Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 7 of 18
Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I.
One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal.
Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred.
It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.
What is YOUR legal intepretation?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey DREAMTROVE! Nice to see you again. Welcome home.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Hero seems to be stuck on this question. It may require legal research on his part.
Quote:I'm eagerly awaiting his reply because I'm always ready to learn. I hope we get links to citations.
Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I. One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal. Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred. It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.
What is YOUR legal intepretation?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor,
You're still making up people's positions. Nobody said the threat wasn't real.
It is very real to us. What is not very real to us is this administration's ability to capture actual terrorists, or for that matter, its ability to be honest and unmanipulating of the information we receive from it.
this scares the crap out of us, because we know these attacks really can happen and we think this government is politicizing the threat even while it fuels it, not combating it in any meaningful fashion.
We aren't the ones being naive. Our government has long since lost our trust on this because it has failed at every turn to do anything but use scare tactics.
what can I say? I hope they really caught some real terrorists, but even if they did, I'd like to know how 4 years after the original attack, fighting them over there has helped us, if they are still able to mount an attack at us over here? Where is the ultimate success at curbing this extremism? And isn't it likely then, and please admit it already, that all we have done in the middle east is to fuel more Jihadists willing to kill us at home and abroad?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero- There are several view of privacy. As a lawyer, your prolly know this better than I.
One view holds that privacy is a thing onto itself, and that ANY violation beyond what is allowed by law is illegal.
Another view holds to "no harm, no foul". If your privacy is violated but no harm comes of it... you're not informed, and no government action results... then nothing illegal occurred.
It is my understanding the Constitution (which yeah, I know, doesn't refer to "privacy" with that word but DOES talk about being secure in person and effects and so forth...) was based on the first viewpoint.
What is YOUR legal intepretation?
Actually the Constitution does not expressly recognize the Right to Privacy...its implied. Also the Constitution has room for the "no harm, no foul" point of view. There are several doctrines, one is good faith (they violated your rights, but they didn't mean too, ie "oops"), another is "inevitable discovery" (we'd have found that gun anyway, so our illegal search of your trunk does not mean we can't use it). There's also 'protective sweep', plain view, and so on. Also a person's right to privacy extends only to a zone in which they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a person making an overseas phonecall to Osama Bin Ladden have that reasonable expectation? I think not. How about a payphone to call the local Mafia boss to arrange a hit on PirateNews? Maybe. Talking to your lawyer? Definately. Sending a message via your lawyer to Osama Bin Ladden or the Mafia? No (and a great Law and Order episode).
Also the Poison Fruit doctrine means that if I violate your rights I can't use it against you in court...I can use it to prevent you from making a terrorist attack or funnel money to terrorists or some such. So while I may not be able to convict you I can possible save lives and I can always charge you with something else since terrorists usually commit a number of other crimes as part of or preparation for the larger operation.
One Justice noted that the Constitution in not a suicide pact (his words), meaning that security is a compelling governmental interest, and thus can be a legitimate reason for reasonable infringement of civil liberties.
So legally I guess your first interpretation is most correct and most often used, but it is not the exclusive understanding.
Also I note for the record that the operative part of your sentiment was: "beyond what is allowed by law". What is allowed by law? That is the question we've been struggling with for a couple hundred years now.
Edited to add: And I wasn't stuck on the question, I was up in court beating a fellow attorney over the head with my PocketConstitution. Misdemeanor possession (weed). Attorney said they didn't have the right to search the car (routine traffic stop). Correct. "He consented", says I. They should not have even asked to do the search says the Defense Attorney. "He c-o-n-s-e-n-t-e-d," says I again. I won. Rule of thumb for everyone. Weed in the car DON'T CONSENT. And don't get me started talking dogs and the plain sniff doctrine.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to further this question somewhat.
The Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from the government.
What is the basis for protecting citizens from citizens, or citizens from business?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'd like to further this question somewhat.
The Constitution is supposed to protect citizens from the government.
What is the basis for protecting citizens from citizens, or citizens from business?
I may not understand your question. In Ohio its the Ohio Revised Code. It contains things like the Uniform Commerical Code, criminal laws, etc.
I've heard that other states and the Federal Government have something similar, though not nearly as much fun.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I mean is this:
What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution? (since the Constitution only addresses the relationship of Federal government to people)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bump ???" I said hopefully ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For my part, I don't believe there's a threat from the islamic sector. I think there's a threat from the texarkana area. I think if we keep trying there will be a threat if we keep ticking them off.
Also, the constitution is irrelevent since it's been repealed. I mean this literally. The Constitution was only the supreme law of the land when the supreme court used it as a singular source. The moment the supreme court decided it was okay to use the federalist papers are source material, the constitution ceased to be the law of the land.
I'm going to take a radical stand here and say that the confirmation of Sam Alito to the bench officially put five charter members on the federalist society on the bench which made the above a reality, and de facto repealed the constitution as the supreme law of the land, thus dissolving the United States of the America, an institution which now no longer exists. The upcoming NAFTA and GATT redux will make this a political reality, but it is already a process reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME