You Were Warned...Pat. Act

[IlarMeilyr]

The Topic of this thread is the USA PATRIOT Act.

Aside from mouthing mind-numbingly plodding predictable opinions about it, can anyone objectively point to what (exactly) is wrong with it?

The mind-numbing shit includes baseless claims like the one that suggests that it "violates" the Constitutiion. No. It doesn't. But if you wish to say it does, then back your shit up. Facts.

That includes you Seabiscuit.

For an excellent lesson on this issue, see a classic article from Harry Browne:

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where’s the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn’t specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(read more)

It’s pretty straightforward. There is a right to privacy. Why? Because the government isn’t specifically given the power to violate your privacy.

That’s what the 10th Amendment is all about – government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.

Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“

The Constitution and the Right to Privacy | Tenth Amendment Center



Class dismissed you fucking prog

I grade you a D- and that's as a favor to you.

There is no "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. All your puffery cannot and does not change that FACT.

The CLAIMED "right to privacy" is often spoken of as "being" in there, but what it really is remains a shorthand way of describing the import of some of the rights that ARE enumerated.

But when you cut through the malarkey which morons like you tend to spew, what is revealed is that the Constitution actually SAYS what it means.

There is a REASON that there is a warrant requirement. But there is NO coherent logical and consistent reason to ASSume that it concerns matters of national security.

A fucking al qaeda agent or operative has ZERO basis to ASSume (as morons like you persist in stupidly believing) that he has some Constitutional right to privately plot to commit an act of war. or terror. It's ok with me, I guess, if he wishes to proceed on the utterly baseless and erroneous notion that he has a "right" to privately plot his war crimes. But he does not ACTUALLY have any such right.

Your comic book view of the Constitution would be entirely laughable if other idiots (like the moron in chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) were not as ignorant and stupid as you are on that topic. In fact, that last dig at Obama is a bit unfair. My bad. It appears that you ARE actually dumber than he is. For once, on some tiny level, HE seems to dimly appreciate that there are valid distinctions to be made between the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal matters as distinguished from national security matters.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What's wrong with the Act? Everything.

From the Wiki:

"The act, as a response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, significantly weakened restrictions on law enforcement agencies' gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011,[2] a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[3] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[4]"

Yeah, everything about the act and it's extensions is anti-American by definition.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RKMBrown again.

aint that a bitch

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Topic of this thread is the USA PATRIOT Act.

Aside from mouthing mind-numbingly plodding predictable opinions about it, can anyone objectively point to what (exactly) is wrong with it?

The mind-numbing shit includes baseless claims like the one that suggests that it "violates" the Constitutiion. No. It doesn't. But if you wish to say it does, then back your shit up. Facts.

That includes you Seabiscuit.

For an excellent lesson on this issue, see a classic article from Harry Browne:

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where’s the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn’t specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(read more)

It’s pretty straightforward. There is a right to privacy. Why? Because the government isn’t specifically given the power to violate your privacy.

That’s what the 10th Amendment is all about – government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.

Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“

The Constitution and the Right to Privacy | Tenth Amendment Center



Class dismissed you fucking prog

I grade you a D- and that's as a favor to you.

There is no "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. All your puffery cannot and does not change that FACT.

The CLAIMED "right to privacy" is often spoken of as "being" in there, but what it really is remains a shorthand way of describing the import of some of the rights that ARE enumerated.

But when you cut through the malarkey which morons like you tend to spew, what is revealed is that the Constitution actually SAYS what it means.

There is a REASON that there is a warrant requirement. But there is NO coherent logical and consistent reason to ASSume that it concerns matters of national security.

A fucking al qaeda agent or operative has ZERO basis to ASSume (as morons like you persist in stupidly believing) that he has some Constitutional right to privately plot to commit an act of war. or terror. It's ok with me, I guess, if he wishes to proceed on the utterly baseless and erroneous notion that he has a "right" to privately plot his war crimes. But he does not ACTUALLY have any such right.

Your comic book view of the Constitution would be entirely laughable if other idiots (like the moron in chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) were not as ignorant and stupid as you are on that topic. In fact, that last dig at Obama is a bit unfair. My bad. It appears that you ARE actually dumber than he is. For once, on some tiny level, HE seems to dimly appreciate that there are valid distinctions to be made between the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal matters as distinguished from national security matters.

When your "parents" introduced you to people, did they whisper; "He's special"?

Seriously

The mere idea that we don't have a right to privacy, b/c it's not spelled out is not only a grade school F-, it wouldn't get you our of Pre-K.

Supporting the PA b/c you think it helps to give the government free reign of everything we do is complete and utter ignorance on a level I have not seen since my last convo with TM.

honestly, either join America and it's love of freedom or fuck off with the rest of the dnc

 

[IlarMeilyr]

For an excellent lesson on this issue, see a classic article from Harry Browne:

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where’s the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn’t specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(read more)

It’s pretty straightforward. There is a right to privacy. Why? Because the government isn’t specifically given the power to violate your privacy.

That’s what the 10th Amendment is all about – government is strictly limited to doing those activities which are specifically authorized to it by the Constitution.

Everything else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the People.“

The Constitution and the Right to Privacy | Tenth Amendment Center



Class dismissed you fucking prog

I grade you a D- and that's as a favor to you.

There is no "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. All your puffery cannot and does not change that FACT.

The CLAIMED "right to privacy" is often spoken of as "being" in there, but what it really is remains a shorthand way of describing the import of some of the rights that ARE enumerated.

But when you cut through the malarkey which morons like you tend to spew, what is revealed is that the Constitution actually SAYS what it means.

There is a REASON that there is a warrant requirement. But there is NO coherent logical and consistent reason to ASSume that it concerns matters of national security.

A fucking al qaeda agent or operative has ZERO basis to ASSume (as morons like you persist in stupidly believing) that he has some Constitutional right to privately plot to commit an act of war. or terror. It's ok with me, I guess, if he wishes to proceed on the utterly baseless and erroneous notion that he has a "right" to privately plot his war crimes. But he does not ACTUALLY have any such right.

Your comic book view of the Constitution would be entirely laughable if other idiots (like the moron in chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) were not as ignorant and stupid as you are on that topic. In fact, that last dig at Obama is a bit unfair. My bad. It appears that you ARE actually dumber than he is. For once, on some tiny level, HE seems to dimly appreciate that there are valid distinctions to be made between the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal matters as distinguished from national security matters.

When your "parents" introduced you to people, did they whisper; "He's special"?

Seriously

The mere idea that we don't have a right to privacy, b/c it's not spelled out is not only a grade school F-, it wouldn't get you our of Pre-K.

Supporting the PA b/c you think it helps to give the government free reign of everything we do is complete and utter ignorance on a level I have not seen since my last convo with TM.

honestly, either join America and it's love of freedom or fuck off with the rest of the dnc

Your reading comprehension (i.e. the total lack of it) indicates that you are beyond hope.

There is a right to privacy, but it is not at all anywhere spelled out in the Constitution.

All your puffery still doesn't change that fact.

It is (to a LIMITED extent) an implication derived from the enumerated rights which ARE set forth in the Constitution, you dope, and from the limitations on the power and authority of the Federal Government which is also spelled out in the Constitution.

What simpletons such as you fail to derive from the proper premises (premises which you remain to stubbornly obtuse to even recognize) is that the right to privacy is not as vast and as overriding as you dolts would like to pretend it is.

Like many of the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution, it is subject to appropriate limitations.

If you were not so unAmerican, and so woefully ignorant, as you are, you might see how compellingly obvious it is to RECOGNIZE that the so-called right to privacy has to yield from time to time.

I'm afraid you are simply far too dull minded to grasp any of this. A pity. You almost looked for a while like even you could be educated. But alas, you aren't properly equipped for such things.

Your trite mis-understanding of the purpose and meaning of our Constitution makes you a candidate for not just the damn DNC, you nitwit, but for the DU.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I grade you a D- and that's as a favor to you.

There is no "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in the Constitution. All your puffery cannot and does not change that FACT.

The CLAIMED "right to privacy" is often spoken of as "being" in there, but what it really is remains a shorthand way of describing the import of some of the rights that ARE enumerated.

But when you cut through the malarkey which morons like you tend to spew, what is revealed is that the Constitution actually SAYS what it means.

There is a REASON that there is a warrant requirement. But there is NO coherent logical and consistent reason to ASSume that it concerns matters of national security.

A fucking al qaeda agent or operative has ZERO basis to ASSume (as morons like you persist in stupidly believing) that he has some Constitutional right to privately plot to commit an act of war. or terror. It's ok with me, I guess, if he wishes to proceed on the utterly baseless and erroneous notion that he has a "right" to privately plot his war crimes. But he does not ACTUALLY have any such right.

Your comic book view of the Constitution would be entirely laughable if other idiots (like the moron in chief at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) were not as ignorant and stupid as you are on that topic. In fact, that last dig at Obama is a bit unfair. My bad. It appears that you ARE actually dumber than he is. For once, on some tiny level, HE seems to dimly appreciate that there are valid distinctions to be made between the application of the 4th Amendment to criminal matters as distinguished from national security matters.

When your "parents" introduced you to people, did they whisper; "He's special"?

Seriously

The mere idea that we don't have a right to privacy, b/c it's not spelled out is not only a grade school F-, it wouldn't get you our of Pre-K.

Supporting the PA b/c you think it helps to give the government free reign of everything we do is complete and utter ignorance on a level I have not seen since my last convo with TM.

honestly, either join America and it's love of freedom or fuck off with the rest of the dnc

Your reading comprehension (i.e. the total lack of it) indicates that you are beyond hope.

There is a right to privacy, but it is not at all anywhere spelled out in the Constitution.

All your puffery still doesn't change that fact.

It is (to a LIMITED extent) an implication derived from the enumerated rights which ARE set forth in the Constitution, you dope, and from the limitations on the power and authority of the Federal Government which is also spelled out in the Constitution.

What simpletons such as you fail to derive from the proper premises (premises which you remain to stubbornly obtuse to even recognize) is that the right to privacy is not as vast and as overriding as you dolts would like to pretend it is.

Like many of the rights explicitly protected by the Constitution, it is subject to appropriate limitations.

If you were not so unAmerican, and so woefully ignorant, as you are, you might see how compellingly obvious it is to RECOGNIZE that the so-called right to privacy has to yield from time to time.

I'm afraid you are simply far too dull minded to grasp any of this. A pity. You almost looked for a while like even you could be educated. But alas, you aren't properly equipped for such things.

Your trite mis-understanding of the purpose and meaning of our Constitution makes you a candidate for not just the damn DNC, you nitwit, but for the DU.

I've wondered from time to time what it was like to support Nazi Germany when they started shitting on peoples rights and when communist Russia rounded people up and Communist china when they just killed hundreds of millions.

All done just before the right to privacy was shit upon.

We have a Constitutional right to privacy, not a Constitutional right to privacy kinda sorta, except when maybe.

 

[Seawytch]

I've wondered from time to time what it was like to support Nazi Germany when they started shitting on peoples rights and when communist Russia rounded people up and Communist china when they just killed hundreds of millions.

All done just before the right to privacy was shit upon.

We have a Constitutional right to privacy, not a Constitutional right to privacy kinda sorta, except when maybe.

Ever read the 2001 Patriot Act alongside Hitler's enabling act?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I've wondered from time to time what it was like to support Nazi Germany when they started shitting on peoples rights and when communist Russia rounded people up and Communist china when they just killed hundreds of millions.

All done just before the right to privacy was shit upon.

We have a Constitutional right to privacy, not a Constitutional right to privacy kinda sorta, except when maybe.

Ever read the 2001 Patriot Act alongside Hitler's enabling act?

I'm sure that's nearly verboten.


uhm, I mean nearly verbatim.


yea, yea, tell the nsa that's what I meant

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Damn you idiots are special.

Yeah. The USA Patriot Act is very much like Hitler's "legal" authority.



Your insanity and your stupidity are in a tough competition.

No matter which one wins, your value as a contributing member to this Board loses.

Seriously, you guys are quite stupid, kind of dishonest and sadly slovenly in your "thinking."

 

[AmericanFirst]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

That is because the dimwit is the one abusing it.

 

[Seawytch]

Civil libertarians and liberals have been railing against the Patriot Act since its inception. You were told that you like it under a Republican but would hate it under a Democrat, but you didn't listen.

One Senator told you back then EXACTLY what would happen under these new laws...

Watch The One Senator Who Voted Against The Patriot Act Warn What Would Happen

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.​

You were warned...

That is because the dimwit is the one abusing it.

The dimwit (Bush) did abuse it with warrant less wiretapping. This data mining (which started (and was reported on) in 2006) is nowhere akin to the "not under the purview of FISA" shit that went on under Chimpy McCokespoon and Darth Cheney.

 

[Seawytch]

Damn you idiots are special.

Yeah. The USA Patriot Act is very much like Hitler's "legal" authority.



Your insanity and your stupidity are in a tough competition.

No matter which one wins, your value as a contributing member to this Board loses.

Seriously, you guys are quite stupid, kind of dishonest and sadly slovenly in your "thinking."

I guess you are like most Americans that don't care about a little invasion of your privacy for the sake of "security". At least you aren't hypocritical like so many on both the right and the left that only care when "the other guy" is doing it. I, on the other hand, don't want any Administration to have the kind of far reaching power that the PA grants.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Damn you idiots are special.

Yeah. The USA Patriot Act is very much like Hitler's "legal" authority.



Your insanity and your stupidity are in a tough competition.

No matter which one wins, your value as a contributing member to this Board loses.

Seriously, you guys are quite stupid, kind of dishonest and sadly slovenly in your "thinking."

I guess you are like most Americans that don't care about a little invasion of your privacy for the sake of "security". At least you aren't hypocritical like so many on both the right and the left that only care when "the other guy" is doing it. I, on the other hand, don't want any Administration to have the kind of far reaching power that the PA grants.

Not disagreeing…

But the government didn’t need the PA to engage in past and current surveillance programs. And Congress can’t authorize a given administration to engage in ‘warrantless’ surveillance.

Of course the government is engaging in surveillance – both authorized and unauthorized – not because it’s interested in detaining and prosecuting anyone, that would shed too much light on the covert programs; they’re trying to scare off potential terrorists, a kind of spy v. spy, cat ‘n’ mouse game.

And if they come across a suspect they’d like to prosecute, they’ll obtain the proper warrants so the evidence they acquire will stand up in court.

Last, with regard to the great bulk of data ‘mined’ or otherwise accumulated by the government, there is no expectation of privacy with regard to this information we willingly turn over to third parties – the wireless providers. And the courts have determined that no American has standing to sue the government over its surveillance programs because they don’t ‘like’ being spied on or they’re concerned something ‘bad might happen’ with the government in possession of such information.

It took decades for the government’s intelligence gathering edifice to be constructed, much of it dating back to the Cold War – that edifice isn’t going to be razed overnight; and there are many who will argue it shouldn’t be.

 

[Seawytch]

I heard someone say the other day, "you can have privacy or you can have the Internet"

 

[RKMBrown]

The Internet does not require the loss of liberty or privacy. Fear

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Internet does not require the loss of liberty or privacy. Fear

The NSA does. Fixed that for ya.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Internet does not require the loss of liberty or privacy. Fear

The NSA does. Fixed that for ya.

Root cause of the NSA... our fear.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Damn you idiots are special.

Yeah. The USA Patriot Act is very much like Hitler's "legal" authority.



Your insanity and your stupidity are in a tough competition.

No matter which one wins, your value as a contributing member to this Board loses.

Seriously, you guys are quite stupid, kind of dishonest and sadly slovenly in your "thinking."

I guess you are like most Americans that don't care about a little invasion of your privacy for the sake of "security". At least you aren't hypocritical like so many on both the right and the left that only care when "the other guy" is doing it. I, on the other hand, don't want any Administration to have the kind of far reaching power that the PA grants.

I guess you really cannot keep to honoring your own whining complaints about how to proceed in this amazingly important thread.



You guess wrong.

Like most rational folks, I value my privacy.

But unlike you and a whole bunch of undisciplined thinkers like you, I don't pretend that EVERYTHING is a matter of "privacy."

And unlike you, I recognize that our individual interests in privacy sometimes DO have to LEGITIMATELY yield to some competing interests, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Seawytch]

Damn you idiots are special.

Yeah. The USA Patriot Act is very much like Hitler's "legal" authority.



Your insanity and your stupidity are in a tough competition.

No matter which one wins, your value as a contributing member to this Board loses.

Seriously, you guys are quite stupid, kind of dishonest and sadly slovenly in your "thinking."

I guess you are like most Americans that don't care about a little invasion of your privacy for the sake of "security". At least you aren't hypocritical like so many on both the right and the left that only care when "the other guy" is doing it. I, on the other hand, don't want any Administration to have the kind of far reaching power that the PA grants.

I guess you really cannot keep to honoring your own whining complaints about how to proceed in this amazingly important thread.



You guess wrong.

Like most rational folks, I value my privacy.

But unlike you and a whole bunch of undisciplined thinkers like you, I don't pretend that EVERYTHING is a matter of "privacy."

And unlike you, I recognize that our individual interests in privacy sometimes DO have to LEGITIMATELY yield to some competing interests, depending on the circumstances.

You just said exactly what I said...you're willing to forgo privacy for the sake of perceived "security".

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I guess you are like most Americans that don't care about a little invasion of your privacy for the sake of "security". At least you aren't hypocritical like so many on both the right and the left that only care when "the other guy" is doing it. I, on the other hand, don't want any Administration to have the kind of far reaching power that the PA grants.

I guess you really cannot keep to honoring your own whining complaints about how to proceed in this amazingly important thread.



You guess wrong.

Like most rational folks, I value my privacy.

But unlike you and a whole bunch of undisciplined thinkers like you, I don't pretend that EVERYTHING is a matter of "privacy."

And unlike you, I recognize that our individual interests in privacy sometimes DO have to LEGITIMATELY yield to some competing interests, depending on the circumstances.

You just said exactly what I said...you're willing to forgo privacy for the sake of perceived "security".

^ Wrong, as you usually are.

I am willing to forgo SOME privacy interests under certain conditions. It is irresponsible and silly to insist that there are never circumstances where our desire for privacy should not yield.

There is nothing new in this.

WE give up a privacy interest every time a judge authorizes a wiretap warrant or a search warrant. Those are valid examples.

Here's another example. WE value the privacy of the home. The home is the castle. We usually demand warrants. Nevertheless, the law has LONG recognized a need to allow the police to enter without the permission of the homeowner under some conditions (like a kidnapping case, etc).

I would, of course, under SOME circumstances, voluntarily give up some of my privacy claims for the greater good. Only narcissistic liberals and other folks unable to think in terms of legitimate claims of the larger "civil society" would be selfish enough to attempt to refuse.

 

[dblack]

I guess you really cannot keep to honoring your own whining complaints about how to proceed in this amazingly important thread.



You guess wrong.

Like most rational folks, I value my privacy.

But unlike you and a whole bunch of undisciplined thinkers like you, I don't pretend that EVERYTHING is a matter of "privacy."

And unlike you, I recognize that our individual interests in privacy sometimes DO have to LEGITIMATELY yield to some competing interests, depending on the circumstances.

You just said exactly what I said...you're willing to forgo privacy for the sake of perceived "security".

^ Wrong, as you usually are.

I am willing to forgo SOME privacy interests under certain conditions. It is irresponsible and silly to insist that there are never circumstances where our desire for privacy should not yield.

There is nothing new in this.

WE give up a privacy interest every time a judge authorizes a wiretap warrant or a search warrant. Those are valid examples.

Right. But what the neo-cons have done, and what you consistently support, reframes the terrorist problem in such a way that we permanently give up our privacy. They bang the war drums and you drop your drawers. I'm not joining you.