Al Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official

[red states rule]

With terror plots being uncovered in the US, some libs still do not get it. They want to make sure the "rights" of terrorists are still protected



Al Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official

Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.
Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.

Today’s Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law adequately protects Americans’ civil liberties and Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time.

http://washingtonindependent.com/60611/al-franken-reads-the-4th-amendment-to-justice-department-official

[Insein]

I actually agree with Franken in this. The constitution is specific. Where his integrity disintegrates is that he (and all other Dems) will disregard all other portions of the Constitution that have been desecrated by any number of the laws that have been passed in the the last 12 months. Basically, if it is useful to their agenda, we know they will use the law to its fullest. If it is not useful, they will either disregard it or create an entirely new law or interpretation to an existing law.

[-Cp]

I totally agree w/ Mt. Fruitcake as well...

"..Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither..."
- Benjamin Franklin

[DragonStryk72]

I actually agree with Franken in this. The constitution is specific. Where his integrity disintegrates is that he (and all other Dems) will disregard all other portions of the Constitution that have been desecrated by any number of the laws that have been passed in the the last 12 months. Basically, if it is useful to their agenda, we know they will use the law to its fullest. If it is not useful, they will either disregard it or create an entirely new law or interpretation to an existing law.

But then, the republicans do that same trick just as easily, hence our current issue with the Patriot Act.

[avatar4321]

I happen to disagree. The Fourth Amendment says nothing about wiretaps. For the logical reason there were no telephones when the Fourth Amendment was written.

Since it's the Court that created the Fourth Amendment implications on wiretapping, then logically, the Court has the jurisdiction to define those implications.

Also, searches can be conducted without warrants, and are done all the time when the authorities have probable cause to search. Most searches are warrantless searches. And not just because criminals are really stupid and consent to being searched.

[DragonStryk72]

With terror plots being uncovered in the US, some libs still do not get it. They want to make sure the "rights" of terrorists are still protected



Al Franken Reads the 4th Amendment to Justice Department Official

Just in case he wasn’t familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.
Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.

Today’s Judiciary Committee hearing has so far proceeded much the way yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing did, with Democrats (except the Justice Department witness) expressing skepticism that the current law adequately protects Americans’ civil liberties and Republicans emphasizing the need to have all possible tools for law enforcement available because another major terrorist attack could occur at any time.

http://washingtonindependent.com/60611/al-franken-reads-the-4th-amendment-to-justice-department-official

I agree with Franken in this instance. You, RSR, glorify the 1st and 2nd amendment, but they were not arranged in order of priority, all ten of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are essential to maintain the USA, and you forget that at times, amazingly only when Dems are involved. Had it been Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh doing the exact same thing, you would be here proclaiming how great they are, while castigating the Dems for not doing exactly the thing Al Franken just did.

I do not fear terrorist, much as you seem to. They can't stop us, they can't do much more than agitate us, and try to get us to abandon our own liberty, and it seems to have worked on you to a fantastic degree.

[hjmick]

Ah fuck. Hell has frozen over. I agree with Franken. Fuck...

[red states rule]

I agree with Franken in this instance. You, RSR, glorify the 1st and 2nd amendment, but they were not arranged in order of priority, all ten of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are essential to maintain the USA, and you forget that at times, amazingly only when Dems are involved. Had it been Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh doing the exact same thing, you would be here proclaiming how great they are, while castigating the Dems for not doing exactly the thing Al Franken just did.

I do not fear terrorist, much as you seem to. They can't stop us, they can't do much more than agitate us, and try to get us to abandon our own liberty, and it seems to have worked on you to a fantastic degree.

So all the terrorists did to us on 9-11 was agitate us? I have no problem with what is done to stop attacks, capture and kill terrorists. If wiretaps stop them and lead to their arrest - do it

I am now siding with an Obama Justice Dept official who said it was surreal

[-Cp]

So all the terrorists did to us on 9-11 was agitate us? I have no problem with what is done to stop attacks, capture and kill terrorists. If wiretaps stop them and lead to their arrest - do it

I am now siding with an Obama Justice Dept official who said it was surreal

The problem. however, that this "patriot act" is a sham:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HSXMW2FMC7A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HSXMW2FMC7A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[PostmodernProphet]

sorry guys....the courts have already decided this issue.....you and Al will just have to deal with your misinterpretations.....

[Insein]

I still agree with Franken. Its not that hard to get a warrant to setup a wiretap on someone that you have probably cause for. Probably cause is a very thin veil that can easily be established. To disregard that clause in the 4th ammendment to setup wiretaps on any one they feel like without establishing probable cause opens up a pandora's box when people like Obama are in office wanting to hear what everyone is saying about him.

[red states rule]

I still agree with Franken. Its not that hard to get a warrant to setup a wiretap on someone that you have probably cause for. Probably cause is a very thin veil that can easily be established. To disregard that clause in the 4th ammendment to setup wiretaps on any one they feel like without establishing probable cause opens up a pandora's box when people like Obama are in office wanting to hear what everyone is saying about him.

I would rather have our elected reps do everything they can yo protect is from those who are plotting to do us harm.

Listening to their phone calls is fine, and even Obama voted for it while in the Senate. Even though he said he was opposed to it - then flip flopped

[glockmail]

... the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “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.”...

The places to be searched are the internet and the wireless airwaves; the person is not seized pursuant to the warrant, but may be seized after the collected evidence shows probable cause.

[red states rule]

The places to be searched are the internet and the wireless airwaves; the person is not seized pursuant to the warrant, but may be seized after the collected evidence shows probable cause.

Look at who the voters in MN have elected in the past. A pro wrestler as Gov, and now a failed talk radio host as a Senator

Both followed a script, and did not have a clue how it is like in the real world

[PostmodernProphet]

Its not that hard to get a warrant to setup a wiretap on someone that you have probably cause for.

and except for telephones outside of the US, they do still get a warrant to set up wiretaps.....

[Insein]

Then all is good.