Obama backs warrantless GPS tracking of citizens

[MotF Bane]

Those were necessary for National Security. Did you forget about 9/11 already?

Those were not necessary for national security, but for the increased scope and power of the government. Did you forget about the Constitution already?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I didn't defend Obama, at all. I pointed out that the same voices raving about this are the same ones that supported the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, the invasion of Iraq and a few other minor details of recent history. They have no principles- they oppose it because Obama is doing it. They cheered when Bush did much the same.

Like I said- Go Figure.

I see more independents who didn't like it then and don't like it now. So why didn't Dems change it when they had Congress and the White House? Bad enough but to strengthen and increase a wrong? Where's the moral outrage now?

 

[ebaycj]

To make it fair, they should put all police and federal vehicles on that tracking list and make it available to the public online in real time. undercover or not.

THIS. You want to track me, I get to track you.

 

[umbrella39]

Bad president is bad. YARNTRO

 

[Anarchist420]

Unless it is given that the Bill of Rights applies to all in a manner that overrides the decisions of states, then I see no reason, by the language of the First, that individual states cannot restrict the laws further (beyond the "fire in a theater" concept), such as to make flag burning illegal if they so wish. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the federal government to take the stance that the Bill of Rights overrides state restrictions, and therefore, the Second Amendment cannot be restricted by states.

As it is written, I interpret the Second differently than you, but I can agree on some of your reasonable restrictions. The problem to my mind there is where will the government stop, how far will those "reasonable restrictions" be pushed.

The Articles of Confederation allowed it to be up to the States. The Antifederalists meant for the Bill of Rights to be a limitation on the Federal government. However, the early party of Lincoln meant for it be a limitation on the states, but not the Federal Government. It's really been that way ever since.

The 14th Amendment sucks, because it gives the people power from top down, rather than power coming from the bottom level (the local level)

I think it should be completely up to the states, because I don't want the Federal government giving me my rights.

As for the "fire in a movie theater" concept, that's easily and much better taken care of by property rights.

 

[Anarchist420]

Where is the ACLU on this one? Is everyone who screamed Bush trampled our civil rights gonna be screaming out here, or is it fine when a Democrat does it?

The Democrats are the party of Wilson/LBJ and it's never been fine when a Democrat does it. Democrats have done it more than Republicans. See LBJ and the draft, FDR's authoritarianism (especially issuing an exec order to further enslave Americans of Japanese descent), and Wilson's tyranny (throwing Eugene V Debs in jail; Harding was nice so he released him).

Obama's not worse in this regard, but I'm definitely hesitant to say he's any better. I will say that Obama is worse than I both hoped and expected he'd be.

I expected him to be worse, since when he was in the Senate, he had a 100% pro-PATRIOT Act voting record, his statement that the GOP was responsible for Bin Laden not being caught, his 84% pro-Iraq War voting record, etc., etc. As well as the fact that during the campaign he said he was open to reinstating the draft.

 

[Gintaras]

To make it fair, they should put all police and federal vehicles on that tracking list and make it available to the public online in real time. undercover or not.

It's ok to dream while you're asleep...If you start dreaming while you're awake - needs medical attention....

 

[Tom]

From a constitutional standpoint, I think the justice department has a good argument. This is essentially the same thing as being followed. You have privacy in your home and some other limited places, not on public streets.

I agree. I could see where a defense attorney should be able to challenge some evidence gathered in this way, ie, if the defendant is tracked on private property, or for very long lengths of time.

But generally, if the difference is just a matter of efficiency, I don't see how this violates the 4th Amendment anymore than phyiscally following somebody in public places.

I think that requires reasonable suspicion, but not a warrant.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But generally, if the difference is just a matter of efficiency, I don't see how this violates the 4th Amendment anymore than phyiscally following somebody in public places.

While I agree that the surveillance itself doesn't seem to violate the 4th, I have problems that it requires them affixing things to property. Basically it's a claim of rights over that property.
The average person should be allowed the free expectation that his own property isn't surveilling him, which you don't get if the cops can bug you without a warrant. If the government is allowed rein where every person must expect that they are always under observation, there is no liberty.

If the government comes upon the means of surveillance externally then it's easier to deal with and to control. A means to detect speeders by satellite and to issue infractions is a different thing than a cop going to a mall and affixing bugs to every car there. If it is so generalized as to affect everyone you won't have the trampling of liberty that people will allow if it's localized and hasn't hit them yet.

Affixing bugs should require a warrant because it sets such a low cost for entry into surveillance, enticing an excessive degree of fishing into personal lives.

 

[Gintaras]

So, we got GPS that can track single person movements, cars/maps directions, Google maps...etc, but not able to track Somali pirates ships?

Where Somali pirates $$$ ransom does go? CIA? FBI? White House? Maybe Kremlin?

 

[DominionSeraph]

So, we got GPS that can track single person movements, cars/maps directions, Google maps...etc, but not able to track Somali pirates ships?

When we find a vessel that can be positively identified as a pirate vessel we sink it. There's no need to track it as it goes about its business.

As for tracking every ship in the region... do you have any idea how big the ocean is, or how many ships there are on it?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Really, in the end, based on the wording of the Second Amendment, I would say the legality and regulation of firearms is to be determined by the individual state, and that technically if that state wanted to make firearms illegal then it has the right under the Constitution.

That may have been correct prior to the 14th amendment, but don't think so now.

In part, the 14th says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

I believe the 14th prohibits any state from infringing on constitutional rights.

Fern

 

[Fern]

From a constitutional standpoint, I think the justice department has a good argument. This is essentially the same thing as being followed. You have privacy in your home and some other limited places, not on public streets.

I have a problem with the government being able to attach things (GPS unit here) to your personal property without your permission. I think it a a violation of property rights and arguably the 4th too. Following people is one thing, misappropriating their private property to governmental use without permission is something else.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects’ vehicles to track their every move.

Fern

 

[wuliheron]

Give it up guys.

The government is now investing in gigabyte camera technology. They're tired of the old satellite cameras only being able to focus in on your license plate while ignoring the big picture. They're tired of computer programs that can't track a single individual from one camera to the next and they are very willing to invest billions into being able to figure out what you ate for breakfast and when you are likely to take your next shit from the smallest drop of spit on the sidewalk. The whole GPS thing is merely a way to make it cheaper and easier to do with the equipment they already have. You can draw all the little lines in the sand you want and say, "No Further!" and it won't mean a thing in the long run. What is required is a simple leash to keep this dog from running wild throughout the entire neighborhood and anything less is just so much bullshit reassurances to the neighbors that you are actually doing something.

 

[DCal430]

Everyday I regret voting for Obama more and more. Can't believe I was taken in by him.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I am very conflicted on this.

On the one hand, I oppose it. I'm very against it, and am against anything that is 1984-esque. I don't want cameras monitoring actions in public. I don't want warrentless anything. The courts are there to protect the public from the executive/legislative branches laws, and warrents protect people from law enforcement infringing upon rights that people have.

However, last time I checked, law enforcement is able to watch my movements without a court warrent by an actual officer anytime if I'm in public. This information can then be used to help obtain a warrent. So, realistically what is the difference between GPS and an actual officer? The only difference I can really see is that GPS is cheaper and costs taxpayers less.

So, realistically, what is the difference?

 

[werepossum]

Everyday I regret voting for Obama more and more. Can't believe I was taken in by him.

I suspect the only difference with a President McCain would be that the media would make this a big story.

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect the only difference with a President McCain would be that the media would make this a big story.

Well if McCain were president you would probably have one of the 2 major parties still agitating against it, so they would probably drive some coverage. As things are now, neither party can talk shit because both are implicated. On the other hand Obama's stance is more at odds with his rhetoric than McCains was, as he gleefully endorsed things like this. That probably would diminish coverage.

Overall, I think you could make a guess that with a party driving it you would get a bit more than we've gotten. Let me guess though, you just meant that the Gigantic Worldwide Communist Librul Media Empire would attempt to smear another America Loving Conservative.

 

[werepossum]

Well if McCain were president you would probably have one of the 2 major parties still agitating against it, so they would probably drive some coverage. As things are now, neither party can talk shit because both are implicated. On the other hand Obama's stance is more at odds with his rhetoric than McCains was, as he gleefully endorsed things like this. That probably would diminish coverage.

Overall, I think you could make a guess that with a party driving it you would get a bit more than we've gotten. Let me guess though, you just meant that the Gigantic Worldwide Communist Librul Media Empire would attempt to smear another America Loving Conservative.

Links to McCain "gleefully endorsing" warrantless GPS tracking?

You must be running short of oxygen living in that bubble. Here's a little tidbit:
Networks Link Bush to 'Skyrocketing' Gas Prices 15 Times More Than Obama
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/201...keting_Gas_Prices__Times_More_Than_Obama.html

Connecting Bush, Not Obama to High Prices: As gas prices rose in 2008, network reporters mentioned President Bush in 15 times as many stories, than they brought up President Obama in a similar period in 2011.

Gallons of coverage in 2008: Comparing a 20 day span of rising gas prices in 2008 to 24 days of rising prices in February 2011, the Business & Media Institute found the networks did more than 2 ½ times as many stories during the Bush years versus Obama.

Who am I kidding, we all know that people who self-identify as voting for the Green Party in larger numbers than for the Republican Party are nothing if not completely unbiased! (Cue useful idiots protesting that this inequity is completely fair, just like all the others.)

 

[wuliheron]

Everyday I regret voting for Obama more and more. Can't believe I was taken in by him.

Do UFO sightings peak your interest? How about the Bermuda Triangle and Locke Nest monster? Might I suggest professional counseling is needed rather then continuing to blame professional liars?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You must be running short of oxygen living in that bubble. Here's a little tidbit:
Networks Link Bush to 'Skyrocketing' Gas Prices 15 Times More Than Obama
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/201...keting_Gas_Prices__Times_More_Than_Obama.html

But...but...but...there's no such thing as MSM bias! Everyone who's not an 'idiot' knows this! /s

 

[fskimospy]

Links to McCain "gleefully endorsing" warrantless GPS tracking?

You must be running short of oxygen living in that bubble. Here's a little tidbit:
Networks Link Bush to 'Skyrocketing' Gas Prices 15 Times More Than Obama
http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/201...keting_Gas_Prices__Times_More_Than_Obama.html


Who am I kidding, we all know that people who self-identify as voting for the Green Party in larger numbers than for the Republican Party are nothing if not completely unbiased! (Cue useful idiots protesting that this inequity is completely fair, just like all the others.)

While we're talking about bias, we all know that people who self-identify as 'advancing the culture of free enterprise in America', and part of the same group as the Parents Television Council are nothing if not completely unbiased. I recommend we swallow whatever crap they come up with completely uncritically.

In addition, a sample comparing 20 days in 2008 to 24 days in 2011 should be all you need to prove media bias because CLEARLY a 3 week period is all the sample size you should need for that kind of determination. Then, as the study says, we should get mad at the networks for not blaming Obama's drilling policies for higher oil prices even though oil experts from all over say that they would have little to no effect on current (edit: gas prices). Clearly if they were unbiased they would repeat false things about Obama a lot.

So in other words,

1.) You take an extreme right wing think tank and drag out a study that makes a false claim: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/
2.) Then take an arbitrary 1 month period of time about who is getting blamed for the false issue and compare it to a totally different news cycle from 3 years ago.
3.) Determine that the media is not currently linking Obama to the false and made up issue from #2.
4.) Conclude media bias.

Well that's a winning formula.

But hey, LIBRUL MEDIA GUYS, AMIRITE!@?

 

[fskimospy]

But...but...but...there's no such thing as MSM bias! Everyone who's not an 'idiot' knows this! /s

Glad to see you've finally done your homework and have come to agree with me.

 

[Darwin333]

Warrantless GPS tracking doesn't bother me, I don't make stupid or threatening Facebook messages, not a drug dealer, not associated w/ organized crime. People that should worry are those that make threatening comments about the country, towards other people, are dealers, affiliated w/ organized crime, not ordinary citizens no matter how paranoid they are.

If that is the case then it should be rather easy for the .gov to get a warrant to track the vehicle shouldn't it?

 

[werepossum]

While we're talking about bias, we all know that people who self-identify as 'advancing the culture of free enterprise in America', and part of the same group as the Parents Television Council are nothing if not completely unbiased. I recommend we swallow whatever crap they come up with completely uncritically.

In addition, a sample comparing 20 days in 2008 to 24 days in 2011 should be all you need to prove media bias because CLEARLY a 3 week period is all the sample size you should need for that kind of determination. Then, as the study says, we should get mad at the networks for not blaming Obama's drilling policies for higher oil prices even though oil experts from all over say that they would have little to no effect on current (edit: gas prices). Clearly if they were unbiased they would repeat false things about Obama a lot.

So in other words,

1.) You take an extreme right wing think tank and drag out a study that makes a false claim: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/
2.) Then take an arbitrary 1 month period of time about who is getting blamed for the false issue and compare it to a totally different news cycle from 3 years ago.
3.) Determine that the media is not currently linking Obama to the false and made up issue from #2.
4.) Conclude media bias.

Well that's a winning formula.

But hey, LIBRUL MEDIA GUYS, AMIRITE!@?

Gotcha, the MSM is unbiased because it's appropriate to blame Bush and inappropriate to blame Obama.

The beauty of the rule is that one can substitute any Republican and any Democrat on any possible issue and get the exact same results. It will always be valid to blame to Republican. It will never be valid to blame the Democrat. Thus, there can never be bias.

Just in case it's unclear to anyone NOT living in a bubble, Bozell was not making the case that Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices. He is merely making the case that the mainstream media attaches blame to Bush and does not attach blame to Obama. This holds true for virtually all Republicans and Democrats on virtually all issues over virtually all time periods - all of which will be arbitrary of course. Bubble boys may remain secure knowing that this is not bias because on virtually every issue, every Republican is as guilty as homemade sin and every Democrat is as pure as the wind-driven snow in Chicago.