Below... 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]> > > I have to leave for work now, but I'll answer your points later. For now, > I'll just say that the Alien and Sedition Act is eerily similar to the > Patriot Act in many ways. Of course the government could always eavesdrop > on you, but they need to demonstrate criminal intent to a court before > they could get a warrant. Generally, the government must show that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, and that there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance committed or is committing the crime. > Now they do not have to prove criminal intent; > they merely have to say that they believe they have just grounds. No, the government must show that there is sufficient evidence to believe that a crime has been or is being committed, and that there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance committed or is committing the crime. > Sure, you can sue them if they don't have reasonable grounds and you find out > about it. But since the government is under no obligation to tell you--or > the courts--what they find, you may never know. They are not obligated to tell you immediately. They must tell you eventually. > More on this later. > > On Thu, 27 Nov 2003, Bob Blakely wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >
