'modest encroachments'

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Arrest equals taking DNA/fingerprints not just being alive. Small difference I know

you're wrong. making a mass search to find suspicious activity is no different from checking one person, without probable cause, for the same thing. you are not being consistent. you either have to have cause, or you don't. a judge did not sign off on king, but did on the phone records. is king a criminal? yes. are some verizon customers probably criminal? yes.

[Danzig]

the obama admin. may start a criminal probe about these phone record searches...
not into who ordered it, or who gathered all the evidence, but into who leaked the existence of the search.

obama has prosecuted more 'leakers' than all previous presidents combined.
yeah, land of the free, with an unfettered freedom of the press. freedom from illegal search and seizure....

[bigrun]

Here's another for dell..

'George W. Obama'....That's an insult to Obama..







http://now.msn.com/george-w-obama-vi...from-the-left/

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Here's another for dell..

'George W. Obama'....That's an insult to Obama..









http://now.msn.com/george-w-obama-vi...from-the-left/

America's first half-Black President

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Here's another for dell..

'George W. Obama'....That's an insult to Obama..







http://now.msn.com/george-w-obama-vi...from-the-left/

it is not an insult, they are one in the same

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the obama admin. may start a criminal probe about these phone record searches...
not into who ordered it, or who gathered all the evidence, but into who leaked the existence of the search.

obama has prosecuted more 'leakers' than all previous presidents combined.
yeah, land of the free, with an unfettered freedom of the press. freedom from illegal search and seizure....

I just wish the President would realize the Patriot Act wasn't put in place to listen/watch/harass Patriots but instead to keep them safe. Obviously the Boston bombers weren't part of the public being monitored but then again they weren't Patriots either.

[bigrun]

Now tell me you don't like this one..

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I just wish the President would realize the Patriot Act wasn't put in place to listen/watch/harass Patriots but instead to keep them safe. Obviously the Boston bombers weren't part of the public being monitored but then again they weren't Patriots either.

oh bullshit.

The Patriot Act was put in place to strip away the constitution of the united states.

The only thing that has equal, Bi Partisan support in Washington is spying on the citizens and taking away rights. I laugh when someone who is attached to a party blames the other party. They both do it, equally.

[Danzig]

hey lori!!!!!!!!!

[bigrun]

I'm neutral..

[Danzig]

When I am President, one of the first things I am going to do is call my Attorney General and say to him, 'I want you to review every executive order that's been issued by George Bush - whether it relates to warrantless wiretaps, or detaining people, or reading emails, or whatever it is - I want you to go through every single one of them.' And if they're unconstitutional, if they're encroaching on civil liberties unnecessarily, we are going to overturn them." Barack Obama, 2007

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

you're wrong. making a mass search to find suspicious activity is no different from checking one person, without probable cause, for the same thing. you are not being consistent. you either have to have cause, or you don't. a judge did not sign off on king, but did on the phone records. is king a criminal? yes. are some verizon customers probably criminal? yes.

Except for the fact King was under arrest for a felony and verizon customers were/are not.

If he left a finger print at the scene of the rape, instead of DNA that was entered into IAFIS and came up as a match to the crime when his prints were run be OK? Or would printing him be a violation of his 4rth amendment?

DNA is just a more precise fingerprint IMO.

Had he been arrested on trumped up charges solely in order to get a DNA swab, that would be a violation of his 4rth amendment rights but that wasn't the case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Except for the fact King was under arrest for a felony and verizon customers were/are not.

If he left a finger print at the scene of the rape, instead of DNA that was entered into IAFIS and came up as a match to the crime when his prints were run be OK? Or would printing him be a violation of his 4rth amendment?

DNA is just a more precise fingerprint IMO.

Had he been arrested on trumped up charges solely in order to get a DNA swab, that would be a violation of his 4rth amendment rights but that wasn't the case.

i'm sorry you're choosing to ignore the fact that his dna was NOT USED FOR ID. an arrest does NOT equal guilty. looking at one man's dna in a dna pool with NO names isn't making sure he's who he says he is. it is looking at all unsolved crimes as a way to create suspicion. much like looking thru phone records is a way to create suspicion, not confirm. searches are supposed to be performed on people if you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a specific crime.
and kings arrest when they did the dna-resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony. many states do dna swabs on convicts, not arrestees. that is what it should be in all states.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sorry you're choosing to ignore the fact that his dna was NOT USED FOR ID. an arrest does NOT equal guilty. looking at one man's dna in a dna pool with NO names isn't making sure he's who he says he is. it is looking at all unsolved crimes as a way to create suspicion. much like looking thru phone records is a way to create suspicion, not confirm. searches are supposed to be performed on people if you have reasonable suspicion they have committed a specific crime.
and kings arrest when they did the dna-resulted in a misdemeanor conviction, not a felony. many states do dna swabs on convicts, not arrestees. that is what it should be in all states.

And you choose to ignore the fact when one is printed it is run through IAFIS not only to see if it matches a previous print on file but also latent prints taken from crimes. If the arrestee is coming through the system for the first time there is no print match on file but it is still run for unknown suspects from a crime. I'm sure when the latent print is obtained and ran it comes back no hit. Otherwise a warrant would all ready exist for the arrestee. I believe there is even an award given by the FBI for latent print hit of the year. This guy's original charge was classified as a felony and he pled down for a reason I suspect.

Fingerprinting started with no data base to confirm identity but it did create an identifier besides a name for arrestees/convicts. The same can be said of DNA especially taken in a swab only it's a much more precise identifier.

The comparing of Verizon customers to this felon I just don't get.

[Danzig]

they both have to do with the fourth amendment. if you read scalia's dissent, which i figure you have not, you'll see the case he laid out, and the arguments he made. it all has to do with searches to create suspicion, vs a warranted search due to suspicion/probable cause.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

they both have to do with the fourth amendment. if you read scalia's dissent, which i figure you have not, you'll see the case he laid out, and the arguments he made. it all has to do with searches to create suspicion, vs a warranted search due to suspicion/probable cause.

I will stick with the majority of the Supreme court on this one. Maybe it's because I see a difference between an individual under arrest for a felony and an individual going about his day, armed with a cell phone. Meanwhile I don't see much difference between a fingerprint and DNA swab.

You keep ignoring the fact arrestees and convicts have had their prints matched to murders/rapes/bank robberies for eons with no suspicion or probable cause as you see it. The matching of King to the rape could have come from a print left at the scene, instead it came from DNA.

[Danzig]

have you read the dissent?

the majority gave a ruling based on 'identity'. scalie completely demolishes that reasoning, and excoriates the 'logic' behind the ruling. the dna swab was NOT to search identity, which was what the majority based their decision on.
also, his dissent explains in detail about searching based not on probable cause, but on finding probable cause. he also explains that fingerprinting has never been ruled on by scotus, it's one of those things that we've become inured to with time.
you know, what this admin is hoping we will become regarding emails, etc? and we've seen majority opinions be wrong, and later overturned. i'm hoping that's what happens here.

again, have you read the dissent? if not, you're refusing to look into something that may sway your thinking. better not do that, right?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

You keep ignoring the fact arrestees and convicts have had their prints matched to murders/rapes/bank robberies for eons with no suspicion or probable cause as you see it.