There are arguably constitutional barriers to some of the Israeli policies, but those same barriers should be present in the system we have now. I guess the constitution just means whatever the hell the ruling party wants it to mean.

Pretty much. It seems the biggest flaw of the constitution is that it's subject to interpretation. Perhaps we need some engineers to rewrite it in a concise and inarguable format.

Personally, I'm just boycotting flying. I don't even like being in a plane anyway. `-`

Looks like the TSA aren't the only ones running roughshod over the 4th amendment. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/fourth-amendment-email-2/

Indeed, I was very interested to see that on your Facebook. Since when are emails older than 180 days magically not private property anymore?

Since the late 80s evidently....

Evidently, but I have a big problem with that, and I'm glad that only my emails are in the cloud; things like that make me seriously consider switching back to Thunderbird and local mail.

Well even with Thunderbird, you'd have to do POP instead of IMAP, which is a huge inconvenience.

While I agree that law needs to be changed, they do have a really good reason for wanting to go through people's emails(catching and jailing child molesters)...

Due process. It works. Use it.

But does it work fast enough to prevent the suffering of children? I'd like to think it does, but if it were shown that it does not work fast enough, I might be willing to give up some privacy to save some children. I understand your concerns(and would certainly hope there's a better, more loophole-free way of doing this), but if I had to choose between privacy and the safety of children, it would be difficult for me to go against the kids.

The thing is----people who trade in child pornography are not going to be trading anything that's happening in real time, so the time critical factor really has very little to do with it.

But in the time it takes the authorities to get a warrant to gather the evidence they need, a molester can harm another child. There was a guy from my church that molested well over 100 boys before they were able to get enough evidence to arrest him. I understand why you value your privacy, and for the most part I feel the same way, but to play devil's advocate, there is a tradeoff between your personal privacy(and by extension the privacy of criminals) and the ability for law enforcement to remove dangerous people.

EDIT- I revised this a few times

What were the time spans involved here? Specifically, the span of time that he was molesting vs the span of time that he was being investigated prior to arrest? There's a huge difference between having enough evidence to arrest someone, and having a reasonable suspicion necessary for a warrant.



Giving law enforcement increased ability to remove dangerous people means giving them an increased ability to remove non-dangerous people as well. When "gathering evidence" becomes more important than due process we end up with places like Guantanamo which is fueled by the belief that it's better to lock up potential terrorists beyond the reach of the law than to risk another 9/11.

Watch the scenes with Weir (and Ronon) and Kavanagh in "Critical Mass" from season 2 of SGA, or the scenes with Starbuck and Leoben from "Flesh and Bone" in season 1 of the rebooted BSG if you want to see what happens when we deem an issue is too time sensitive to bother with the law in collecting evidence.

Texas sticks up for its citizens, and the federal government threatens to block flights to Texas.

http://consumerist.com/2011/05/tsa-could-ban-flights-to-texas-if-state-passes-anti-patdown-law.html

[edit]

As a side note, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul were both in opposition to the recent extension of the Patriot Act. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0527/Patriot-Act-three-controversial-provisions-that-Congress-voted-to-keep

Or The Drumhead in season 4 of Star Trek TNG. I agree with you pretty much completely, I was just trying to see it from the other side.



A commendable action, and probably the best thing either of them have done in their careers. I have to respect them for this, as much as I disagree with them on other issues. It's unfortunate they have to fight their own party on this. Surprising how so many liberal democrats stood right with them when their fellow Republicans did not.

While it's not exactly the right way to go about fighting this, +1 to Texas for their effort.

I figured as much, but it seemed like a good idea to poke holes in that particular objection anyway


Take note of those who voted against, because those are the representatives who believe in personal liberty and have the courage to take a stand against the increasingly high-control direction our government is headed in.



How would you go about fighting this? It would only take a reasonable handful of states with important airports taking a stand to make a difference.

Or enough people to not fly over the course of 2 months.

If the government was as totalitarian as your fears would suggest, they'd just enforce the law with the military(like Kennedy did during the Civil Rights Movement). You can't fight the might of our runaway military budget, so you'd be right back where you started. We already had that war of states rights vs. federal power anyway, and you lost. That said, I'm not sure any American president would even go that far(Bush Jr. Included). Even so, electing Progressive democrats and genuine Libertarian republicans to replace some of the politicians we have now would be all you'd need to let that bill expire(and is how you're supposed to change legislation). Protests are still cool though, I was just saying they aren't the traditional way of fighting a bad law. Then again, neither was the Million Man March or the Freedom Riders, so there is a precedent for this. It'll be interesting either way to see how it goes.

I am disappointed in Obama for perpetuating this. Just once I'd like to see a liberal with a spine, like FDR.



That isn't gonna happen for the same reason why we aren't going to stop driving cars despite their disastrous environmental impact. We're simply too used to being able to go anywhere we want or need at a moments notice. Some even have jobs that depend on this mobility, while others still want to visit their out-of-state relatives.

I don't really have words to describe how disgusted this makes me: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/11065015824/tsa-agent-threatens-woman-with-defamation-demands-500k-calling-intrusive-search-rape.shtml

...
Wow, that's absolutely horrifying.