For the Soft-on-the-Fourth-Amendment DUers out there

[MNBrewer]

http://theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/07/4th-july-dui-checkpoint-video/

[Tx4obama]

1. A person can believe in privacy rights and at the same time think that Snowden is a criminal...

... and think he should be arrested and stand trial.

They are two different issues.

It is also possible to believe that meta-data that 3rd parties (telecoms) collect/own is NOT protected by the 4th amendment,
and at the same time still support the 4th amendment regarding 'other' issues.

[Melinda]

3. Please indulge me for a moment...

Would you read this OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023178493

and then share your opinion on that OP?

TIA

[MNBrewer]

2. Of COURSE one can

did you watch the video of our police state in action? It was impressive.

[theaocp]

4. Glad they didn't smash the phone.

Although, I probably would have lowered the window all the way.

[Melinda]

5. Holy shit.

What Franklin said.

[NYC_SKP]

6. And if you interfere with their interference with your Fourth amendment, they shoot your dog.

I'm talking about the Hawthorne case, in which police were displeased with a man using his cellphone to video their search for a suspect. He put the dog away into his car to comply with their wish to handcuff him, dog got out through window (yes, of course windows were partly open) and police then shot dog dead.

Story and graphic video:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2013/07/02/32532/graphic-video-hawthorne-officers-shoot-the-dog-of/

[TheKentuckian]

7. It would seem that even those with near absolute confidence that things are under control at the

moment would at least have seriously grave concerns about the systemic potential for abuse moving forward.

How many pieces need to be put into place to go completely off the meter?

This is supposedly to address a threat that hasn't a single tank, nary a ship, no planes, no satellites, no helicopters, no industrial base, no supply chain, and at their operational peek where estimated to have global numbers under ten thousand. They are reportedly a shadow of their former selves with substantial destruction, disruption, and capture of leadership.

They would be a poor match for a bad neighborhood in a large city in direct conflict.

This is clearly a non-existential threat. It cannot logically dictate the response as a consequence terrorism is a flimsy excuse for another agenda and that agenda is control of the population, not its protection.