StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why should the Secret Service be allowed to be above the law?

verilon, Did I miss a post?? What are you taking (sorry writing about)??

So we have could have an excuse to create a real-life 007.


Seriously though, they shouldn't be. Next we'll probably have the politicians giving themselves superlawful powers.

theski wrote:verilon, Did I miss a post?? What are you taking (sorry writing about)??

In that lil Patriot Acts post of mine, the Secret Service was involved. I am asking why the SS should be allowed to be aove the law.

Last time I checked they were not. IF they are then it's another reason the "Land of the Free" is an ironic title.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Last time I checked they were not. IF they are then it's another reason the "Land of the Free" is an ironic title.

Oh, they are.. they're apparently allowed to enter premises without warrants or permission.

verilon wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Last time I checked they were not. IF they are then it's another reason the "Land of the Free" is an ironic title.

Oh, they are.. they're apparently allowed to enter premises without warrants or permission.

That's bullshit.

Well, there goes my plan on living in America for some time. The gov't has emulated 1984 far too much.

I find it ironic that to escape oppression I must leave the US and move to Germany

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I find it ironic that to escap oppression I must leave the US and move to Germany

That is quite funny.

The UK isn't that bad just yet, the Spooks aren't above the law.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I find it ironic that to escap oppression I must leave the US and move to Germany

That is quite funny.

The UK isn't that bad just yet, the Spooks aren't above the law.

Hell, moving anywhere in western europe would be better than the US. The ironic thing is, The original colonists came here to escape oppression

The sky is falling down! We must warn the King, so he can warn the town!

Ver, it was explained in the other thread that the Secret Service was NOT acting above the law in that situation. They had probable cause, which means they can enter without permission and without a warrant. Your friend made a threat against the President, which is a Federal crime, and had been for years before the Patriot act was passed, since at least Jack Kennedy was killed, probably longer. The secret service has jurisdiction over all law enforcement matters pertaining to the safety of the President--if they didn't, it would have been the FBI or the local police who came in, and they would have done the exact same thing. The agents didn't confiscate anything, and they're not using anything they saw as evidence in a trial. Everything was perfectly legal, and your friend ought to consider himself lucky he got away with nothing but a stern talking-to.

So it's legal to do it the day after and not have someone talk to him the same day.. I understand that.. But I still hate the government, and I don't understand why the Secret Service should be allowed to be above the law.

[EDIT] It seems I forgot to mention that the police escorting them didn't have permission to go in, either.

Ver, Probable cause is well within ther providence, and to protect the prez they stretch it to the limit.. It looks like you are just a little to close to the source right now.. (no offence) just an ex cop talking..

theski wrote:Ver, Probable cause is well within ther providence, and to protect the prez they stretch it to the limit.. It looks like you are just a little to close to the source right now.. (no offence) just an ex cop talking..

Thing is, they've gone beyond the limit - the Constitution used to be the limit. What is it now, though?

verilon wrote:So it's legal to do it the day after and not have someone talk to him the same day.. I understand that.. But I still hate the government, and I don't understand why the Secret Service should be allowed to be above the law.

[EDIT] It seems I forgot to mention that the police escorting them didn't have permission to go in, either.

PROB-A-BLE CAUSE. They were acting WITHIN THE LAW, and they frankly cut your friend a break by not getting an arrest warrant and hauling him to the nearest Federal building. It doesn't matter worth a shit if they had permission or not. Probable cause means you get to kick down the door if that's what it takes. If I make a threat against a private citizen, the local cops would have probable cause to come into my house if they thought I posed enough of a danger to others, and they wouldn't need my permission, either.

Probable cause means thay have to see the illegal act in progress on the premises. The action happened the day before. I've read through addendums to the fourth amendment.

verilon wrote:Probable cause means thay have to see the illegal act in progress on the premises. The action happened the day before. I've read through addendums to the fourth amendment.

A short examination at this site: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm seems to imply that probable cause does not neccessarily mean that they have to see the illegitimate act in progress on the premises.

For example, if someone posted something about threatening POTUS on a webboard that apparently has been interpreted as probable cause. Your definition of probable cause is irrelevant; it is the interpration of the judicial system: it appears that they consider it as such.

phongn wrote:

verilon wrote:Probable cause means thay have to see the illegal act in progress on the premises. The action happened the day before. I've read through addendums to the fourth amendment.

A short examination at this site: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/315/315lect06.htm seems to imply that probable cause does not neccessarily mean that they have to see the illegitimate act in progress on the premises.

For example, if someone posted something about threatening POTUS on a webboard that apparently has been interpreted as probable cause. Your definition of probable cause is irrelevant; it is the interpration of the judicial system: it appears that they consider it as such.

I'll have to find the web site where I found that later - I am stressing too much over other stuff right now.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

verilon wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Last time I checked they were not. IF they are then it's another reason the "Land of the Free" is an ironic title.

Oh, they are.. they're apparently allowed to enter premises without warrants or permission.

That's bullshit.

Well, there goes my plan on living in America for some time. The gov't has emulated 1984 far too much.

Verilon is running around screaming "the sky is falling." Given probable cause it is possible (another example would be if you're pulled over and an officer requests that he search you car; he does not need a warrant or the driver's permission to do so given probable cause).

However, phongn, this guy wasn't pulled over in the car - he was in the office of the building. But I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I do.

phongn wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

verilon wrote: Oh, they are.. they're apparently allowed to enter premises without warrants or permission.

That's bullshit.

Well, there goes my plan on living in America for some time. The gov't has emulated 1984 far too much.

Verilon is running around screaming "the sky is falling." Given probable cause it is possible (another example would be if you're pulled over and an officer requests that he search you car; he does not need a warrant or the driver's permission to do so given probable cause).

Well street searches are common in one of the towns I used to live near, but entering a house?

verilon wrote:However, phongn, this guy wasn't pulled over in the car - he was in the office of the building. But I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I do.

The car merely served as an example, verilon, to show that a warrent is not needed. As I said earlier, the research I'm doing (granted, it is limited research) seems to indicate that the USSS was within it's rights to do what it did.

phongn wrote:

verilon wrote:However, phongn, this guy wasn't pulled over in the car - he was in the office of the building. But I understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. What you don't understand is that I do.

The car merely served as an example, verilon, to show that a warrent is not needed. As I said earlier, the research I'm doing (granted, it is limited research) seems to indicate that the USSS was within it's rights to do what it did.

To ask for permission - be denied - and come in anyways? That's legal!?

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

phongn wrote:Verilon is running around screaming "the sky is falling." Given probable cause it is possible (another example would be if you're pulled over and an officer requests that he search you car; he does not need a warrant or the driver's permission to do so given probable cause).

Well street searches are common in one of the towns I used to live near, but entering a house?

Apparently it was an office, not a home, but I digress.

They aren't very common, AFAIK (considering it was the day after, I would have expected them to get a warrent, seeing as they already had probable cause it wouldn't have killed them to do it, methinks).

phongn wrote:Apparently it was an office, not a home, but I digress.

They aren't very common, AFAIK (considering it was the day after, I would have expected them to get a warrent, seeing as they already had probable cause it wouldn't have killed them to do it, methinks).

It is a youth center. It has an office in it. And they had no warrant.