See below, Chris.... Regards, Bob... ------------------------------------------ Politically incorrect sig line deleted to prevent "socialists, statists, elitists and weekend golfers [you know who you are] from receiving discomforting enlightenment." -Larry Elders
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote: > [skipped] > > > > Here in the US, people have rights. They are not granted by the government, > > they are granted by God. The government was instituted to secure them. > > Governments have no rights, only powers and only those granted to them by > > the people. This means that because I (and others) hold that the people may > > exercise their rights (using a camera for example), it does NOT follow that > > the government (in any form) or any agent of the government may do the same. > > Since, as regards this land, your reply has no relevance to what preceded it > > (my post), your entire reply is a non sequitur. If you live in another land, > > YMMV. > > That's a nice idealistic view, and it neatly dismisses my points without > considering them, It is THE legal view. Your assumption that I "neatly dismisse[d] [your] points without considering them" is a common spurious claim in arguments, but it is false. I thoroughly considered your points and then dismissed them. > but it doesn't hold up in reality. Yes, it does. Yes, we've had our times when things were not Kosher, such as the Alien and Sedition Act, but the courts and the Supreme Court have always eventually set them right. > The US government sets its own rules, with little or no meaningful public consultation. Your "meaningful public consultation" occurred at the ballot box. It's neither practical nor prudent to have a public consultation on bills passed by Congress. You have both a congressman and a senator to whom you may address your concerns. They listen to their constituents (collectively) because they want to be reelected and/or their party to prevail in the next election. Further, if you are harmed, you may petition the government for redress. > Judging from the Patriot Act, the government doesn't seem to mind removing > rights and freedoms when it wants to. The Patriot Act does not remove any citizens rights or freedoms. There's a lot of rhetoric by various people claiming this but it's not so. From time to time, some over zealous agent of the government violates a citizens rights. These are heard in the courts. If the violation did indeed occur, the citizen usually walks away a rich man. > If the government decides to eavesdrop on you, they have the right to... They could always do this. It has always required a warrant from a court of appropriate jurisdiction wherein the government must document and show probable cause, under oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place, that the "eavesdrop" is warranted. Aren't you aware that the government eavesdropped on John (the "Dapper Don") Gotti before he was arrested on racketeering charges? Did you know that this occurred well prior to the Patriot Act? Have you never even watched an old '40s movie wherein the police obtained a warrant for a wiretap? > a right which they granted themselves by passing it into law. No, it's a power recognized in the Constitution, Amendment IV. >Call it a "power" instead of a "right" if you will, but it works the same in practice. Nonsense. Rights are inherent and may not be rescinded. Powers are granted and may be revoked. > I'm sure you're familiar with the Act, which--among other things--allows > the government to wiretap phones and read your email without notifying > you, No, the Patriot Act did not grant any such power. The government has always had it. Do you think that the government was required to inform John Gotti before tapping his phone? > and without having to go before a judge to show probable threat of > criminal activity. So much for the Fourth Amdendment[sic]. No, you are wrong. A warrant is still required and it must still must document and show probable cause, under oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place, that the "eavesdrop" is warranted. If you claim otherwise, this is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Cite the portion of the act that does this. > Evidently your rights are granted by God, but are able to be amended, removed, > and controlled by the government. Nonsense! > > Now, before you go off half cocked again, we were talking about taking > > photographs and not anything that could be construed as stalking. > > Stalking creates a reasonable fear for safety and therefore is a form of > > assault. > > Well, the Patriot Act grants the government the legal authority to stalk > you without having to show cause. This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Cite the portion of the act that does this. > Where do you draw the line between > photography and stalking? Shel's photo definitely isn't stalking, but how > about if he took a photo of her without her knowledge every time she came > into that restaurant? Repeated recording of a subject(s) over a period of > time without their knowledge sounds like stalking to me. Not to me. "Stalking" is well defined in states with anti stalking laws. Why don't you look them up before you run off at the keyboard. > How is that any > different from the covert surveillance that you mentioned in your first > paragraph? Are there signs on the street that inform you every time you > enter and leave a videorecorded zone, or are you recorded without your > knowledge? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, right? How narcissistic must one be to think that the government is so interested in them? > It's great to assume that this extensive footage of you will never be used > for questionable purposes by the government, but, given the powers that > the government has been granting itself in post-9/11 USA You have yet to name one power that the government has granted itself. Further, if the government misuses it's information and you are hurt, you will likely become a rich man. > I think it's > naive to make that assumption.
