Pentagon Spying on Protestors

[AlexRS]

No...According to me there is nothing that stictly defines what is a national security threat, thus allowing for ambiguity in what is stored improperly or not.

If it were possible, which I don't beleive it is (with the constant change of our society and risks), I would whole heartedly agree with restrictions on what can be stored. I don't think things should be kept arbitrarily, but "one mans trash is another mans treasure" so who can decide what is a threat.

I don't think that you are understanding me clearly.

I think that the fed should only be allowed to do what is in the consitution. (But that is not how it works)

There are things that are definite security threats. There are things that are definitely not. The ambiguity you are talking about is between these two.

Yet things are pretty clear and straightforward outside of this gray area.

This is the reason why Pentagon spokesman said that there was information that was "improperly stored." That reason is - the information was CLEARLY outside of the gray area. It should not have been retained, end of story.

Remeber how you said that government can freely retain any public information on any US citizen? Do you still stand by that?

[Larry]

Please do!! having grown up around lawyers, my mom being one kind of prepares me to know what I am talking about. Having taken numerous constitutional law classes show me that there is nothing that says this is illegal. If the government is going to come up with social programs which are not given to the expressly in the constitution why shouldn't there surveillance programs be allowed too? Couldn't they both be argued to be for the benefit of the whole? Sure it could hurt some people, well me paying into social security hurts my pockets and my standards of living.

Your arguement is that of the government can't do anything outside of the constitution. well answer me. What about all the other stuff that is viewed as good?

OK, let's compare and contrast.

The following quotes are from the Constitution.

Amendment 10

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.

That statement says that any power that is granted to the federal government in the Constitution, is denied to it.

It doesn't say that, say, any technology that gets invented after ratification is fair game and the government can do whatever it wants.

(It also doesn't say, despite what a lot of Presidents have claimed in court, that these rules only apply inside the US, and that outside our territory, the government has unlimited power. Nor does it say that "a state of war" grants unlimited authority to ignore these rules, either.)

It says, if you want the government to do something, then there has to be a reason that's mentioned in here that says it's OK. (Not that if you want to do something, and it's not outright forbidden, then go for it.)

Now, on the subject of "social programs which are not given to the expressly in the constitution", the Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yeah, I know. It's a blanket authority that's big enough to drive a trillion-dollar defecit through. (Although the "interstate commerce" clause has been expanded almost as far.)

But what it says, if you lean that way, is that Congress has the authority to do just about anything they want, as long as they say thay're doing it because it will make the US a Better Place.

Now, as to compiling a national database of people the government doesn't like, the Constitution says:

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.

Now, yeah, I understand that there's that word "unreasonable" in there. But it really seems that the framers intended to outright forbid the government from any "searches or siezures" unless they could substantiate in advance a good reason, from an accountable source, why it was needed.

-----

But when you, based on your constitutional law classes, try to claim that if the government can give welfare, then they can spy on their citizens, you're trying to claim that

• An activity which the Constitution authorises (if you stretch a term), but it doesn't discourage at all.
  
• An activity which the Constitution forbids, (but some people claim there's some "implied" power that isn't mentioned, but we know it should be in there).
  

are the same thing.

[gchwood]

OK, let's compare and contrast.

The following quotes are from the Constitution.

That statement says that any power that is granted to the federal government in the Constitution, is denied to it.

It doesn't say that, say, any technology that gets invented after ratification is fair game and the government can do whatever it wants.

(It also doesn't say, despite what a lot of Presidents have claimed in court, that these rules only apply inside the US, and that outside our territory, the government has unlimited power. Nor does it say that "a state of war" grants unlimited authority to ignore these rules, either.)

It says, if you want the government to do something, then there has to be a reason that's mentioned in here that says it's OK. (Not that if you want to do something, and it's not outright forbidden, then go for it.)

Now, on the subject of "social programs which are not given to the expressly in the constitution", the Constitution says:

Yeah, I know. It's a blanket authority that's big enough to drive a trillion-dollar defecit through. (Although the "interstate commerce" clause has been expanded almost as far.)

But what it says, if you lean that way, is that Congress has the authority to do just about anything they want, as long as they say thay're doing it because it will make the US a Better Place.

Now, as to compiling a national database of people the government doesn't like, the Constitution says:

Now, yeah, I understand that there's that word "unreasonable" in there. But it really seems that the framers intended to outright forbid the government from any "searches or siezures" unless they could substantiate in advance a good reason, from an accountable source, why it was needed.

-----

But when you, based on your constitutional law classes, try to claim that if the government can give welfare, then they can spy on their citizens, you're trying to claim that

• An activity which the Constitution authorises (if you stretch a term), but it doesn't discourage at all.
  
• An activity which the Constitution forbids, (but some people claim there's some "implied" power that isn't mentioned, but we know it should be in there).
  

are the same thing.

Ok I am going to say this once more and that is it.

IF the Fed can choose to create social programs, especially on the basis of "promoting general welfare", than using intel gathering techniques to prevent hostile attacks on american citizens and american institutions is also "promoting general welfare." As they are both used for the "greater good."

Whether they "improperly stored" this info or not doesn't really matter, because it has been "purged." My statements have been that The government can, whether you want it to be on the fed or state level, gather intellegence if there is a perception or a "reasonable suspicion" that this information may lead to some important information regarding our national security. Once it is deemed not necessary than by all mean they should get rid of it. The problem is who deems it necessary, that is where the ambiguity comes in, there is NOTHING that defines what is and is not a National security threat. There are examples of threats but nothing as far as guidelines

[AlexRS]

There are examples of threats but nothing as far as guidelines

If there are nothing as far as guidelines, how you figure:

There was information that was "improperly stored," says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program

If it was "improperly stored" - that means it violated some kind of a guideline. Or is this Pentagon Spokesman merely sharing his subjective opinion?

[Larry]

My statements have been that The government can, whether you want it to be on the fed or state level, gather intellegence if there is a perception or a "reasonable suspicion" that this information may lead to some important information regarding our national security.

And you have provided absolutely no Constitutional support for your position whatsoever. You've been making this claim for (seems like) two days, now, and your support still consists of "I think this, and I know more than you do."

I've quoted you the part that says the standard required is "probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Not "reasonable suspicion that this information may lead to some important information regarding our national security."

Not "Well, if there's unemployment, then . . .

Not "If it's for a good cause".

I've shown you a big, bold, clearly stated "Thou shalt not".

You've got an opinion and a "well, if you read between the lines, and streatch it a bit, and close one eye, . . . "

[AlexRS]

And you have provided absolutely no Constitutional support for your position whatsoever. You've been making this claim for (seems like) two days, now, and your support still consists of "I think this, and I know more than you do."

Larry, the situation is worse than you think

He is saying that if other people can see you - that is Public Record. If Joe Shmoe can see you on the street and write that down - then so can the Government... as long as they do not "misuse" the information. :laugh:

I don't know how many times and ways I have to say it. This is Public Record!!! this means that it is available to the public, which means anyone!!! The government can keep records of discenters if it wants, it can't use those to unfairly tax or burden them. But it can keep that knowledge.

I tried to find out more:

Fast forward to 20 years from now. Let's say there are sattelites that can monitor 100% of US land with resolution good enough for facial recognition.

In other words, Government has the ability to know where you are as long as you are outside.

Do you think it would be legal for Government to keep all that information because you are outside and thus in public domain?.

He said:

you mean unlike the satalittes that can already pick up facial features and zoom in on lisence plates? funny how no mentions that!! this technology is 10 years old now and we are worried about public record checks.

hmmm...

You say this would be legal because you are in Public domain when you are outside (other people can see you). Is this statement correct?

He confirms:

yes that is what I say. If you can be observed doing something, than it is public record. Just like my coworkers can see me typing on my computer at 10:42 am on January 24, 2006. Like it or not what you do that is observable by others is a "public" record

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

EDIT: this is a cut and paste from the lovely discussion we had on page 9... Cute aint it?

[DCRunner]

Social programs do not in and of themselves infringe on anyone's rights. And don't suggest taxes are an infringement - that argument was lost long ago.

Spying on people and their activities - and that's what surveilling them or documenting their activities is - is a clear infringement on a citizen's right to be left alone - i.e., to be secure in his person and effects, etc. We have a right to our privacy. A right to keep the government out of our business. If the government claims it needs to encroach on this freedom, the govt has to have a reason and have that reason accepted (by another branch of govt - the courts) as sufficient to outweigh this very important right. The more the govt infringes on a right - in laymen's terms - the better the reason has to be. In addition the govt needs to show that the action(s) they want to take that will infringe on your freedom are narrowly designed to accomplish their proffered justification - e.g., warrants narrowly tailored specifying the place to be searched and the specific objects of the search.

And please stop with the poor oppressed white male whine. It's so unattractive and unmanly.

Why do I think I'm just whistling in the wind? After spending all day having to stand up to the unbridled power of the government and all its minions, I just cringe at the notion that some young man will so easily acquiesce to the government's wanton power play without even understanding how violative of our basic freedom it is. Just chills down my spine. Chills down my spine.