The American Constitution

[Chris Kern]

You can’t lock up someone just because they are weird. You can’t even put them under FBI monitoring without ACLU complaining.

There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:

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.

— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that considers such applications by the government.

[Alan Klein]

There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:
— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that considers such applications by the government.

Of course you raised the whole issue with the spying on Trump and his campaign using the phony dossier as "evidence" for the FISA court paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democrats who were his opposition using statements from Russian KGB agents.  Did Hillary conspire with the Russians in an American presidential election?  Did they lie to the FISA court to destroy a president?  Have we gone too far in allowing the government to get involved in our affairs secretly?   Should we trust the FISA court or get rid of it?  Have they caught any real terrorists because of the FISA court?  How can we trust our own government when stuff like this happens?  What if a Democrat president is the next victim of secret political "coups"?

[faberryman]

Hook, line, and sinker.

[Alan Klein]

There's an even more fundamental reason why the government can't put "weird" people under FBI monitoring: the FBI has no authority to conduct domestic intelligence.*  Nor does any other federal agency.  Before the government can engage in domestic surveillance, it is constitutionally required to persuade a court that it has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is imminent:
— Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution (1791)

Other democratic countries with strong civil liberties traditions do have domestic intelligence agencies—e.g., the United Kingdom's MI-5 or Germany's Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz—but proposals to create one here have so far failed to gain much political traction, and in any event would need to be very carefully crafted to avoid Fourth Amendment issues.

———
*The FBI can conduct counterintelligence monitoring of foreigners in the United States.  However, if a U.S. citizen or permanent resident comes under suspicion of acting as an intelligence agent of a foreign power, a judicial warrant is required.  There is a special court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, that considers such applications by the government.

State and local police apparently can "spy" on private citizens at least in "public" arenas.  NYC's police department has a very aggressive investigative group who go after terrorists and potential terrorists.  They were putting spies into Muslim mosques in New Jersey where previous terrorists were  affiliated.  NYC never told the State of New Jersey that they were doing it and pissed off the NJ government. I think NYPD promised to stop but I'm not sure if they did. 

[Alan Klein]

An apparent violation of the US Constitution as California tries to release Trump's tax records.
Voters sue California over tax return law targeting Trump
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/456250-voters-sue-california-over-tax-return-law-targeting-trump

[Robert Roaldi]

America today is not the America of the 1920's any more than it is the America before 1863 when slavery was legal.  Would you believe, we actually have had a black president who was re-elected for a second term.

But you brought up those wacko leftie groups from the 60s? Is American today the same as the America of the 60s?

You have claimed that Americans have guns because they're wary of government incursions into their freedoms from way back during the Revolutionary War. Is American today the America of 1776?

Frankly, I am losing track of what point you're trying to make. My point in bringing up those incidents from the past was that you were trying to convince us that the left was the cause of all the current violence (well, them or crazy people, I have to admit I am kind of confused right now). If you want to explain things, it's best to have all the facts, not just the ones you like.

Also, I would just like to remind you all that the Soviet Union was reknowned for its "mental" institutions, just sayin'.

But so long as you all are blaming the 60s and Jack Nicholson movies, maybe you'd like to throw in Elvis, rock & roll, blue jeans and long hair too. Geez folks, talk about a thread going off the rails.

But we should look at the bright side. At least a lot of people seem to be in agreement that there is actually something wrong. Agreeing that there is a problem is often the first step.

In a recent interview I heard with the historian/author Yuval Noah Harari, he asked an interesting question of the people who think we're living in terrible times and need to go back to some magical period when things were better. What year, exactly, would you want to go back to when things were better for people?

[Alan Klein]

But you brought up those wacko leftie groups from the 60s? Is American today the same as the America of the 60s?

You have claimed that Americans have guns because they're wary of government incursions into their freedoms from way back during the Revolutionary War. Is American today the America of 1776?

Frankly, I am losing track of what point you're trying to make. My point in bringing up those incidents from the past was that you were trying to convince us that the left was the cause of all the current violence (well, them or crazy people, I have to admit I am kind of confused right now). If you want to explain things, it's best to have all the facts, not just the ones you like.

Also, I would just like to remind you all that the Soviet Union was reknowned for its "mental" institutions, just sayin'.

But so long as you all are blaming the 60s and Jack Nicholson movies, maybe you'd like to throw in Elvis, rock & roll, blue jeans and long hair too. Geez folks, talk about a thread going off the rails.

But we should look at the bright side. At least a lot of people seem to be in agreement that there is actually something wrong. Agreeing that there is a problem is often the first step.

In a recent interview I heard with the historian/author Yuval Noah Harari, he asked an interesting question of the people who think we're living in terrible times and need to go back to some magical period when things were better. What year, exactly, would you want to go back to when things were better for people?

Most of your post does not reflect what I said.  Where did I blame for anything good old Jack Nicholson, Elvis, rock and roll, blue jeans (which I'm wearing right now), and long hair which is impossible at this point, check my avatar.     Soviet mental institutions?  My post was opposed to restarting them mental institutions here in the US.  Maybe we should lock up people who don't read posts before complaining?


Fortunately, the crazy and much more dangerous groups on the left and right are not around currently.  Most of the wackos are individuals who act out.   So all the angst about this is mainly for political reasons to peel of votes for the upcoming presidential election.  The politicians don;t really care about those killed.  They are just using these incidents as points on their political spears.

[Robert Roaldi]

Most of your post does not reflect what I said.  Where did I blame for anything good old Jack Nicholson, Elvis, rock and roll, blue jeans (which I'm wearing right now), and long hair which is impossible at this point, check my avatar.     Soviet mental institutions?  My post was opposed to restarting them mental institutions here in the US.  Maybe we should lock up people who don't read posts before complaining?


Fortunately, the crazy and much more dangerous groups on the left and right are not around currently.  Most of the wackos are individuals who act out.   So all the angst about this is mainly for political reasons to peel of votes for the upcoming presidential election.  The politicians don;t really care about those killed.  They are just using these incidents as points on their political spears.

It began as a reply to your reply to me. Then I went a little farther and addressed the recent direction of the discussion. I don't think this is the first time that has happened on these pages nor will it be the last. That's how discussions go.

[Alan Klein]

It began as a reply to your reply to me. Then I went a little farther and addressed the recent direction of the discussion. I don't think this is the first time that has happened on these pages nor will it be the last. That's how discussions go.

Reminds me of the saying, When you're up to your ass beating down the alligators, you forget that the original reason you were there was to drain the swamp. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd.

[kers]

Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd.

Maybe also a idea to weapon all these children - just in case... they need to defend themselfes...
Semi automatic shotguns will do..

[Alan Klein]

Here's an uncomfortable news item. Bullet-proof backpacks for children who are going back to school https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bulletproof-backpacks-school-shootings_ca_5d498060e4b01ae816c8b3bd.

A place for some nut job kid to hide his weapon?  In NYC, in the tough high schools, they have metal detection equipment the kids go through. Of course there are armed cops there as well.  But this is all to watch the students mainly, not some terrorist invasion.  I agree though that all these things are not conducive to a good education.  On the other hand, when I was a kid during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the US stood armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, we use to practice hiding under our classrooms seats or going into corridors in case an atomic bomb war occurred.  I don't think we were any worse off in life later on because of it. 

[elliot_n]

Maybe also a idea to weapon all these children - just in case... they need to defend themselfes...
Semi automatic shotguns will do..

Puppy pistols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLjAj8620Nk

[kers]

A place for some nut job kid to hide his weapon?  In NYC, in the tough high schools, they have metal detection equipment the kids go through. Of course there are armed cops there as well.  But this is all to watch the students mainly, not some terrorist invasion.  I agree though that all these things are not conducive to a good education.  On the other hand, when I was a kid during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the US stood armed to the teeth with nuclear missiles, we use to practice hiding under our classrooms seats or going into corridors in case an atomic bomb war occurred.  I don't think we were any worse off in life later on because of it.

The good old days when hiding under schoolbanks was enough to protect you from a nuclear attack...

[degrub]

The good old days when hiding under schoolbanks was enough to protect you from a nuclear attack...

That was for politician protection....

[Alan Klein]

That was for politician protection....

Fortunately, we never had to find out if hiding under our desk was actually safer in a nuclear attack. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Fortunately, we never had to find out if hiding under our desk was actually safer in a nuclear attack. 

We did the same, on the other side of the ocean, if that would make you feel better

[Alan Klein]

We did the same, on the other side of the ocean, if that would make you feel better

When I served in the USAF in the mid 1960's, part of the time I was in the 416th Heavy Bombardment Wing in upstate New York, now out-of-business.  It was a Strategic Air Command (SAC) base with B52 bombers with multi-nuclear bombs on 20 minute standby  takeoff.  That way they could take off before your side's bombers and missiles could hit them 

In retrospect, we were all nuts on both sides.  I guess we felt safer hiding under desks.  We're a dangerous species. It's amazing we made it to this millenia. God must be laughing at our stupidity.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... That way they could take off before your side's bombers and missiles could hit them... 

Not really "your side," we were in-between you guys (Yugoslavia was never a Warsaw Pact country, nor behind the Iron Curtain). We had to practice in case either of you guys goes crazy (or both) 

[Alan Klein]

Not really "your side," we were in-between you guys (Yugoslavia was never a Warsaw Pact country, nor behind the Iron Curtain). We had to practice in case either of you guys goes crazy (or both) 

I don't know if I would have felt safer knowing that then.