FBI Sweeps - Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

Daylen said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

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/2008/03/fbi-tried-to-co/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-08/opinion/17510979_1_patriot-act-due-process-terrorists

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

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/patriotabuse.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301352.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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

LE DID go to a judge, presented evidence of a crime, and got a search warrant.

eye95 said:

LE DID go to a judge, presented evidence of a crime, and got a search warrant.

Click to expand...

COMMENTS DELETED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack



Total Posts
Total Posts 2,868 Posts Per Day 10.74

Nobody makes that many posts in such a short time. Moderators, you may delete this post as a personal attack as I'm sure as soon as eye95 sees it he/she will PM you telling about how I am attacking him/her but I am only pointing out the obvious. I mean really, 10.74 post a day? and more than not defending the actions of the tyrannical regime at every turn PLEASE!

Thos.Jefferson said:

Total Posts
Total Posts 2,868 Posts Per Day 10.74

Nobody makes that many posts in such a short time. Moderators, you may delete this post as a personal attack as I'm sure as soon as eye95 sees it he/she will PM you telling about how I am attacking him/her but I am only pointing out the obvious. I mean really, 10.74 post a day? and more than not defending the actions of the tyrannical regime at every turn PLEASE!

Click to expand...

I see it's not only me who'se had enuff.

eye95 said:

LE DID go to a judge, presented evidence of a crime, and got a search warrant.

Click to expand...

I would just ask folks to compare the factual nature of this post with the reactions to it.

The strength of our movement lies in its rationality in the face of emotional responses.

Moving on.

Is this thread really worth getting bent out of shape and making personal attacks?

I don't see anyone defending tyrants. I see these two sides to the argument:

• Those who believe that precedents set under the Patriot Act emboldened the FBI and the courts to step right over the 4th Amendment
• Those who fear a knee-jerk reaction and are withholding judgment unless and until more is revealed

I know this doesn't stimulate discussion, but I really think that more information is needed. I hate to jump to conclusions and then look like a "paranoid wingnut" later.

If the courts have changed their definition of probable cause, I believe it has been a gradual shift, rather than a revolution.

rotorhead said:

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

Click to expand...

if you would be so kind, that is what I would like. I like to go back to actual laws since not doing so is part of the problem for OC in some areas. Also I do not dispute that the "Patriot Act" has so many problems that it needs to be repealed. I'm just not so sure how it applies in this instance.

Dreamer said:

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.

Click to expand...

They're not interested in domination. They're interested in preserving their current and future standards of living, which, compared to most of us, is incredibly high.

I do agree that our current two-party system is out to lunch (play on your comment about needing a new sandwich, heh-heh...)

eye95 said:

LE DID go to a judge, presented evidence of a crime, and got a search warrant.

Click to expand...

You've made this point several times, while ignoring the comment made by the OP which specifically addressed this point:

"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."

Click to expand...

Good point, Since9. I missed that.

I've seen reference to "probable cause" being defined as "51% likely evidence exists."*

If that is the doctrine, my head is gonna explode. One can immediately see the result that there is, by this plan, a 49% chance nothing will be found. Meaning just barely shy of half the people searched under this plan will suffer a police search unnecessarily.

Looks like in this case they are batting a thousand.

*I don't recall that it was a court case. Some other industry reference or something. I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

since9 said:

You've made this point several times, while ignoring the comment made by the OP which specifically addressed this point:

Click to expand...

The serving of a search warrant and arrests are independent events in our legal system. Those acts can, but don't always (or anywhere near always), occur together. I figured that most people knew that. But, if I need to say it straight out, there it is.

since9 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Obviously they did not have arrest warrants. That is often the case with the FBI. The actual arrests often will come weeks to months later.

OldCurlyWolf said:

Obviously they did not have arrest warrants. That is often the case with the FBI. The actual arrests often will come weeks to months later.

Click to expand...

Yup, after their done FISHING for SOMETHING, ANYTHING that they can file some sort of charge on.

We-the-People said:

Yup, after their done FISHING for SOMETHING, ANYTHING that they can file some sort of charge on.

Click to expand...

Precisely, and the very reason as to why our 4th Amendment was codified in the first place. When a law enforcement agency requests warrents or judges issue warrents without sufficient evidence, they subvert our Constitution.

The large number of searches and lack of any evidence found indicates either one or both of these very bad situations are occurring.

since9 said:

Precisely, and the very reason as to why our 4th Amendment was codified in the first place. When a law enforcement agency requests warrents or judges issue warrents without sufficient evidence, they subvert our Constitution.

The large number of searches and lack of any evidence found indicates either one or both of these very bad situations are occurring.

Click to expand...

You are making an assumption the the warrant was issued on too little evidence. It is the judge (according to our Constitution) who is charged with determining whether or not the evidence is enough to support a warrant. If a judge egregiously oversteps his bounds, that will be determined by a trial judge or an appellate judge.

If the decision by those three wise men is not up to your standards, then the recourse is to make the political changes that will appoint different kinds of judges. (Elections have consequences.)

But, we have nothing to indicate that the warrant was issued on too little evidence. Remember, they don't need enough evidence of a crime to convict. They need only probable cause (which is why, unless an arrest warrant is also issued, not necessary or even common, no arrests usually accompany most search warrants).

But when you believe your only choice is Republican or Democrat nothing will change much. I know of someone who were searched under Bush's administration for ordering a catalog for beer making equipment, supposedly that was enough reason for homeland security and FBI to show with a search warrant and to go through all his personal belongings. :banghead: