3
3
0
When is it going too far? Should American's support it? What will be next??
Posted in these groups: 
Surveillance
Surveillance
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
6
6
0
From all of the issues reported in the news (be they true or not) to the movies being made about these issues......ummmmm yeahhhhhh I'd say we're WAY past the point of it going too far.
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Agreed and glad that people are waking up and hoping we can put the cat back in the bag but that may be wishful thinking.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Our founding fathers would have started shooting long before the "War Powers Act"... Just sayin.
(2)
(0)
6
6
0
SFC Gannon,
Here's my point of view on the matter.
The Constitution of the United States of America, a document we all swore to "support and defend", has that necessary and proper section of the Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights we have the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment states,
"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, this obviously doesn't apply to NONE US Persons (so about 99% of everyone outside of the United States), but clearly applies to US Citizens, Legal Aliens in the United States and US based corporate entities.
The issue at hand is that according to Edward Snowden and the media releases, your metadata was collected by the US Government, without any reasonable suspicion that you were planning to, engaging in or formerly committed a criminal or terrorist act. There was no warrant clearly stating a "place" to be search or "things to be seized". This means who you contacted, when you did it, for how long and more, were all collected by the US Government, without your knowledge and without a reason to other than, "because we said so."
Regardless of whether or not it is "effective" or if it stops terrorist's is another matter. Thus far, the US Government has not been able to provide, at the request of the public, a single example of where this program single handily stopped a direct and/or imminent threat to the United States of America and our National Security.
When I swore my oath, it is first and foremost to the Constitution of the United States of America, then to the President of the United States of America, followed by the officers appointed over me. Notice, the Constitution comes before both of them and therefore, they are also accountable to the same.
If We The People do not like the limits the Constitution has placed on our government, we can Amend it, as we've done over a dozen times.
Here's my point of view on the matter.
The Constitution of the United States of America, a document we all swore to "support and defend", has that necessary and proper section of the Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights we have the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment states,
"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, this obviously doesn't apply to NONE US Persons (so about 99% of everyone outside of the United States), but clearly applies to US Citizens, Legal Aliens in the United States and US based corporate entities.
The issue at hand is that according to Edward Snowden and the media releases, your metadata was collected by the US Government, without any reasonable suspicion that you were planning to, engaging in or formerly committed a criminal or terrorist act. There was no warrant clearly stating a "place" to be search or "things to be seized". This means who you contacted, when you did it, for how long and more, were all collected by the US Government, without your knowledge and without a reason to other than, "because we said so."
Regardless of whether or not it is "effective" or if it stops terrorist's is another matter. Thus far, the US Government has not been able to provide, at the request of the public, a single example of where this program single handily stopped a direct and/or imminent threat to the United States of America and our National Security.
When I swore my oath, it is first and foremost to the Constitution of the United States of America, then to the President of the United States of America, followed by the officers appointed over me. Notice, the Constitution comes before both of them and therefore, they are also accountable to the same.
If We The People do not like the limits the Constitution has placed on our government, we can Amend it, as we've done over a dozen times.
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
It is disconcerting that so many people are giving the government a pass on this. As I see it, those protections were meant to stop abuse from our own government and you see how other countries are reacting to it. I am with you.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I have one thing to say on this issue.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
The work of many minds, the U. S. Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google