Liberty, Privacy and Encroachment

[alan1]

Obama defends U.S. surveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security

President Barack Obama on Friday staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attack.

Amendment IV

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

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" ~Patrick Henry

Is Mr Obama's "modest encroachment" on privacy and liberty anything like being "a little pregnant"? I think it is. Today it is a "modest encroachment", but it is an encroachment none the less. That is something our founding fathers were absolutely fighting against when this nation was formed. It is not just words in an old document, it was a belief and a way of life. A belief that all innocent people be free from an over powerful government that would attempt to compromise their freedoms, liberty and privacy.

The words of the IV Amendment are clear and specific with no room for interpretation. Mr Obama's defense of this action is despicable. He is not upholding his oath of office that states, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[alan1]

Bump

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We've been "a little bit pregnant" in respect to giving away freedom for security since at least the beginning of WWII.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Them that trade other people's freedoms for delusions of personal security are not worth a fuck. - Dugdale Jukes, October 2001

10/4/01Junebug Bush orders NSA to monitor domestic communications without a warrant. This is illegal.
​

10/26/01 Junebug Bush signs patriot act increasing government authority for warrantless searches. This overturns more than two centuries of constitutional law. The Supremes are missing in action.
​

11/25/02 With a squiggle of his pen Junebug Bush creates the Ministry of Fear, aka, DHS. This seals the deal. The United States is now about the same as a European Socialist nation, only US citizens have fewer protections against government.
​

History and medicine instruct the wise that the best time to stop a malignancy is early on. Honest people reading this will ask themselves what they did in October of 2001 to stop this and then ask what part they took in the runup to creating the Ministry of Fear.

The United States is eleven years further down the drain. What is the remedy? Is it braying at Obama like demented jackasses, or is there something that might amount to something people can do?

 

[Contumacious]

Obama defends U.S. surveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security

President Barack Obama on Friday staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attackQUOTE]

Of course, the question is why is a "modest encroachment" necessary?

Why didn't his administration choose a "modest " restoration of the NETRALITY ACT?

Why didn't his administration choose a "modest " change of foreign policy by refusing to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama defends U.S. surveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security

President Barack Obama on Friday staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attack.

Amendment IV

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

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" ~Patrick Henry

Is Mr Obama's "modest encroachment" on privacy and liberty anything like being "a little pregnant"? I think it is. Today it is a "modest encroachment", but it is an encroachment none the less. That is something our founding fathers were absolutely fighting against when this nation was formed. It is not just words in an old document, it was a belief and a way of life. A belief that all innocent people be free from an over powerful government that would attempt to compromise their freedoms, liberty and privacy.

The words of the IV Amendment are clear and specific with no room for interpretation. Mr Obama's defense of this action is despicable. He is not upholding his oath of office that states, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It’s not that simple, as the 4th Amendment, as is the case with all other rights enshrined in the Constitution, is not absolute, and government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights. It is factually wrong, therefore, to claim the 4th Amendment, or any other Amendment, is not subject to interpretation.

For example:

Can one’s phone or internet records be considered ‘property,’ does government accessing these records constitute a ‘seizure,’ and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that ‘property’?

Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to one’s phone records or internet communications?

And does one retain a possessory interest in the ‘property’ that is his phone records, or has that ‘property’ been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?

The Framers expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between security and personal liberty.

The OP is consequently hyperbolic, partisan nonsense; no oath has been ‘violated,' and as is the case with acts of Congress, so too are acts of the Executive presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

 

[alan1]

Obama defends U.S. surveillance effort as 'trade-off' for security

President Barack Obama on Friday staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a "modest encroachment" on privacy that was necessary to defend the United States from attack.

Amendment IV

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

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" ~Patrick Henry

Is Mr Obama's "modest encroachment" on privacy and liberty anything like being "a little pregnant"? I think it is. Today it is a "modest encroachment", but it is an encroachment none the less. That is something our founding fathers were absolutely fighting against when this nation was formed. It is not just words in an old document, it was a belief and a way of life. A belief that all innocent people be free from an over powerful government that would attempt to compromise their freedoms, liberty and privacy.

The words of the IV Amendment are clear and specific with no room for interpretation. Mr Obama's defense of this action is despicable. He is not upholding his oath of office that states, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It’s not that simple, as the 4th Amendment, as is the case with all other rights enshrined in the Constitution, is not absolute, and government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights. It is factually wrong, therefore, to claim the 4th Amendment, or any other Amendment, is not subject to interpretation.

For example:

Can one’s phone or internet records be considered ‘property,’ does government accessing these records constitute a ‘seizure,’ and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that ‘property’?

Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to one’s phone records or internet communications?

And does one retain a possessory interest in the ‘property’ that is his phone records, or has that ‘property’ been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?

The Framers expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between security and personal liberty.

The OP is consequently hyperbolic, partisan nonsense; no oath has been ‘violated,' and as is the case with acts of Congress, so too are acts of the Executive presumed Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

Actually, it is that simple.
The words in The Constitution and The Bill Of Rights are clear and concise. There is no need for "interpretation". The framers of both made it clear.
The words are what they are, they mean what they say and it is what it is.
It is only when people mistakenly assume that some sort of 'interpretation' is needed that things breakdown and become muddy. Interpretation is not necessary.

 

[PaulS1950]

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and 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.

You want to interpret that my phone records, E-mail and faxes are not protected as "papers and effects"? How is it that TSA can search you - is that an interpretation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"?

You must believe that our rights are open to public opinion as to when and how they apply but then that would be silly because the constitution does not provide that power to the federal government and the directions of rights is toward both the state and federal government to protect those individual rights. The founders made it clear that our rights are a product of our birth and beyond temperance by anyone.