Many thanks to the ACLU and Mr. Kahle for fighting the good fight for us all.

Your ‘lethargic brain’ needs to give up the idea that you have a ‘Constitutional right to privacy’. You have a right to protection from ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ but that’s a far cry from a right to privacy. Not that you’d ever figure that out from an Eric Mink column.

Realitycheck-

It seems that privacy of one’s own thoughts, beliefs and property are guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. Certainly the 9th amendment through the enumeration clause gives us a right to privacy. Privacy is an essential component of liberty and of course the 14th addresses that right. You may disagree as some others do, but the courts have consistently held that we as American citizens have a right to privacy.

Stuart Katz:

“I had a “Eureka” moment, finally grasping and internalizing the potential and real harm that the gross misuse of this NSL process has caused to my Constitutional right to privacy and freedom.”

Go back to sleep Stuart, it was just gas, a gross misuse of the digestive process. I believe Mink questioned the Constitutionality based on the same crank left wing Judge’s decision that found the law unconstitutional three years ago. Since he’s doing it again, we must assume he was reversed by a higher court and will be again.

Supreme Court decisions over the years have established privacy as a basic human right as covered in the 9th amendment. You’ll have to introduce a new amendment if you want a Gestapo state. I would also guess that privacy of personal information is covered by the 5th amendment as well.

I believe it was Mr. Justice Holmes who famously commented that the most basic right of all is the right to be left alone. Forgive me if I misquoted him.

I ask this question: What limits on the investigative powers of the Executive SHOULD exist? I ask it seriously of those who find no problems with the Patriot Act and it’s kin. If a citizen is being investigated and “we can’t tell you because of National Security implications” is the answer he gets to his rightful demand to know why, is that a legitimate answer? Note that I’m talking about CITIZENS here.

hs:

“I ask this question: What limits on the investigative powers of the Executive SHOULD exist? I ask it seriously of those who find no problems with the Patriot Act and it’s kin.”

You have effectively set up a straw man and demolished him before our very eyes. The right to be secure in your home is balanced with the rights of Jihadists and other crazies to roam the land at will and drop in for unannounced political persuasion visits. While Patriot Act opponents are satisfied with criminal prosecution of the offending visitors, many of us are not sure religious crackpots with a death wish are deterred by the possibility of standing before the bar of justice. Families of 9/11 victims may have serious doubts about your idealistic, Utopian fantasies.

“We have heard the House Bill to implement the 9/11 Commission Report also includes provisions to expand the Patriot Act and reform immigration laws in ways not recommended by the commission. We strongly urge you to take these provisions out of the bill, and not vote for any bill that contains them.” (9/11 Families open letter to the House of Representatives, 6 Oct.’04)

IS - Beware. The unencumbered powers you so quickly bestow on W and crew will one day be those of a Democrat. At that point how many times will I be reading your cites to Animal Farm and Big Brother?

mogoid:

“The unencumbered powers you so quickly bestow on W and crew will one day be those of a Democrat.”

I might just have to learn to live with a Democrat being responsible for the security of our nation but I’ll do my part by not tying his hands behind his back to prevent the execution of his duty. It’s a shame you couldn’t do the same for W and crew.

slamfist:

““We have heard the House Bill to implement the 9/11 Commission Report also includes provisions to expand the Patriot Act and reform immigration laws in ways not recommended by the commission.”

I don’t know which parts of the Patriot Ace and reform immigration laws the Families of 9/11 are objecting to but since Congress is under control of Democrats, the chances are pretty good they weaken it rather than strengthen it.

Thank you Eric Mink for all the help you give us.

Love,

Osama

You will note the date on the letter is 6 Oct. ‘04 so the Congree they were addressing consisted of: House-229 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 independent. Senate-51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 independent. following the ‘04 elections the numbers were House-232(R), 210 (D) and 1 independent. Senate-55 (R), 44 (D), and 1 independent. Regardless, you wondered what the 9/11 families thought and that was provided.

slamfist:

Thank you for the correction. My reader failed to notify me of the letter date. Terminated for cause.

Icono- That’s a good one…I needed a good chuckle today.

Did you ever notice it’s people like Sage who question our rights to personal privacy but undeniably want to secure private citizens their rights to gun ownership?

Garrison:

Private citizens right to own guns is specified in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In 1965, Justice William O. Douglas, invalidated a Connecticut birth-control law (GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT) on the basis of a conjured “right to privacy.” If someone is interfering with your judicially assigned right to buy and use contraceptives, I shall join you in calling them to account.

While we’re on the subject of specified rights vs invented rights, it appears to me that an NSL investigation violates the 5th amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accusers.

I know, to the Sage, the 4th and 5th amendments are mere inconveniences that stand in the way of Justice.

hs:

I’m sure you get tired of my repeating it but your Constitutionally guaranteed, unfettered, absolute right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If your “rights” were the only consideration, you’d be a firebrand liberal. Ooops, sorry, you are.

Sage, I agree with you, that my right to swing my arm ends at your nose, and your right to do the same is identical.

However, I believe that rights are inherent in my nature as a person, they are not bestowed by Government. With that in mind, then, Government functions in ways that can REMOVE my rights (and yours). The most fundamental right of all, is the right to be free to act as I please, and that Government (and you) have no right to know what I do within the privacy of my life…unless I choose to share it with you. If you, either privately or acting through an agent of Government wants to know what I’m up to, then you or the Government has to make a case to me that you need to know..unless I choose to reveal it voluntarily.

If the Government wants to know what I’m doing, then they have to follow very specific rules to find out. They have to prove their case, to me, using legal means. I have to prove nothing. They should not be able to hide behind the euphemism of “national security” to keep from answering questions. After all, the Government works for me, not the other way around. (Something that many government agents, from the tax collector to the superintendent of schools, to the manager of the landfill, conveniently forget all too often). I do not have to cooperate with Government..a point you make quite frequently. In a very real sense, the government has to cooperate with me.

hs:

“The most fundamental right of all, is the right to be free to act as I please, and that Government (and you) have no right to know what I do within the privacy of my life…unless I choose to share it with you.”

May I paraphrase? You can assist terrorists in attacks on the United States and the government can’t interfere unless you choose to share the plan with them? Fercrysakes hs, they ain’t trying to get your wife’s recipe for the potato salad she brought to the company picnic.

Not quite: if the Government thinks I am assisting terrorists, then it is THEIR responsibility to show me what they know, what they think they know, and how they found out those things. If they are unwilling to tell me, a citizen, those things, then I have the absolute right to keep my mouth shut until they DO tell me.

hs:

“Not quite: if the Government thinks I am assisting terrorists, then it is THEIR responsibility to show me what they know, what they think they know, and how they found out those things.”

It certainly is! You have the right to confront your accusers and they might not shirk from that responsibility if you went to trial on criminal charges but an investigation that may save lives can not be limited by the restraints of a trial. The legal penalty for intruding on your “privacy” is the information gained may not be used in a court of law if acquired outside the law. If you and your theoretical henchmen are stopped from killing Americans, I’d be willing to forfeit any pound of flesh gained by your conviction.

Sage, I had a great response, and wordpress ate it I’m going to try again:

Don’t you see that this whole pattern of wanting to set up warrantless searches and NSL letters is a violation of basic constitutional protection from overbearing government intrusion? Don’t you see that the very idea that the President can name a CITIZEN a ‘person of interest’, and have that CITIZEN snatched off the street with no recourse in the courts is a fundamental violation?

Sorry, I understand that there are secrets, and they are important. However, if the Government wants to invade my home and search my possessions (including my computer), then they damn well better have a specific warrant, not an NSL.

hs:

“Don’t you see that this whole pattern of wanting to set up warrantless searches and NSL letters is a violation of basic constitutional protection from overbearing government intrusion?”

I thought I made it clear that I do see that but it is the lesser of two evils when a September 11 attack could be the result. Think back to 2001/2002 when everybody and I mean everybody thought our government didn’t do enough to prevent the attack. As soon as they did do something, Democrats saw a political advantage in attacking a Constitutional straw man. Advocates of a living, breathing Constitution suddenly became strict constructionists, otherwise brave men hid behind the skirts of Iustitia, the Roman Goddess of Justice as if criminal court proceedings were the holy grail.

We do not differ too much but you have not persuaded me to disregard my family’s safety for the purity of the Constitutional word.

Warrantless searches, no-knock entries, and special “letters” from the Supreme One are one short step from Einsatzgruppen activities and the death squads of El Salvador which, of course, the CIA and Special Forces teams set up in the early 60s. The actions groups like the ACLU take are the result of the population getting tired of being afraid-very afraid.

Sage….So Justice Douglas pulled some rabbit out of his hat in Griswold on some silly “conjured” right to privacy…Then you state: “The most fundamental right of all is the right to be free to act as we please, and that governemnt has no right to know what I do in the privacy of my life.”
Unless of course you’re a woman who wants to determine what she can and cannot do with her life or her body…That kind of privacy doesn’t count even though the constitution, which is your apparent field of expertise, only grants right to those born in the United States…You have a few rabbits in your own hat, don’t you?

PS…Your “conjured” second amendment right to own as many guns as you want is up to legal interpretation too….

Garrison:

“Sage….So Justice Douglas pulled some rabbit out of his hat in Griswold on some silly “conjured” right to privacy…Then you state: “The most fundamental right of all is the right to be free to act as we please, and that governemnt has no right to know what I do in the privacy of my life.”

I thought everybody understood what quotation marks meant. Your panties are in a wad over your attribution of hs’s quote to me.

If you’re truly concerned about a woman’s right to control her own body, why do you and the bloodthirsty NARAL butchers resoundingly cheer a post partum abortion when only the last hair on a departing scalp remains in the birth canal?

slamfist:

Warrantless searches, no-knock entries, and special “letters” from the Supreme One are one short step from Einsatzgruppen activities and the death squads of El Salvador which, of course, the CIA and Special Forces teams set up in the early 60s. The actions groups like the ACLU take are the result of the population getting tired of being afraid-very afraid.

Let’s face it slam, I don’t fear the Einsatzgruppen bogeyman any more than you fear a terrorist attack. I hope you’re right.

Sage…my mistake. I should know by now you start every entry by trying to spin someone’s quotes.

So, just were do you draw the line on privacy. Or is there even such a thing as privacy other than gun ownership?

Garrison:

“So, just w(h)ere do you draw the line on privacy. Or is there even such a thing as privacy other than gun ownership?”

Of course there is. The Griswold V. Connecticut that I previously referenced was a good decision. What is bad is so many loopy justices have expanded it beyond the bounds of reason.

If the government really cared about our safety, they’d force us to quarter a troop in our homes to fight those friggin’ islamofascists. This is effective on 2 fronts, we all get a mean, lean, fightin’ machine under our roofs and the government does not have to pay for their room and board! I think that solves all the problems right there…wait a second, isn’t there something in the constitution that protects us silly Americans from having to quarter troops in our homes….geez, that silly bill of rights!!