Letters to the Editor
shooter242
Published Letters: 1755
-
@ DClaw1
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The authority to conduct border searches in spite of the 4th Amendment stems from the government's necessity to physically protect its borders and people from harmful things or people coming in. I do think this difference is essential enough to constitutionally distinguish eavesdropping from border searching regarding the 4th Amendment. -- DCLaw1
I appreciate the reply and understand the distinction you illustrate. How does that distinction hold up in the face of decisions to allow searches of laptops at the border without a warrant?
-
@ DClaw1
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems there are two cases.... Romm and Arnold that are at work, but since I'm not a lawyer I'm confused because it seems that the ninth circuit is currently hearing Arnold where a lower court said it's not OK to search laptops. But in Romm the 9th circuit seems to have already decided searching laptops without a warrant is legal. To top it off I have a "Wired" article citing past practice of searches and confiscations of laptops.
Actual case names are in the articles and also cited by Sysprog elsewhere.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/06/laptopsearches
http://www.visalaw.com/privacyrisk.pdf
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161335118318So, I have to presume the Romm case will be the standard and laptops are searchable.
-
@sysprog
[Read the article: The strong and tough Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The difference is between somewhat regulated surveillance and totally unregulated surveillance. -- sysprog
Thanks for the help, I've given DClaw some references that seem to indicate Arnold has gone to the 9th circuit and an article that cites past practice of searches and seizures of laptops.
Regarding the distinction between "somewhat" and "totally unregulated," (I presume you're referring to phone calls) the former pivots around some sort of probable cause, yes? It would seem that just the sifting of millions of calls requires a method that defines their "probable cause".
I also remember somewhere that in WW1 I believe, all overseas communication (telegrams) were examined. This program falls considerably short of that, but it seems that's the concept most have, of how these things work. Technology is definitely progressing faster than the law.
PS. If you caught the rebuff I gave to Rosenberg about how his definition of journalist covered everyone on this blog comments section, it was your research skills that made the connection. You may not agree with my point to Rosenberg, but let me join the others that marvel at your ability to bring new information on board.
-
Attention Democrats: Democrat fear-mongering does not work
[Read the article: Attention Democrats: GOP fear-mongering does not work]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The basic problem with all the exclamations of "police state" and "facism", is that no one can actually point to an instance where their rights have been infringed. And I mean no one. It's real hard for the rest of us to get worked up about something intangible when car bombs are a daily occurence.
Meanwhile back at the ranch the liberal media is getting a couple of wakeup calls. Beauchamp has admitted to multiple fabrications, and the NYTimes is rumored to be tearing down the access wall. The idea that reality has a liberal bias is just not true.
To that point you folks might consider that one of the reasons you are so frustrated that the political effectiveness of the Dems is so diluted, is that the ideological basis of the Dems is so diffused. Moreover the reason for that diffusion is that it's not grounded in reality.
One can pursue pacifism, socialism, and egalitarianism, all one likes, but they are all theoretical propositions ill-suited for the real world. They are certainly valid ideas but they are only that ideas. The extent that one can turn them into reality is limited, resulting in wasted effort and little return.
For example, leaving Iraq would be terrific if no consequences ensued, but in real life that's not the case. Dems forcing a retreat would have to bear the labels of defeatists, surrenderists and genocidalists, with responsibility for all escalations in killing. It would be political suicide, leaving your Leadership with no good alternative other than to let the Republicans lead and hope for debacle.
That in itself is awkward because it leaves your hopes for promotion in the failure of current policy. In other words "the Defeatocrat" party. Keep the pressure up on Dems like you are here and it's a safe bet you'll be relegated to the back bench like the 9/11 conspiracists.
-
Responsibility comes from action.-- Paul Dirks
[Read the article: Attention Democrats: GOP fear-mongering does not work]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Responsibility comes from action.-- Paul Dirks
I'm glad you brought that up.
So, is that the definition of responsibility? Action? There's no responsibility from non-action?
Did you just absolve Bush of any and all responsibility for Govt. timeliness re: Katrina? Are you absolving Democrats for NOT blocking a bill, or NOT passing censure? I really don't think so.The essential flaw in your proposition is that not acting is part of a CHOICE. That selection of an option (to do, or not do) has a consequence. Conservatives are taking the heat for staying, liberals will have to take the heat for leaving. But here's the ultimate tell. If peace broke out, would there be any space between that event, and Dems stepping up for credit? LOL.
To suggest otherwise is to be a reprehensible liar of the first order. People who kill are responsible for death. People who don't kill are not. What could be simpler?
Yeah, yeah. I think it's pretty obvious who is being simple here.