Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: FBI Sweeps - Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    FBI Sweeps - Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

    Link to article.

    Supposedly they had warrants, given on the presentation of credible evidence. Yet in searching five residences and one office, there were no arrests? That doesn't sound like "credible evidence" to me. Sounds more like a judge is willing to lay their own credibility on the line to allow the FBI to harrass and impair freedom of speech.

    I've never heard of Burke or his group. I have seen this sort of behavior throughout our nation's history, however, and I think it's ugly. This has all the makings of another potential Kent State massacre in the making. Whether or not anyone is shot this time around isn't the point. The point is that dissent against pretty much anything (government, the war, the action of a judge) is our First Amendment right. Dissent itself is NOT grounds for violating our Fourth Amendment rights.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    It seems that the Joint Terrorism Task Force established in front of a judge that there was probable cause to believe that the group was involved in providing material support to a terrorist organization--which is a crime.

    Here is another link: http://www.startribune.com/local/103...rksUUUycaEacyU

  3. #3
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    I think it's about time that the FBI started directing it's investigations into the real threat in this nation. The Liberal leftists that are Marxists at best and terrorists at worst. The folks that want to see the constitution shredded and give the power to the global elitists so we can live like the rest of the world in abject poverty. For me and mine we choose liberty.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    I think it's about time that the FBI started directing it's investigations into the real threat in this nation. The Liberal leftists that are Marxists at best and terrorists at worst. The folks that want to see the constitution shredded and give the power to the global elitists so we can live like the rest of the world in abject poverty. For me and mine we choose liberty.

    Like the leftists who funded the rise of the NSDAP in the late 1930's (Prescott Bush), and his eldest son, who helped start, fund, equip and train the Mujahadin (GHW Bush) or his youngest son who ordered US troops to torture POWs, admitted it on TV after he left office, and said he'd do it again?

    Or maybe you mean the leftists who have destroyed our economy by moving their factories overseas to use near-slave labor in third world nations (GM, Caterpillar, Oshkosh, Levi Strauss, Magnavox, etc)?

    Or perhaps you are referring to the leftists who promote illegal immigration by hiring millions of illegals to work in their factories and farms (Monsanto, Tyson, Perdue, Armour, etc)?

    Oh, wait a minute... Most of those politicians and CEOs are actually REPUBLICANS, and "capitalists"...

    So much for THAT argument...

    There is no "left" and "right". There is only the "ruling elite" and everyone else, and you (and I and most everyone on this forum) are everyone else.

    Get over it. The "left/right paradigm" is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the REAL problem, which is that our entire way of life is being systematically raped, pillaged and burned by a TINY cadre of "internationalists" who hold no loyalty to any nation, any religion, any political system, or anything at all but the perpetuation of their family dynasties, and reaching their goal of absolute, unrelenting, totalitarian domination.

    The "left" and the "right" are just two sides of the same rotten slice of baloney.

    It's time to make an entirely NEW, different sandwich, folks...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Like the leftists who funded the rise of the NSDAP in the late 1930's (Prescott Bush), and his eldest son, who helped start, fund, equip and train the Mujahadin (GHW Bush) or his youngest son who ordered US troops to torture POWs, admitted it on TV after he left office, and said he'd do it again?

    Or maybe you mean the leftists who have destroyed our economy by moving their factories overseas to use near-slave labor in third world nations (GM, Caterpillar, Oshkosh, Levi Strauss, Magnavox, etc)?

    Or perhaps you are referring to the leftists who promote illegal immigration by hiring millions of illegals to work in their factories and farms (Monsanto, Tyson, Perdue, Armour, etc)?

    Oh, wait a minute... Most of those politicians and CEOs are actually REPUBLICANS, and "capitalists"...

    So much for THAT argument...

    There is no "left" and "right". There is only the "ruling elite" and everyone else, and you (and I and most everyone on this forum) are everyone else.

    Get over it. The "left/right paradigm" is a smokescreen to keep you from seeing the REAL problem, which is that our entire way of life is being systematically raped, pillaged and burned by a TINY cadre of "internationalists" who hold no loyalty to any nation, any religion, any political system, or anything at all but the perpetuation of their family dynasties, and reaching their goal of absolute, unrelenting, totalitarian domination.

    The "left" and the "right" are just two sides of the same rotten slice of baloney.

    It's time to make an entirely NEW, different sandwich, folks...
    +50

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    It's time to make an entirely NEW, different sandwich, folks...
    new? how about we just go back to the general premise of America: liberty, self regulation and limited government.

    or perhaps that is what you did mean by new since the story of Utopia, the progressives wet dream based on Socrates Republic, is a very old idea in comparison to the American experiment.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It seems that the Joint Terrorism Task Force established in front of a judge that there was probable cause to believe that the group was involved in providing material support to a terrorist organization--which is a crime.

    Here is another link: http://www.startribune.com/local/103...rksUUUycaEacyU
    I was thinking roughly the same thing after reading the story. There is not enough information in the news article. Yet, the feds seem to have warrants, which would usually mean a judge or magistrate approved the warrants, excepting national security letters, course. But, I doubt NSLs were in play, since the main reason for using them is to keep the investigation secret, as I understand it. Nothing secretive about a buncha feds pounding on your door.

    Without reading the warrant affidavits, it will be hard to tell for sure. But, given the behavior of the fedzilla since 9/11, it would be hard to go wrong to assume there are major problems with the affidavits and warrants, both from a legal point of view, and a liberty point of view. Let the gubbermint prove every element.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    An excerpt from the CNN article linked in the OP:

    Denying any wrongdoing, Sundin said she was given a subpoena to appear next month before a grand jury in Chicago. She said she will not cooperate with federal investigators, but will talk to lawyers before deciding whether to appear. (emphasis added by Citizen).

    Hmmmm. This gives me an idea. You know how news articles periodically mention whether the suspect is cooperating with police. Well, why not pre-empt the police?

    "Mr. Citizen said he will cooperate with the investigation to the full extent required by law." Sounds a lot better, doesn't it? Deflates that little police innuendo, doesn't it?



    This card could be played during a police encounter, too. For example,

    The cop says, "This will go smoother if you cooperate."

    Citizen, "Oh! I am a patriotic American, officer. Certainly, I will cooperate to the full extent required by our laws." Then just give him a friendly, silent, smile.

    Last edited by Citizen; 09-26-2010 at 04:38 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I don't have any confidence in our government system and this case is no different.

    They were on a fishing expedition and that's it. That's why warrants say "sieze any hard drives, note books, financial records...yadda yadda...." They're casting a net and seeing what they can come up with. If there REALLY were terrorist ties, they would have known exactly what they were looking for.

    I don't support what these groups stand for but I spent a career defending their RIGHT to have their opinion and to voice it lawfully.

    WE, the people in the fight for our second amendment rights, must not minimize the rights of others simply because they disagree (hmmmm isn't that pretty much what we say about the brady bunch). You either believe in the Constitution and the RIGHTS of the people, or you do not.

    You can't have it both ways.

    Read the Constitution, understand your rights and obligations, and hold your government accountable. And NOT just when it fits your personal agenda and beliefs!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The Joint Terrorism Task Force established for a judge that there was probable cause to believe that this group provided aid to a terrorist organization (a crime). The judge, per the Fourth Amendment, issued warrants for LE to search for and seize evidence of the financial transactions that constitute the crime.

    In what form would that evidence of financial transactions be found? Hard drives, notebooks, financial records...

    I understand folks railing against abuses of our right to privacy. However, complaining when LE follows the procedure laid down by our Founders strains the credibility of the complainer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The Joint Terrorism Task Force established for a judge that there was probable cause to believe that this group provided aid to a terrorist organization (a crime). The judge, per the Fourth Amendment, issued warrants for LE to search for and seize evidence of the financial transactions that constitute the crime.

    In what form would that evidence of financial transactions be found? Hard drives, notebooks, financial records...

    I understand folks railing against abuses of our right to privacy. However, complaining when LE follows the procedure laid down by our Founders strains the credibility of the complainer.
    By "Founders" do you mean the founders of the US Constitution or the founders of the Patriot Act?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Silly question. It is not worthy of a substantive reply as it is not a substantive reply.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Silly question. It is not worthy of a substantive reply as it is not a substantive reply.
    No problem, we'll just move along without you then.

    Personally I find there to be quite a difference between what the Founders of the US Constitution had envisioned regarding boundaries for Federal law enforcement and what it has become today. Although some credence can be given for the sympathies of those who argue that the original Founders could simply not have envisioned some of the threats we face today, I do feel that the federal government has more than over stepped their bounds in many cases with such horrendous pieces of legislation such as what is commonly known as the "Patriot Act".

    Put this along with the fact (as evidenced by comments from politicians recently regarding provisions contained in recent health care reform legislation) that many politicians rarely even read the very bills they vote into law, you have a system which can be (and is) highly abused and stacked in favor of those that are in the positions to benefit from such abuses.

    The results are abuses of power (in some cases) by federal agencies including (but not limited to) the FBI. Examples of these abuses are not hard to dig up as they are a matter of public record.

    Sadly, many people feel that the "shut up and sit down, who do yo think you are?" response is best when asking questions about such possible abuses. Another great one is the old standard "if you're not doing anything wrong why would you worry?" adage. But hey, I'm going off subject a bit....my apologies.

    More to the point, warrants are supposed to contain items in it that are very specific and describe, as exactly as possible, just what it is they want to search for. They are not designed to contain vague language meant only to be a way in to a dwelling or place of business then enabling LE personnel to ransack however they feel in search of whatever they want. The language in such legislation including what is commonly known as the Patriot Act does just that.

    Now don't get me wrong, I don't want a bunch of weirdo hippy socialists enabling people from crackpot organizations to have a better chance of killing me or anyone else. I really don't. But when the threat of persecution comes from within our own government as well as from foreign entities, it's time to take a long look into just how much of our personal liberty we are willing to hand over to others all in the name of protection.
    Last edited by rotorhead; 09-27-2010 at 06:00 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    More to the point, warrants are supposed to contain items in it that are very specific and describe, as exactly as possible, just what it is they want to search for. They are not designed to contain vague language meant only to be a way in to a dwelling or place of business then enabling LE personnel to ransack however they feel in search of whatever they want. The language in such legislation including what is commonly known as the Patriot Act does just that.
    Ahhh much more eloquently worded but the same idea as I was trying to get across.

    Warrants aren't intended to be "we think they're doing illegal transactions with some terrorist organizations and so we want to rummage through all of their records". NO, they are supposed to be "we're pretty darn sure they're playing with terrorists AND HERE'S WHAT MAKES US THINK THAT, and so we'd like to search their ________ for any such records". Two notes: 1) Lawful activities such as protesting are NOT sufficient grounds to issue a warrant. 2) That blank is supposed tobe very VERY specific, not "any and all stuff we think they might have something incriminating on".

    Considering that the current administration is hell bent on giving illegal combatants (terrorists) access to our legal system when, under the international laws of combat they could lawfully be summarilly executed on the battlefield, is going too far one way. Giving federal agents almost carte blanch to ransack a home or office on a "fishing trip" for anything they can use to prosecute people who are engaging in lawful activities (protesting, dissident activities, criticizing the government, etc.) is also going too far.

    The Tea Party is growing, by leaps and bounds. Open Carry is growing, and gun control advocates are rapidly losing ground. States are finally saying ENOUGH (Montanna and Arizona come immediately to mind but there are several others). It isn't just "white redneck bubbas". It's liberals, conservatives, whites, hispanics, blacks, a cross section of America that trancends political, cultural, and racial barriers because AMERICANS have had enough.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    No problem, we'll just move along without you then.

    Personally I find there to be quite a difference between what the Founders of the US Constitution had envisioned regarding boundaries for Federal law enforcement and what it has become today. Although some credence can be given for the sympathies of those who argue that the original Founders could simply not have envisioned some of the threats we face today, I do feel that the federal government has more than over stepped their bounds in many cases with such horrendous pieces of legislation such as what is commonly known as the "Patriot Act".
    Since they had a warrant to seize materials there was no need to be covered by the "Patriot Act". It sounds like a standard court order, which is legal by the constitution.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Since they had a warrant to seize materials there was no need to be covered by the "Patriot Act". It sounds like a standard court order, which is legal by the constitution.
    Yep.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    SNIP Personally I find there to be quite a difference between what the Founders of the US Constitution had envisioned regarding boundaries for Federal law enforcement and what it has become today.
    Given how the courts seem to treat probable cause, particularity in affidavits, and the Good Faith Exception (GFE), I can understand.

    Just the GFE alone has become enough for a citizen to be jaded. As one experienced attorney noted, "The GFE is the judicial branch's way of saying, 'Close enough for government work.'"

    As I understand it, these days the cops don't even have to have the warrant with them and show it to you. Meaning, these days you just have to take their word for it.

    I've come across one reference on probable cause that defines it as, "51% likely evidence exists." Oh, that's just great. By that definition nearly half of people searched would be innocent. That would be a hell of a lot of innocent people suffering searches.

    If you want to see what goes on in the 4th Amendment world, check up on this blog regularly: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/ Word of caution. It ain't pretty, and you'll probably lose some sleep.
    Last edited by Citizen; 09-28-2010 at 01:40 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Given how the courts seem to treat probable cause, particularity in affidavits, and the Good Faith Exception (GFE), I can understand.

    Just the GFE alone has become enough for a citizen to be jaded. As one experienced attorney noted, "The GFE is the judicial branch's way of saying, 'Close enough for government work.'"

    As I understand it, these days the cops don't even have to have the warrant with them and show it to you. Meaning, these days you just have to take their word for it.

    I've come across one reference on probable cause that defines it as, "51% likely evidence exists." Oh, that's just great. By that definition nearly half of people searched would be innocent. That would be a hell of a lot of innocent people suffering searches.

    If you want to see what goes on in the 4th Amendment world, check up on this blog regularly: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/ Word of caution. It ain't pretty, and you'll probably lose some sleep.
    yep

  19. #19
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Since they had a warrant to seize materials there was no need to be covered by the "Patriot Act". It sounds like a standard court order, which is legal by the constitution.
    My point is that the requirements to attain such warrants (not that they are much needed these days) have grown thin under such legislation such as the Patriot Act as well as others.

    I guess the real question is would the authorities in this case had been able to get a warrant like this prior to 9/1/01? Or would they have been required to show more prob cause before attaining the warrants?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    My point is that the requirements to attain such warrants (not that they are much needed these days) have grown thin under such legislation such as the Patriot Act as well as others.

    I guess the real question is would the authorities in this case had been able to get a warrant like this prior to 9/1/01? Or would they have been required to show more prob cause before attaining the warrants?
    Would you mind citing the pertinent part of the patriot act that I may peruse it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Would you mind citing the pertinent part of the patriot act that I may peruse it.
    I would not mind at all. There are several items that cause concern for me. I will post them in the next day or so in order to clear up any confusion my posts might cause and to clarify my objections.

    Thanks!

  22. #22
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Daylen,

    Basically my concerns with things like the Patriot Act involve the expansion of powers and seemingly lessened criteria allowed for with it's adoption in the areas of searches as well as looser restrictions on surveillance. In my opinion, I feel that these newer powers have the potential to be abused by LE agencies, particularly the federal versions such as the Secret Service, the CIA, and FBI.

    Below are a couple examples of how just one of these agencies have, in my opinion, abused the laws in an apparently careless approach to their duties. Perhaps the examples are a result of overly-zealous agents of these services, but I feel that legislation such as the Patriot Act created the atmosphere in which these kinds of abuses could fester.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...i-tried-to-co/

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-0...ess-terrorists

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103812,00.html

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...triotabuse.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031302277.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102301352.html

    These are just a few examples of what I am concerned with. These are articles as far back as 2003 and up to 2008. These are not the only stories of abuses, just ones I searched for in about 5 minutes. I'm sure a more in depth search would reveal even more examples if they are needed for this discussion.

    As far as the exact provisions within the Patriot Act (chapter and verse, if you will) are concerned, I did not look into a current version of the Act to retrieve them as I figured that these reports would be enough to illustrate my point. However, if you would like me to find the exact wording taken directly from a current or past version of the Patriot Act, I will be glad to do so. However, my "lawyer-ese" is a little rusty and it would take me a little more time to extract them for you. Let me know though and I will make the effort if needed

    Take care.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The Patriot Act is just a distraction from the discussion of the lawfulness of the search.

    LE went to a judge, established PC of a crime, and obtained a lawful warrant. It really is just that simple.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The Patriot Act is just a distraction from the discussion of the lawfulness of the search.

    LE went to a judge, established PC of a crime, and obtained a lawful warrant. It really is just that simple.
    Silly and not substantive....I believe those words were included by you in the very first response to one of my posts you made. It was at that time that I realized I had no use for your posts nor cared to hear from you directly again.

    Sir or Ma'am, your dismissive and arrogant responses are a trifle less than annoying, residing more in the slightly irritating realm more than anything. However, I'm assuming this is an open board where all members are allowed to respond to whichever posts they feel they want to, so I will not ask you to cease your responses to my posts. I will say, though, that I can search long and hard and probably not come up with a good reason to ever entertain another single word you write with a direct response from me.

    This then, will most likely be the last time I will have the distinct displeasure of referencing your words in a post again.

    But, for the benefit of Daylen or anyone else, I will point out that the FBI was using precedent set forth in the Patriot Act in the events in described in the original post, therefore making a direct connection between the Patriot Act and the events in question. I was simply one of the first to reference the Patriot Act in this thread, that's all, but from the beginning, the Patriot Act was involved whether or not people want to acknowledge it. I am fully aware of such things like the concept of warrants and how they are obtained, both prior to and following the passage of the Patriot Act. Whether or not this case is an abuse of the allowances set forth in the Patriot Act or not has not been established yet. My concern is that it could be but I hold no specific opinions as of yet- just concerns.

    Even if that was not the case (which it is, in reality), the discussion had turned in such a manner making further posts about the Patriot Act relevant to the current direction of the thread. My post previous to this one was a direct response to a question posed to me. The question posed to me was a valid one and fitting with the current direction of the thread.

    In short, my response was no distraction, either intentional or non-intentional. If Daylen (or anyone else) would like to steer the thread in another direction, I am perfectly happy to comply and continue whichever way it goes.

    As for you, Mr, Mrs, or Miss eye95, I wish again to convey in a way that leaves no room for doubt that I have no desire, nor intention of entertaining your posts (either made directly in response to mine or otherwise) ever again. You have shown yourself to be rude and casually caustic to many here from some of the threads I have read in my short time here.

    I do not carry conversations with such people.

    Say what you will in response (and I'm sure you will, your kind can never resist having the last word it seems), but do not expect a response.

    Have a great day
    Last edited by rotorhead; 09-29-2010 at 06:01 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    When the agents of this country can "supoena" (in quotes because they don't even need to see a judges hands) the records of a library, phone service, ISP, etc. and place the recipient of the "supoena" under a "gag" order, there are VERY serious problems in this country.

    How many of the users of this board, for example, have had their information snatched up by the FBI? I can almost guarantee you that the number is not zero.

    I for one would tell them to pound sand and to take their gag order with them. While the threatened penalty is 5 years, the threat to the Constitution and this country is substantially worse.

    Every time I strap on my pistol and go about my lawful business I take a chance with my liberty, we all do, some more than others dependent upon your locale. Yet we do it, repeatedly, and in those locales where the first patriots were persecuted and violated, headway has been made and the path is easier for those that follow.

    All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

    Do NOT stand by and do nothing, the danger is far to great.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •