General Discussion

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)

92. Blanket warrants do not conform to

Thu Jul 4, 2013, 09:59 PM

Jul 2013

"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."

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

UK, Germany, France, Bolivia, Venezuela, Do we even need to research Russia and China? [View all] stevenleser Jul 2013 OP

Lol it's okay because China and Russia do it!!!! dkf Jul 2013 #1

Now that straw man is a stretch even for you! ROFLMAO! stevenleser Jul 2013 #2

You were the one adding them as some sort of perverse justification. dkf Jul 2013 #4

! stevenleser Jul 2013 #6

Then what is the purpose of your posts? dkf Jul 2013 #9

The second sentence in my OP says it all. stevenleser Jul 2013 #17

Target the military and defense of other countries. Hands off normal civilians. dkf Jul 2013 #24

OK, as I asked below to MNBrewer, what would your Constitutional amendment look like? stevenleser Jul 2013 #28

We don't need constitutional amendments. We just need to use what we have. dkf Jul 2013 #36

As I responded to MNBrewer, the three branches of government don't seem to agree. And the stevenleser Jul 2013 #38

It's not the laws that are the problem, its the people who read into laws things that aren't there. dkf Jul 2013 #42

This isn't my first go around regarding discussing national security surveillance stevenleser Jul 2013 #45

Thus all three branches have proven they cannot be stewards of our constitutional rights. dkf Jul 2013 #53

I don't agree. There is a consistent principle the courts have applied for decades. We can disagree stevenleser Jul 2013 #56

Actually he's saying we should move on from blaming the US for the world's spying issue and discuss BenzoDia Jul 2013 #25

None domestically. NSA is for foreign threats. dkf Jul 2013 #30

It probably is treestar Jul 2013 #51

Aren't you supposed to be a liberal? Since when do liberals support authoritarian surveillance? dkf Jul 2013 #3

! stevenleser Jul 2013 #5

He goes on Foxnews a lot! Rex Jul 2013 #12

And RT and MSNBC too! Oops, there goes your point! ROFLMAO! stevenleser Jul 2013 #16

Oh look Aerows Jul 2013 #29

Why don't you love America? Rex Jul 2013 #34

I'd be laughing Aerows Jul 2013 #47

I think I should write a book entitled Aerows Jul 2013 #81

Yes it would. Rex Jul 2013 #93

So does Dennis Kucinich. KittyWampus Jul 2013 #97

You may have decided it is "authoritarian" but the bulk of society treestar Jul 2013 #52

Lol. The people barely know what is going on and even if they don't care much that doesn't mean it dkf Jul 2013 #54

They can always find out treestar Jul 2013 #55

Well I intend to do my best. dkf Jul 2013 #57

Are you just trying to be our side's version of Sean Hannity or what? Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #7

I have a simple question. Did you read any part of my OP at all? nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #8

Sure. Do you require that your post be broken it up sentence-by-sentence and responded to in kind? Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #10

Nope, just that your response in some way relate to my point. Attack it, agree, something. stevenleser Jul 2013 #13

You mean the 5 people on your side? Rex Jul 2013 #11

LOL!!!! I love it!!!! Classic Bandwagon fallacy! stevenleser Jul 2013 #15

Nonsense you in no way qualify to be my peer. Rex Jul 2013 #18

LMAO, the fallacy doesnt work that way! stevenleser Jul 2013 #22

To even think that the US might aim toward a "higher standard" would be racist, wouldn't it? MNBrewer Jul 2013 #14

We should aim for a higher standard. randome Jul 2013 #20

Well, he has an opinion on that, I guess.... MNBrewer Jul 2013 #23

He's no more credible than Daniel Ellsberg, I suppose. randome Jul 2013 #27

Ellsberg knows a bit about the issue of "leaking" MNBrewer Jul 2013 #32

Um, he received information from a leaker with the code name 'Deep Throat'. randome Jul 2013 #37

It was not illegal to "leak" what Bernstein published MNBrewer Jul 2013 #43

How does he know when we haven't seen it all? dkf Jul 2013 #39

Yeah, DIFI is better than most Republicans, but she's still a 1%er. MNBrewer Jul 2013 #44

Of course there may be more specific documents in the pipeline. randome Jul 2013 #48

Ya we done jumped the shark on that one and took him out to dinner. Rex Jul 2013 #21

Fine. Step 1. I propose that illegal warrants (i.e., those that do not conform to constitutional MNBrewer Jul 2013 #19

First, thank you, thank you, thank you for responding on point. stevenleser Jul 2013 #26

The 4th is perfectly fine MNBrewer Jul 2013 #31

OK, well, you think so, but the three branches of government dont seem to agree. The traditional stevenleser Jul 2013 #33

There are two traditional remedies MNBrewer Jul 2013 #41

Correct on the two remedies. I'm not sure an amendment would be ineffective. I wrote above in my stevenleser Jul 2013 #49

Are we to abandon our idea of what a warrant is? THAT is the question. MNBrewer Jul 2013 #67

I'm not sure I see your point. Warrants are being issued everyday in just about every jurisdiction stevenleser Jul 2013 #74

Blanket warrants do not conform to MNBrewer Jul 2013 #92

I think we'd all be much better off if we dissolved the House of Representatives. randome Jul 2013 #50

While you have somewhat of a point MNBrewer Jul 2013 #68

Ok, here goes then. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #35

This is excellent. stevenleser Jul 2013 #46

This is part of the problem Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #58

Let me respond to one point, as I noted to dkf above, my understanding is that the exception to stevenleser Jul 2013 #59

I wish it were possible to pass amendment, and I admire your faith in our system. Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #63

Kick, in case the previous post got lost in the aether. nt Romulus Quirinus Jul 2013 #94

Such unamerican fucking bullshit! whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #40

Besides being not the point of my OP, of all things, you fall back on jingoistic patriotism? Really? stevenleser Jul 2013 #60

Preserving and observing the constitution and the the bill of rights is not jingoistic whatchamacallit Jul 2013 #89

Thank you. Greenwald, Snowden, Assuange, et. al. jazzimov Jul 2013 #61

You're welcome. Hopefully this is part of the start of that. stevenleser Jul 2013 #62

Probably need a new Constitution. moondust Jul 2013 #64

A Constitutional Convention attended by today's conservatives would produce a horrifically warped stevenleser Jul 2013 #72

Think ALEC. That's the model that Ryan promises us. freshwest Jul 2013 #87

I wouldn't recommend it either moondust Jul 2013 #90

That's a fairly insulting OP, Radioboi. DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #65

You have no idea how unintentionally funny your cloud of dust remark is. stevenleser Jul 2013 #82

You're right--I don't. That's kind of the nature of unintentional humor DisgustipatedinCA Jul 2013 #83

How hard have you really tried to get ProSense to stop making OPs about Snowden? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #66

While you are at it, are there any other DUers you want me to attempt to control? stevenleser Jul 2013 #69

ProSense has produced over 100 OPs talking about Snowden muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #76

If you have a problem with ProSense, it sounds like you should take that up with ProSense. stevenleser Jul 2013 #78

I'm pointing out your OP is full of shit muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #85

LOL, thanks, I'll give that all the consideration it deserves. Hint--> nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #91

I take it for granted that trying to unravel all the spying in the world is fruitless. Liberal Veteran Jul 2013 #70

no what you're really saying is you are willing to have a discussion as long as we agree with you. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #71

Nope. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #73

And your 3 other OPs in this subject this month have been: muriel_volestrangler Jul 2013 #75

LMAO! I'm having three or four simultaneous rational discussions up-thread. stevenleser Jul 2013 #77

your posts up thread are suppose to be rational? yeah okay. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #79

By all means, tell dkf, MNBrewer, Romulus Quirinus and moondust that our conversations are not stevenleser Jul 2013 #80

oh, yeah I can tell by post #42 that dkf thinks that your posts are rational. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #84

DKF? Oh. lordy...nt msanthrope Jul 2013 #86

The STASI did it, and the NAZIS did something similar but were limited by their JDPriestly Jul 2013 #88

How about some fucking SPECIFICITY? As called for in the Fourth Amendment? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #95

Interesting you use the 'A' word. I'll be talking about it on my show this week. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #96

That's all you have to say? You elicited the conversation... after all. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #98

As soon as you went ad hominem by calling me a name, that ended the conversation. nt stevenleser Jul 2013 #99

LOL and LOL! LOL again! Please point me to the name I called you...? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #100

That's OK Bro. I know you didn't REALLY want to have a "conversation" about anything of substance. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #101