talking about warrantless searches.

I am pretty sure they have some reason for the wiretaps. I don't think they are just issuing blanket searches but have legitimate reasons to tap individuals.

Sooo,,,, I think you will find there is a degree of reasonable cause. Might be a matter of how much evidence they have to request a wiretap.

And I think if I read this right the issue also is about not naming the subject. I am not sure how much of a right is given up by their keeping the name of the target anonymous.

 

[Pabst]

I'm fairly certain that the "roving warrant" provision was key in building the case against Zazi. Would that particular provision be one of the ones you'd want challenged and removed?

if it goes against the constitution, yes. those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Accountable]

And I think if I read this right the issue also is about not naming the subject. I am not sure how much of a right is given up by their keeping the name of the target anonymous.

People get tried and convicted in the court of public opinion all the time. If they're convicted in legal court, fine, but if they are acquitted, hardly anyone hears about it. A person's reputation gets destroyed and for what?

What if this guy is nothing more than a patriotic optimistic donut salesman? Who is going to believe it now?

eta: Waaaaaaaitaminit! Isn't that in a different thread?

 

[Accountable]

I'm fairly certain that the "roving warrant" provision was key in building the case against Zazi. Would that particular provision be one of the ones you'd want challenged and removed?

if it goes against the constitution, yes. those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

I'd misread the question. This is an excellent answer & I couldn't have written one better. :nod: