Court Denies Access to FISA Records for Defendent

[ivwshane]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

Are you trolling?


Does it say somewhere in the constitution that our rights trump everything except national security?


And exactly how would showing how the warrant was obtained be a national security issue?

 

[brandonb]

What an awesome state we live in. Where the FBI tries to set people up, and regardless if anything happens or not, they end up in court where the defendant can't defend themselves. All their evidence is "thrown out."

Since people have a natural bias to side with authority because they believe authority is looking out for the best interest of society. This will lead for this individual to be guilty until proven innocent. The FBI can and will say or do anything to frame the person. This guy is going to need all the evidence to prove his innocence, which he is not allowed to have. I wish I would end up in the Jury pool. Unfortunately I don't live in Chicago.

 

[DrPizza]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

Yep. It says so in Amendment 73. Right?

 

[shira]

It won't surprise me if this makes it before SCOTUS that overturns this ruling and uphold rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

If this case does make it to the SCOTUS, I can guarantee you that votes to uphold the FISA court ruling will be coming from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and possibly Roberts, not from any of the liberals.

 

[Jimzz]

If this case does make it to the SCOTUS, I can guarantee you that votes to uphold the FISA court ruling will be coming from Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and possibly Roberts, not from any of the liberals.

Well seeing that Roberts hand picks the FISA judges I don't think there is any possible way he says they are wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

You have no idea what "rights" are.

 

[Paul98]

Just more of the same shit, we need people to stand against this crap.

 

[xj0hnx]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

Bullshit. Without our rights who gives a fuck about National Security? Yippy!!! Our police state is secure!!! ....fuck that

 

[hal2kilo]

Just how far back in history are you going to go to try to prove your points?




Grade A trolling right here. :thumbsup:

Hey its TH and he was on a roll.

I think he's stealthy sarcastic (moment).

 

[Thebobo]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

Nope

You'll see me at the Bundy ranch if they try and pulls that shits on me man!

.

 

[shira]

Sorry but if the premise of the story correct this effectively violates Constitutional rights. National security? There is no greater threat than a government which violates those rights, trickery or roundabout invalidation notwithstanding. Some information may perhaps be redacted, but wholesale denial? No.

Like so many others before you, you (again) make the erroneous assumption that rights under the Constitution are absolute. They're not. For one thing, they're frequently in conflict with one another; so something's got to give.

Furthermore, national defense is clearly the paramount purpose of the federal government, and there will inevitably be conflicts between individual rights and the responsibility of the government to defend the country. Clearly, something's got to give, and it simply cannot always be national security.

Unfortunately, there's a tradeoff between security and freedom, and I'm not aware of anyone who is willing to trade away ALL security for maximum freedom.

 

[ivwshane]

Like so many others before you, you (again) make the erroneous assumption that rights under the Constitution are absolute. They're not. For one thing, they're frequently in conflict with one another; so something's got to give.

Furthermore, national defense is clearly the paramount purpose of the federal government, and there will inevitably be conflicts between individual rights and the responsibility of the government to defend the country. Clearly, something's got to give, and it simply cannot always be national security.

Unfortunately, there's a tradeoff between security and freedom, and I'm not aware of anyone who is willing to trade away ALL security for maximum freedom.

When it comes to getting a fair trial, especially one where the plaintiff is the government, I'd give up all my security.

 

[werepossum]

Like so many others before you, you (again) make the erroneous assumption that rights under the Constitution are absolute. They're not. For one thing, they're frequently in conflict with one another; so something's got to give.

Furthermore, national defense is clearly the paramount purpose of the federal government, and there will inevitably be conflicts between individual rights and the responsibility of the government to defend the country. Clearly, something's got to give, and it simply cannot always be national security.

Unfortunately, there's a tradeoff between security and freedom, and I'm not aware of anyone who is willing to trade away ALL security for maximum freedom.

Well said, and I tend to agree. I'm generally against getting evidence thrown out because of technical problems with warrants. The only reason I'm vacillating is because the government (unfortunately, at many levels) has a history of creating such cases. And IF the guy really was only researching a term paper on Usama, AND the FBI then concentrated on persuading him to take a car bomb, then that might be entrapment. (And that's assuming that the government didn't just make up the car bomb plot out of thin air.) Surely there should be a way to divulge to the judge the basis of the warrant without disclosing sensitive assets, assuming the process was legal.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yep. It says so in Amendment 73. Right?

Is that one of the Amendments that are kept secret for national security reasons?

 

[Zorba]

Like so many others before you, you (again) make the erroneous assumption that rights under the Constitution are absolute. They're not. For one thing, they're frequently in conflict with one another; so something's got to give.

Furthermore, national defense is clearly the paramount purpose of the federal government, and there will inevitably be conflicts between individual rights and the responsibility of the government to defend the country. Clearly, something's got to give, and it simply cannot always be national security.

Unfortunately, there's a tradeoff between security and freedom, and I'm not aware of anyone who is willing to trade away ALL security for maximum freedom.

This line of thinking is exactly why so much of the bill of rights focuses on fair trails.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin: Reply to the Governor, Nov., 1755

I agree with Ben.