4 ms·
You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagre
by BWStearns 11y ago
You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagree about global warming. You have a fringe understanding of it with no support from the relevant literature and your arguments about it are poorly structured, deny evidence, and rely on intentionally misunderstanding context and terms of art.
The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system.
Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search.
> One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US.
The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians.
Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.
- jbapple 11y ago> You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. If I did so, it was a mistake. My reference to the 4th Amendment, for instance, should have said "how the 4th Amendment ought to protect us". I did not mean to imply that I am trying to predict what warrants the justice system will or will not grant. > You have a fringe understanding of it I think I mentioned the 4th amendment just the once. I have been trying to stick to normative arguments. > The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system. I think this is a point where we truly disagree. I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight. Note that I am speaking about what I think is possible and just and right, not what the law says now or the justice system does now. > The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader? There might be a difference in this case. I have read that there is religious significance to a pledge of allegiance in ISIS's theology that might make a pledge indicative of ideological alignment and a membership "in ISIS" indicative of being in actual conversations with ISIS. > Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled. Please, let's try to be civil.
- thinkpad20 11y ago> Did the shooter say she was "in ISIS", or that she pledged allegiance to the leader? Either one would seem to constitute probable cause for an association. Of course we don't know if she was actually in ISIS, or just agreed with their beliefs. But how would we know without conducting further investigation? You seem to be demanding a somewhat unreasonably large burden of proof, when all that is needed in this case is probable cause. Frankly, even if she hadn't verbally declared allegiance to ISIS, I don't think it's a stretch to say there's probable cause for connection to other terrorist groups. The fact that she did say that makes it a slam dunk. > I think a system can function in which some evidence that a search will yield results is required before the search is conducted. I do not think that the evidence must be airtight. We do have such a system. The evidence you're describing is called probable cause, and that's the whole point. I'm not sure of any reasonable definition of probable cause that this situation wouldn't satisfy. Moreover, your objections seem to be in the form of vague misgivings rather than concrete arguments. You haven't precisely described what would constitute sufficient evidence for an investigation, but instead seem to just be saying "there's not enough right now." I think this is what's behind GPs frustrations responding to your posts.
- tremon 11y agoThe point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system. That kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications data by the NSA and other agencies. Since that practice has been widely criticized, there must be something missing from your argument.
- BWStearns 11y ago> evidence that would be the result of a search No one is advocating warrantless searches or not requiring reasons for warrants. If I want to get a warrant to see who you're calling, it is inherently a broken system that requires the list of people that you called as cause to obtain that warrant. Any kind of reasoning allows wholesale collection of communications if you misread it properly.
- tremon 11y agoAh, so you do agree with the premise that there must be compelling evidence to warrant a search? In that case, all you(pl.)'re haggling over is the "price point" of how much evidence is required to support how invasive a search. I'm unsure how that results in the kind of heated debate that seems to happen here. Oh well...