en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/339351 Comments by MatL http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28248718 Yes I disagree with the courts about what is "unreasonable", if the courts are judged by incompetents then it is in our best interest to disagree with them. But that is a different argument. Oh yeah, and our Founding Fathers did disagree with the Courts set up by the King so I find myself in some rather great company. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:55:00 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28248718 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28248402 As I said earlier the mail is not addressed by the Patriot Act. We already have defined by law that mail is private property and the government is charged with it's protection while under its care. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:50:39 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28248402 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28246720 Again please state a case where the Patriot Act was used to open someones mail or illegally search their basement. The Founding Fathers can not be considered as they had no knowledge of emails, computers, and/or phones, and to presume we know how they would have felt about them is a joke. What we do know is why we went to war and your nonsense about writs of assistance is not even touched upon in the Declaration of Independence, which lays out our exact reasons for going to war. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:29:40 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28246720 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28243827 The patriot act does not cover snail mail or your basement. So for this discussion lets stick to the topic at hand. As a side I would consider mail and your basement to be your private property, which I would consider protected. What we are dealing with here are items that are stored on someone elses property or transmitted over "public airwaves" or comminuty transmission lines. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:04:24 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28243827 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28242086 The problem I have here is that most people have misinterpreted the 4th amendment. It only says that you are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures not from searches and seizures. (Example: The police do not need a warrant to search a vehicle caught speeding away from the scene of a crime or a suspects pockets for that matter) I would argue that if our enemies are using the phones , internet, etc... to set up attacks against our country that the Patriot Act's provisions could easily be considered reasonable by any sane judge. Now I know that most of you are thinking that the supreme court ruled on this and you would be correct, but the supreme court has made wrong rulings before and have overturned themselves. I will not even discuss rulings based on nothing that can be found in the constitution. As for the idea that it can be abused all laws can be abused that doesn't make it wrong. Read the 4th for yourselves then read Article I Section 8. I don't care what a Judge that is clearly stepping outside his jurisdiction, rules in this case. The Patriot Act is constitutional and it shouldn't depend on what your definition of is is, I'm sorry I mean what your definition of unreasonable is. Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:46:08 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e5c73c285871b4ae01c48f87ff89af64.3a1#IDComment28242086 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97T45Q80#IDComment20319073 God forbid the papers management try to find a way to sell more papers that apparently their journalists can't seem to put an interesting story in. I wonder how many of these so called journalists are going to work for free when nobody buys their rag. I say tough, if you don't like the way they run the paper, carry your a$$. Fri, 1 May 2009 02:51:19 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97T45Q80#IDComment20319073 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/tslagle/2009/04/16/tea-for-tat/#IDComment19054034 Missed this first time I read some comments, but finally someone else who gets it. Political defeat is the only solution we must defeat the idea of Socialism. To do that we must fight on equal terms with the Left and not let them define us. We let them define the right, by letting them define GWB, nobody on the right defended the things he did well. Now where are the politicians on the right defending the tea party's. I have not seen but a couple but yet the left (MSM) has managed to start labeling them without much retort. We need to challenge the left where we will be heard. Again Thanks TaraLynn. “I quarrel not with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, co-operate with, and do the bidding of, those far away, and without whom the latter would be harmless.” Henry David Thoreau Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:10:24 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/tslagle/2009/04/16/tea-for-tat/#IDComment19054034 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/tslagle/2009/04/16/tea-for-tat/#IDComment19048139 I hope we don't see the WH for fifty years by then the socialists left in this country will have eaten their own and destroyed this country like the Soviets did Russia. We will then return from the four corners of the earth with the wealth we have already secured abroad and protected from these thieves, and regain control once and for all. I will not be around in fifty but my children will enjoy their return. In the mean time the best we can do is protect our fortunes, hide the money its yours. The masses are like parasites they feed off our hard work and just hang around complaining about how hard it is to live off other peoples money. Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:27:12 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/tslagle/2009/04/16/tea-for-tat/#IDComment19048139 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mlong/2009/04/01/review-last-house-on-the-left-presents-rape-as-entertainment/#IDComment17978965 The term "Free Speech" has never been intended to allow a person the right to say or show anything they want at any time. We have always had restraints on what could be said and shown at certain times and places. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting a riot, public nudity, cross burning the list goes on and on. Free speech must be respected and limited by the individuals or the government will be forced to do it for us and that never turns out well. Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:56:42 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mlong/2009/04/01/review-last-house-on-the-left-presents-rape-as-entertainment/#IDComment17978965 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96O45MO0#IDComment16246395 Nobody with an IQ above 25. Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:42:21 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96O45MO0#IDComment16246395 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96O0PAO0#IDComment16235770 So lets recap. Violently kill someone anyone doesn't matter, act insane "God told me to do it", go to mental hospital and stop acting insane and be released in a year. Wow less than two years of your life to off someone. Now that's a legal system we can all die with. Afterthought, how many times can you pull this off before they catch on. I mean it says there is no criminal record, does that mean in ten years that nobody would remember that he had done this before, saying he moved to another province. Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:26:00 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96O0PAO0#IDComment16235770 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16095963 Yes and on April 15th for the forseeable future you'll feel like the MOLE. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:38:25 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16095963 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16094848 Darn, and I just thought he was trying to be funny. Besides, they wouldn't have me I'm Catholic. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:54:29 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16094848 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16094258 Excellent NCMike, I feel as if I'm living in the movie "Idiocracy". People actually believe what these guys are saying is good for them. Sad. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:34:44 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16094258 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16093973 You know someone who was wire tapped illegally. I believe if you look up the FISA ruling you will see that warrantless wire taps could be legal if there is evidence to the tie the American citizen to terrorism or any foreign enemy. In the administrations case the wire taps were of calls between American Nationals and people outside the country suspected of involvement in terrorism. I'd be interested in factual information contrary to that. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:24:55 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16093973 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16092810 Lets make this easy for you people who are angry with the former administration and the freedom they supposedly took from you (which I'm still waiting to here about which people have had their freedoms taken away). The only items in this world that will make you free and keep you that way are money and weapons. Now no matter how far you try to stretch this Bush gave you more of your money in tax breaks and as far as I know never submitted any anti-gun bill. The current administration is taking your money, without which you are at the mercy of the Federal Government, and they have expressed a desire to limit your gun ownership, without which you are at the mercy of the Federal Government (which is why the British during the Rev. took control of the armories) and thugs, you know the people who don't bother to adhere to the laws. So if you want to complain about your rights or freedoms you better be far more scared of the man spending more money than we have than the former administration and hide your guns if they come for them. Do you really want to depend on a reactionary force (police department) to protect you. You know nobody with a restraint order has ever been killed, and if you believe that I've got waterfront available. Enough Said. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:49:47 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16092810 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16091777 Again all night, the Insurrection Act allows troops to be used, and I quote "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition". Now you may be saying that isn't the posse comitatus act but if you are acting under the Insurrection Act, which you would be in the case of terrorism it would apply. The posse comitatus act primarily refers to standard law enforcement not terrorism. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:20:00 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16091777 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16090903 I know I'm waiting for my mortgage to be picked up. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:55:40 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16090903 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16090761 Yes I read. First where in the article did you see US citizen, I quote "terror suspects in the United States" no reference to nationality. Two, the article also never said that it was rescinded because it was wrong, it just said they rescinded it. The article doesn't say anywhere that it is illegal or wrong, if you read further you would see that the current administration doesn't claim its legality either. They simply say that they will review it. Again if you look up the definition of Exigent Circumstances you would see that your statement above could very well be legal, the statement in the article that if they were, and I quote "prevent terrorists from detonating a bomb" it would most certainly be legal. We can do this all night if your reading comprehension doesn't improve. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:52:03 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16090761 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16089832 Mr. Evildoer, it seems as if you need a class on the constitution. Have you ever heard of Exigent Circumstances, any honest lawyer would tell you that after 9/11 any information the government has on a "Terror Suspect" (remember that from the article) would fall under this category and allow for a search and seizure without the warrant. So go take your they're not abiding by the constitution crap fold it up with your knowledge of the constitution and shove it in a Tic-Tac. Tue, 3 Mar 2009 02:25:40 +0000 http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96M4N682#IDComment16089832