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.

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/103716104.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

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.

KansasMustang said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Dreamer said:

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...

Click to expand...

+50

Dreamer said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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/103716104.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

By "Founders" do you mean the founders of the US Constitution or the founders of the Patriot Act?

Silly question. It is not worthy of a substantive reply as it is not a substantive reply.

eye95 said:

Silly question. It is not worthy of a substantive reply as it is not a substantive reply.

Click to expand...

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.

rotorhead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rotorhead said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Daylen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep.

rotorhead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

yep

Daylen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

rotorhead said:

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?

Click to expand...

Would you mind citing the pertinent part of the patriot act that I may peruse it.