[MallyMal]

Check it,

Not too long ago an Atlanta news station ran a story about Atlanta area police departments racial profiling black people in the metro area.

This got me thinking about some past experiences of mine. I remember when I was in high-school that I was asked to join a pilot program for "at-risk" kids because I am black, male, and grew up in a single parent home. In one of those meetings two police officers came to speak to us about juvenile/police relationships. During that conversation the question was asked if we, as young black males, were more likely to be pulled over than a white male. The answer was yes because they felt that white kids are more likely to have the money to have a nice car than a black male. It was kinda shocking to actually hear the police say that they were profiling us.

This brings me to my next thought. People often have this image of black neighborhoods complete with drug dealers on the corner. A lots of times the prison system reflects this with its percentage of minorities that are in prison on drug charges. However, I often wonder if that percentage would be different if white people were profiled. I've lived all over the Atlanta area, black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods.

While I was living the white neighborhood I never saw the police even though the neighborhood was infested with drug dealers(all white). One of my oldest friends used to move $100K of weed a year not including what he made off of coke, and ex. But no one ever profiled him. I remember being unemployed a few years ago and my friend asked me to come sell with him. I told him that I would never sell drugs because I felt I ran a higher risk than hm by being black plus that "just ain't my thang" (I don't drink or smoke).

It amazes me what police officers have told me over the years about racial profiling once they have left the force and are willing to be honest about the subject. So, my question is when is that whole "equal in the eyes of the law" thing is supposed to kick in?

[wataru]

There's no question that blacks are targeted by police, especially with regards to drug-related crimes. In the US, young whites do proportionately (and absolutely) more drugs than young blacks do, but blacks are jailed for the same crimes at a rate many times higher than whites. If you are a black man, the probability that you will see the inside of a prison cell within your lifetime is close to 33%.

When will it end? When a large enough group of people start making this the hot-button issue and don't let up. They must hold elected officials responsible for their actions and inactions. They must vote in large enough numbers to be heard. As long as the Bush regime continues to push terrorism as America's number one problem, nothing will get better. In fact I'd wager things will get worse as police authority gets stronger and our civil rights are weakened by things like the PATRIOT act.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
It amazes me what police officers have told me over the years about racial profiling once they have left the force and are willing to be honest about the subject. So, my question is when is that whole "equal in the eyes of the law" thing is supposed to kick in?

I don't think it would be wise to just wait for it to 'kick in'. Unfortunately, these things don't change unless enough people shout about it and bring it to the forefront of government attention.

[Axo1ot1]

There's so much systemic racism in this country. It's really outrageous. A black male has a higher chance of being shot to death today than an American soldier did in world war one. It's a vicious cycle too, because blacks are less likely to receive good educaiton, and they have a herder time just dealing with the system, so they aren't well represented in the government and they are essentially blocked from working within the system to make the situation improve. Democrats really take the black vote for granted, too. It's so upsetting.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
There's so much systemic racism in this country. It's really outrageous. A black male has a higher chance of being shot to death today than an American soldier did in world war one. It's a vicious cycle too, because blacks are less likely to receive good educaiton, and they have a herder time just dealing with the system, so they aren't well represented in the government and they are essentially blocked from working within the system to make the situation improve. Democrats really take the black vote for granted, too. It's so upsetting.

I remember posting on this topic, especially regarding incarceration of Black people in America...

God was I hated on that day...

May be I should revisit that thread...

Here.

[Ice33]

Originally posted by wataru:
In the US, young whites do proportionately (and absolutely) [USE] more drugs than young blacks do,

Where did you pull that figure from? I'd need to see real numbers on this to believe it not just take the statement as fact.

[MallyMal]

I agree with all of the comments above but I forget mention that those prison sentences also have the side-effect of the person losing voting rights even though I wanted to speak more about the profiling than the politics of the profiling.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by wataru:
our civil rights are weakened by things like the PATRIOT act.

Please cite specific examples of this happening.

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by wataru:
When will it end?

When people stop selling dope, gang bangin', and commiting crimes.

These losers are in jail because they commited crimes. It's unfortunate that the prison population is disproportionately black, but you can't excuse their behaviour and chalk it up to some White Man's conspiracy.

If you're gonna to the crime, you better do the time.

People like you are the reason NYC turned into a crack-laced, crime-ridden sh*thole to begin with. It took someone with a steel sack to start locking up the thugs and criminals without worrying about their colour.

[macroy]

I remember one time in college a (African American) buddy and me were going into a dance sponsored by an Asian school group. Since they had issues with local asian gangs causing trouble, they always had a off duty officer there for security. When we showed up, the officer scoped my buddy out and actually pulled him aside for questioning. My buddy just answered his questions and nothing came of it. But he was the only one I saw being questioned during the night...

This is definitely a negative regarding our society. However, I also do believe that there are some folks that use it as an excuse to move their political agenda (i.e. play the race card).... which is just as deplorable.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
When people stop selling dope, gang bangin', and commiting crimes.

These losers are in jail because they commited crimes. It's unfortunate that the prison population is disproportionately black, but you can't excuse their behaviour and chalk it up to some White Man's conspiracy.

If you're gonna to the crime, you better do the time.

People like you are the reason NYC turned into a crack-laced, crime-ridden sh*thole to begin with. It took someone with a steel sack to start locking up the thugs and criminals without worrying about their colour.

But should black people be put in jail disproportionately more often than white people for the same crime? There's no excuse for that.

The US is about 70% white. Most crime is committed by white people. But who makes up most of the prison population? It sure isn't whites.

I love it when people accuse those who decry racism of being conspiracy theorists. Racism is still a powerful force in this country, and those who deny its existence are part of the problem.

Originally posted by Ice33:
Where did you pull that figure from? I'd need to see real numbers on this to believe it not just take the statement as fact.

I took a class this summer on race relations in the US and it was in there somewhere. I don't have the exact source handy.

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Please cite specific examples of this happening.

How about the ACLU not even being able to disclose the fact that they're engaged in a lawsuit with the government about the PATRIOT act? They managed to convince the court that they had a right to reveal just the bare facts of the case, but they're still under strict gag orders vis a vis the very law they're trying to eliiminate.

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
When people stop selling dope, gang bangin', and commiting crimes.

These losers are in jail because they commited crimes. It's unfortunate that the prison population is disproportionately black, but you can't excuse their behaviour and chalk it up to some White Man's conspiracy.

If you're gonna to the crime, you better do the time.

People like you are the reason NYC turned into a crack-laced, crime-ridden sh*thole to begin with. It took someone with a steel sack to start locking up the thugs and criminals without worrying about their colour.

Wataru and I weren't giving excuses for the people in jail. We were saying that the law should be applied equally. If you are going to profile black profile you have to profile every one else or just not profile at all. Dig it?

[Ice33]

Originally posted by wataru:

I took a class this summer on race relations in the US and it was in there somewhere. I don't have the exact source handy.

Well dig it up because it needs clarification. Do a larger percentage of white youths do drugs than black youths? Or just a larger number? If it is just a larger number given your figure that 70% of the country is white then that has different meaning. Or are you saying that of the youths that do drugs in the country that those who are white do more drugs on average than black youths who do drugs.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by wataru:
How about the ACLU not even being able to disclose the fact that they're engaged in a lawsuit with the government about the PATRIOT act? They managed to convince the court that they had a right to reveal just the bare facts of the case, but they're still under strict gag orders vis a vis the very law they're trying to eliiminate.

Judges impose gag orders on all types of cases, all of the time.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Ice33:
Well dig it up because it needs clarification. Do a larger percentage of white youths do drugs than black youths? Or just a larger number? If it is just a larger number given your figure that 70% of the country is white then that has different meaning. Or are you saying that of the youths that do drugs in the country that those who are white do more drugs on average than black youths who do drugs.

All of my stuff is packed away, so sorry, I can't just dig it up. I will rephrase: Disproportionately more whites do drugs than blacks. That means that yes, a larger percentage of young whites do drugs than young blacks. I have no idea about how "much" drugs per person that breaks down to.

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Judges impose gag orders on all types of cases, all of the time.

Not such that you can't even reveal the basic fact that you are a party in the case.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by wataru:
Not such that you can't even reveal the basic fact that you are a party in the case.

Is it possible that portions of the case involve Matters of National Security and the judge wants to keep all publicity out?

[MallyMal]

Another Story: I have another friend who is a retired GA State Patrol Officer. He told me that often times his State Patrol colleagues would purposely go to black neighborhood clubs to cite people. State Patrol officers aren't supposed to be in those neighborhoods they are supposed to leave that for that city's officers to handle. The chief never questioned the officers actions.

My friend cought wind of this and started going to Buckhead, which at the time was mostly a white area for clubbing, and did the same citing that other guys were doing. However, this time the chief started asking questions about why my friend was in the area. Strange huh?

Edit: I meant commanding officer rather than chief

[wataru]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Is it possible that portions of the case involve Matters of National Security and the judge wants to keep all publicity out?

If you're intent on bending over backwards to be a PATRIOT apologist, then I suppose so.

Seriously, just do a little reading about the ACLU case. It's chilling.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by wataru:
All of my stuff is packed away, so sorry, I can't just dig it up. I will rephrase: Disproportionately more whites do drugs than blacks. That means that yes, a larger percentage of young whites do drugs than young blacks. I have no idea about how "much" drugs per person that breaks down to.
Not such that you can't even reveal the basic fact that you are a party in the case.

For starters.

And also this.

It is a good idea to read the first document, because it defines races, and drugs.

This document is also of interest.

And a Frontline summary.

It is dangerous to make global and generalizing affirmations, simply because the problematic of addiction affects many populations, vary from State to State, and "drugs" will also include cigarettes. "Addiction" will also include gambling in some studies. It also eludes the reasons leading to the addiction.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
I agree with all of the comments above but I forget mention that those prison sentences also have the side-effect of the person losing voting rights even though I wanted to speak more about the profiling than the politics of the profiling.

There is a movement afoot to let inmates vote. I forget the website.

[voyageur]

MallyMal, your two profiling stories are interesting, and thank you for sharing them. My question is (and perhaps this is what you are getting at also), when and how can one take legal action when one has evidence this is happening? What law protects people from this? Or are there no laws? Can civil rights laws be used to ensure that police target both the white and the black neighborhoods equally if there is drug-dealing is going on in both?

[Ice33]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
For starters.

And also this.

It is a good idea to read the first document, because it defines races, and drugs.

This document is also of interest.

And a Frontline summary.

It is dangerous to make global affirmations, simply because the problematic of addiction affects many populations, vary from State to State, and "drugs" will also include cigarettes. "Addiction" will also include gambling in some studies. It also eludes the reasons leading to the addiction.

From a quick glance at the tables the numbers are higher for white youths but then when you look at adults blacks have a higher percentage.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Ice33:
From a quick glance at the tables the numbers are higher for white youths but then when you look at adults blacks have a higher percentage.

Which is why I warn that to read all these studies will give a better understanding of the situation.

Any statistical study is a snapshot and can be understood inside a context; without context, the study will lose its value and the numbers will become meaningless.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by wataru:
If you're intent on bending over backwards to be a PATRIOT apologist, then I suppose so.

Seriously, just do a little reading about the ACLU case. It's chilling.

Link?

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by wataru:
But should black people be put in jail disproportionately more often than white people for the same crime?

People who commit crimes should go to jail. Simply trying to enforce a white version of Affirmative Action in prisons should not give a black criminal a free pass on incarceration.

Your question is irrelevant. people of all colours go to jail for their crimes. If it is disproportionate, then that is a separate issue.

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
Wataru and I weren't giving excuses for the people in jail. We were saying that the law should be applied equally. If you are going to profile black profile you have to profile every one else or just not profile at all. Dig it?

maybe they're not profiling. Everyone knows that the biggest terrorist threats posed to the West is from Arabs, Muslims, or both. Is it 'profiling' to focus on that group more than others? Yes. Is it justified by probability, history, and intelligence? Yes.

If most drug crime happens in inner cities, urban and poor areas, and those areas are disproportionately black, then it isn't too hard to see how the prison population might be of similar composition.

and what about serial killers? Those might be disproportionately white. Are we gonna bitch and moan about the police profiling whites and singling them out? God no.

You people need to get with the program or else some junkie or terrorist is going to expose your gray matter to direct sunlight. Then you can complain to Allah all you want about that terrorist profiling your white, European arse.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
maybe they're not profiling. Everyone knows that the biggest terrorist threats posed to the West is from Arabs, Muslims, or both. Is it 'profiling' to focus on that group more than others? Yes. Is it justified by probability, history, and intelligence? Yes.

If most drug crime happens in inner cities, urban and poor areas, and those areas are disproportionately black, then it isn't too hard to see how the prison population might be of similar composition.

and what about serial killers? Those might be disproportionately white. Are we gonna bitch and moan about the police profiling whites and singling them out? God no.

You people need to get with the program or else some junkie or terrorist is going to expose your gray matter to direct sunlight. Then you can complain to Allah all you want about that terrorist profiling your white, European arse.

Obsessive little fu�ker, aren't you?

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
There is a movement afoot to let inmates vote. I forget the website.

Brilliant. Hey, if they get this passed before 2008, maybe the Reverend Al Sharpton will actually have a chance. Seeing as how whitey is keeping African Americans from voting by putting 'em all in jail.

Whatever.

[subego]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Please cite specific examples of this happening.

If you think it is okay to curtail some of our civil rights because of terrorism (or whatever reason), that's fine. It's a completely legitimate argument. I can even understand where you're coming from, though I cannot express with mere words how vehemently I disagree.

If you're maintaining the PATRIOT act actually doesn't reduce our civil rights...

Well, I don't know what to do with that.

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:

If most drug crime happens in inner cities, urban and poor areas, and those areas are disproportionately black, then it isn't too hard to see how the prison population might be of similar composition.

Could you take a step back and read the information that angaq0k provided above? Read it carefully and in it's entirety. Then come back tell me why blacks or other minorities are only getting profiled. Things are not always what they may seem.

BTW, thank you very much for the info. angaq0k.

Then you can complain to Allah all you want about that terrorist profiling your white, European arse.

Umm, last time I checked my arse/ass was neither white or European(you don't realize how hard it was for me not to take a pic of my ass just to clown you on that comment).

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by subego:
If you think it is okay to curtail some of our civil rights because of terrorism (or whatever reason), that's fine. It's a completely legitimate argument. I can even understand where you're coming from, though I cannot express with mere words how vehemently I disagree.

If you're maintaining the PATRIOT act actually doesn't reduce our civil rights...

Well, I don't know what to do with that.

Again, please cite specific examples of where our civil rights have been curtailed.

The PATRIOT act doesn't reduce our civil rights.

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by voyageur:
MallyMal, your two profiling stories are interesting, and thank you for sharing them. My question is (and perhaps this is what you are getting at also), when and how can one take legal action when one has evidence this is happening? What law protects people from this? Or are there no laws? Can civil rights laws be used to ensure that police target both the white and the black neighborhoods equally if there is drug-dealing is going on in both?

Madam V, one can file suit against the department *if* one can prove that profiling is going on. However, a lots of times it's very hard to prove that it is truly going on unless the police department gets really blatant about the practice. Another thing is that a lot people have no idea of their rights.

As far the white neighborhood I was speaking about, most of the people there simply don't believe that the drug-dealing is going on because on the outside there were no dealers on the corner. This was a neighborhood literally full of stay-at-home PTA moms. They organized the cub scouts and all of that but their kids were all either selling, using or both. It's kinda funny to watch as folks look so wholesome and healthy and then find out their kids have huge bags of weed and illegal firearms hidden in the basement.

The attitude reminds me of the Columbine incident. Everyone was shocked because it was "such a nice neighborhood" and saying "This shouldn't have happened here" because everyone seems to think this kinda sh*t only goes on the "ghetto" to the "poor" and the black and/or minority community.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
The attitude reminds me of the Columbine incident. Everyone was shocked because it was "such a nice neighborhood" and saying "This shouldn't have happened here" because everyone seems to think this kinda sh*t only goes on the "ghetto" to the "poor" and the black and/or minority community.

It is incredible to see that some neibourghoods are described as Paradise on Earth, yet, once we start scratching the surface, it turns into Hell.

The difference is often in the Silence on which everybody agrees to, while the most targeted communities cannot bare the silence anymore, because the community member's are going through intolerable levels of pain and injustice, and their coping ways are just more self-destructive than the silence promoted elsewhere.

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
Brilliant. Hey, if they get this passed before 2008, maybe the Reverend Al Sharpton will actually have a chance. Seeing as how whitey is keeping African Americans from voting by putting 'em all in jail.

Whatever.

Great attitude, you ever notice that every thread on here that deals with black people always has someone that comes to mention Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, O.J., or black people trying to do various things to "whitey"?

Sometimes I really question if I should post here.

[Thilo Ettelt]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
Check it,

Not too long ago an Atlanta news station ran a story about Atlanta area police departments racial profiling black people in the metro area.

This got me thinking about some past experiences of mine. I remember when I was in high-school that I was asked to join a pilot program for "at-risk" kids because I am black, male, and grew up in a single parent home. In one of those meetings two police officers came to speak to us about juvenile/police relationships. During that conversation the question was asked if we, as young black males, were more likely to be pulled over than a white male. The answer was yes because they felt that white kids are more likely to have the money to have a nice car than a black male. It was kinda shocking to actually hear the police say that they were profiling us.

This brings me to my next thought. People often have this image of black neighborhoods complete with drug dealers on the corner. A lots of times the prison system reflects this with its percentage of minorities that are in prison on drug charges. However, I often wonder if that percentage would be different if white people were profiled. I've lived all over the Atlanta area, black neighborhoods and white neighborhoods.

While I was living the white neighborhood I never saw the police even though the neighborhood was infested with drug dealers(all white). One of my oldest friends used to move $100K of weed a year not including what he made off of coke, and ex. But no one ever profiled him. I remember being unemployed a few years ago and my friend asked me to come sell with him. I told him that I would never sell drugs because I felt I ran a higher risk than hm by being black plus that "just ain't my thang" (I don't drink or smoke).

It amazes me what police officers have told me over the years about racial profiling once they have left the force and are willing to be honest about the subject. So, my question is when is that whole "equal in the eyes of the law" thing is supposed to kick in?

I'm amazed that you are so amazed about this. I live in Germany and know about all that stuff in the US. Plus, this has been discussed in probably hundreds of music titles (mainly hip hop).


- Thilo

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by Thilo Ettelt:
I'm amazed that you are so amazed about this. I live in Germany and know about all that stuff in the US. Plus, this has been discussed in probably hundreds of music titles (mainly hip hop).


- Thilo

Maybe amazed was the wrong word. Of course I know about this but I wanted to discuss it.

[rambo47]

Hell, even police dogs are guilty of racial profiling. I recall on several occasionsmany times while walking to work in NYC from the old PATH station in the World Trade Center seeing K-9 cops with their dogs sitting idly by. whites, latinos, and orientals walking past the dogs, maybe 1 or 2 feet away, and the dog just lies there napping. It could have been dead except for the slow breathing as a sign of life.

On one occasion a black male, coat and tie like everyone else, walks by maybe 3 or 4 feet away, doesn't even notice the dog as he's reading his paper. The dog jumps up and goes beserk! If the cop didn't have the leash wrapped around his wrist there's no telling how bad it would have been. The dog was practically rabid, full attack mode! The tile floor of the concourse kept the dog from getting any traction, but as it was he almost pulled the officer's arm out of the socket. The cop scolded the dog, which immediately calmed down and went back to napping on the cool floor.

[Malt Magics]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
maybe they're not profiling. Everyone knows that the biggest terrorist threats posed to the West is from Arabs, Muslims, or both. Is it 'profiling' to focus on that group more than others? Yes. Is it justified by probability, history, and intelligence? Yes.

If most drug crime happens in inner cities, urban and poor areas, and those areas are disproportionately black, then it isn't too hard to see how the prison population might be of similar composition.

and what about serial killers? Those might be disproportionately white. Are we gonna bitch and moan about the police profiling whites and singling them out? God no.

You people need to get with the program or else some junkie or terrorist is going to expose your gray matter to direct sunlight. Then you can complain to Allah all you want about that terrorist profiling your white, European arse.

It is profiling, and I feel it's perfectly justified because it makes logical sense, just as how on the west coast, police may profile Hispanics and/or Asians in the same way. I particularly agree with the profiling of muslims. Until terrorism begins recruiting people from all races, it's a waste of time to consider everyone a terrorist.

Black people to get the shorter end of the stick compared to whites when it comes to the legal system. With poor education, lack of economic equality and draconian drug laws, coupled with racial profiling, the prison population will be disproportionate. The white people that commit crimes dealing with narcotics in middle class neighnborhoods are rarely suspected nor profile for such things. Out in the mid-west you have white people going to jail for producing methamphetamine, but in major cities, the majority of drug offenders are composed of ethnic populations. Being able to hire proper legal counseling is also a factor.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
Madam V, one can file suit against the department *if* one can prove that profiling is going on. However, a lots of times it's very hard to prove that it is truly going on unless the police department gets really blatant about the practice. Another thing is that a lot people have no idea of their rights.

Proof that profiling is indeed going to be a difficult thing, I can see--for several reasons. As you say, unless it's blatant, it's going to be hard to get hard evidence. Additionally, even if one does obtain evidence, say, in the form of videotapes of drug offences in the white neighborhood, it means turning in people, maybe kids, to the police, which many people are reluctant to do.

All people (of any color) want is to be treated fairly. But humans innately are "pattern-matchers". We naturally perceive patterns and trends to help us make sense of the world around us. But many times we are misinformed, or just overly eager to see a pattern where there isn't one. It's hard to break these patterns once they're ingrained. The police are further trained to match patterns; it helps them nab criminals. But it also backfires in some cases.

I don't have any answers, but find it a very troubling issue that needs to be dealt with.

[MallyMal]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Proof that profiling is indeed going to be a difficult thing, I can see--for several reasons. As you say, unless it's blatant, it's going to be hard to get hard evidence. Additionally, even if one does obtain evidence, say, in the form of videotapes of drug offences in the white neighborhood, it means turning in people, maybe kids, to the police, which many people are reluctant to do.

All people (of any color) want is to be treated fairly. But humans innately are "pattern-matchers". We naturally perceive patterns and trends to help us make sense of the world around us. But many times we are misinformed, or just overly eager to see a pattern where there isn't one. It's hard to break these patterns once they're ingrained. The police are further trained to match patterns; it helps them nab criminals. But it also backfires in some cases.

I don't have any answers, but find it a very troubling issue that needs to be dealt with.

I agree with your statements totally. But another thing that bugs me is the fact that so many people deny that this goes on simply because it doesn't happen to them.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by MallyMal:
Sometimes I really question if I should post here.

[UR-20]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Is it possible that portions of the case involve Matters of National Security and the judge wants to keep all publicity out?

Ah, "Matters of National Security" four simple words the govenment
uses when they want to justify anything they do.

[subego]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Again, please cite specific examples of where our civil rights have been curtailed.

The PATRIOT act doesn't reduce our civil rights.

SEC. 216. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO USE OF PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Paragraph (B)(1)(a): ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The order, upon service of that order, shall apply to any person or entity providing wire or electronic communication service in the United States whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order. Whenever such an order is served on any person or entity not specifically named in the order, upon request of such person or entity, the attorney for the Government or law enforcement or investigative officer that is serving the order shall provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served[/B]

There's no mention anywhere of probable cause, which is the prime requirement for legitimate invasion of privacy (Bill of Rights: Amendment IV). The PATRIOT act only requires the attorney to "certify" it to the court (relevant portion emphasized).

[Sod Off Sadr]

Originally posted by subego:
There's no mention anywhere of probable cause, which is the prime requirement for legitimate invasion of privacy (Bill of Rights: Amendment IV). The PATRIOT act only requires the attorney to "certify" it to the court (relevant portion emphasized).

you are wrong. the yankee constitution does not talk about probable cause, only protection against unreasonable search and seizures. It has been left to the Congress and federal judiciary to legislate and interpret, respectfully, on what defines unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by subego:
There's no mention anywhere of probable cause, which is the prime requirement for legitimate invasion of privacy (Bill of Rights: Amendment IV). The PATRIOT act only requires the attorney to "certify" it to the court (relevant portion emphasized).

if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation

But it still has to go before a judge. So roving wiretaps are a bad idea? If a criminal changes cell phones daily (or hourly for that matter), should law enforcement have to go back and get a new warrant everytime?

[Sod Off Sadr]

what the heck happened to my other post, and the guy who agreed with me? Are you mods deleting posts now? have you stooped so low as to let the leftist garbage ramble on and now censor the centrist views and voices of reason?


Just move this junk to the polwar thread where it really belongs.

[subego]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
So roving wiretaps are a bad idea? If a criminal changes cell phones daily (or hourly for that matter), should law enforcement have to go back and get a new warrant everytime?

Now it's my turn to repeat:

If you think it is okay to curtail some of our civil rights because of terrorism (or whatever reason), that's fine. It's a completely legitimate argument. I can even understand where you're coming from, though I cannot express with mere words how vehemently I disagree.

If you're maintaining the PATRIOT act actually doesn't reduce our civil rights...

Well, I don't know what to do with that.

[subego]

Originally posted by Sod Off Sadr:
you are wrong. the yankee constitution does not talk about probable cause, only protection against unreasonable search and seizures. It has been left to the Congress and federal judiciary to legislate and interpret, respectfully, on what defines unreasonable searches and seizures.

Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[edit: didn't close a tag]

[Gankdawg]

Originally posted by subego:
Now it's my turn to repeat:

If you think it is okay to curtail some of our civil rights

Which civil right is being violated?

[subego]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Which civil right is being violated?

The right to privacy. Article IV. Conveniently posted above for reference.