Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional?

Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Arturas -> Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 12:41:24 PM)
You know about the gathering of info on who you are calling and when. Today it's revealed that the FBI has used drones on U.S. soil for domestic surveillance. Is this Constitutional or not? I can only find one possibly applicable item in the Bill of Rights quoted here for your convenience. Are there others? Does this apply and if it does then is our Government breaking the law or does it not apply at all? quote: Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution 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.

Arturas -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 12:43:28 PM)
duplicate removed.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 12:51:55 PM)
Pertaining to the phone records The Supreme Court said it was Constitutional in 1979. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 12:54:13 PM)
Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 12:56:52 PM)
Here ya go..... http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306503-mueller-fbi-uses-drones-in-us-for-limited-surveillance

DomKen -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 1:01:55 PM)
Seems likely that the same principle that allows cameras in public places allows drone surveillance in public as well. I hope if they're snooping inside private property they have a warrant.

mnottertail -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 1:16:48 PM)
Yup, constitutional.

YN -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 1:45:44 PM)
What I cannot comprehend, is how a politician can support one sort of spying (NSA) and not the next (drones,) as in the case of your Senator Feinstein.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 4:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas You know about the gathering of info on who you are calling and when. Today it's revealed that the FBI has used drones on U.S. soil for domestic surveillance. Is this Constitutional or not? I can only find one possibly applicable item in the Bill of Rights quoted here for your convenience. Are there others? Does this apply and if it does then is our Government breaking the law or does it not apply at all? quote: Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution 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. re taz link; 95% of all shit rulings come out of maryland. and of course everyone simply accepts this as the status quo when so many mistakes were made its fucking pathetic. what kind pf asshole would waive a jury trial! LMAO The defense must have written some seriously shit briefs. Of course you have an expectation of pricacy when you are in public otherwise hell we could start lifting up dresses and run around nekid as a j boyd. I doubt that case is still standing but ya never know. legislature = government executive = police = government court = government yes you will get a fair trial honest!

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 4:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas You know about the gathering of info on who you are calling and when. Today it's revealed that the FBI has used drones on U.S. soil for domestic surveillance. Is this Constitutional or not? I can only find one possibly applicable item in the Bill of Rights quoted here for your convenience. Are there others? Does this apply and if it does then is our Government breaking the law or does it not apply at all? quote: Amendment 4 of the U.S. Constitution 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. re taz link; 95% of all shit rulings come out of maryland. and of course everyone simply accepts this as the status quo when so many mistakes were made its fucking pathetic. what kind pf asshole would waive a jury trial! LMAO The defense must have written some seriously shit briefs. Of course you have an expectation of pricacy when you are in public otherwise hell we could start lifting up dresses and run around nekid as a j boyd. I doubt that case is still standing but ya never know. legislature = government executive = police = government court = government yes you will get a fair trial honest! Can someone explain to me how this is ok? I feel like bush ordered this. A few years ago- when I told you it was going on- you said I was wrong.

MrRodgers -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 4:24:06 PM)
People, you still don't fucking get it...it doesn't fucking matter. The 4th amend is fucking dead. Like W was caught saying...it's only a [fucking] piece of paper. “people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. [The Constitution is] inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….” Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC’s co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technotronic Era

MrRodgers -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 4:28:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Seems likely that the same principle that allows cameras in public places allows drone surveillance in public as well. I hope if they're snooping inside private property they have a warrant. Why all of a sudden now...do they need a warrant ? The FBI can go into your home while everybody is away and take what intel the need. no warrant, no need to tell you. Where have you people been ? You bitch about govt. and their policies no matter their political party, yet don't even know the Patriot act etc. The constitutiton id fucking dead whenever it suits govt.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit. Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. can they identify a car and report its position? if yes they are spying.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers People, you still don't fucking get it...it doesn't fucking matter. The 4th amend is fucking dead. Like W was caught saying...it's only a [fucking] piece of paper. “people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. [The Constitution is] inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….” Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC’s co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technotronic Era and last time I checked the courts (fox) watching the chickenhouse is also part of government. of course you get a fiar trial! lmao sovereignty is not compatible with a democracy where everyones nose is up everyone elses ass

Politesub53 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:12:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. can they identify a car and report its position? if yes they are spying. As usual you are talking bollocks. How do you think traffic in major cities flows fairly smoothly ?

pahunkboy -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Seems likely that the same principle that allows cameras in public places allows drone surveillance in public as well. I hope if they're snooping inside private property they have a warrant. Why all of a sudden now...do they need a warrant ? The FBI can go into your home while everybody is away and take what intel the need. no warrant, no need to tell you. Where have you people been ? You bitch about govt. and their policies no matter their political party, yet don't even know the Patriot act etc. The constitutiton id fucking dead whenever it suits govt. It is only ok if their party is in office. Watch it all be reversed next election.

MrRodgers -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:37:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit. Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. Speeding and the occasional accident for liability....at least for now.

Real0ne -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:40:07 PM)
and like the government they all just coincidentally happen to break down right when you need the most. the dumbest thing people ever did was think that government was an insurance policy for rights! LMAO

tj444 -> RE: Is the use of Drones by the FBI on U.S. soil and taping into our phone calls Constitutional? (6/19/2013 5:46:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Do you have the article? Drones have been used for some time by SWAT teams to look for criminals and explosives in buildings (remember, it doesn't have to fly to be a drone). The only time I think they should be used is if there is probable cause and/or a warrant. otherwise, I'd say open season. I even think traffic cameras are bullshit. Traffic cameras are not for spying on people, for the most part. Some are used to intercept terrorist attacks, but mainly they are used to keep the traffic flowing in big cities. Speeding and the occasional accident for liability....at least for now. as are those lil black boxes & oh so friendly trackers (like On Star) they are putting in cars now too.. & that plug-in thing that slut Flo flogs for Progressive Insurance to track your driving.. but those can do so much more too like spy on & track employees, your spouse or kids.. etc.. traffic cameras are the least of it.. and once you know where they are you can adjust your driving or avoid them all together... the other stuff is totally a different animal.. [&:]

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.90625