Greta Van Susteren Quotes

He was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Snowden, was a contract worker for Booz Allan assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA). He felt that some of the NSA activities were illegal and unethical and tried to complain to NSA officials who rebuffed him. Despite the fact that he had signed an agreement not to do so, he copied many critical, classified documents that exposed much of the NSA activities that the NSA officials had denied existed—including lying under oath to the Senate. He then made many of them public, violating his oath, breaking the law, and opening up an entire area of government spying which most Americans knew nothing about and about which senior government officials had lied under oath to Congress. They of course wanted to prosecute Snowden who had told the truth, while they had lied. For many Americans, this became a moral and ethical conundrum.

The FBI had obtained a court order requiring apple to write software that could hack into a person's iPhone. Apple, with most other hi-tech companies in support, filed a motion with the court opposing the order. The FBI shortly thereafter withdrew its request for the order saying that they had found other solutions, when they had originally told the court that there were no other solutions.

Unfortunately there has been a history in America of some overzealous police officers and prosecutors who have gone after particular people for reasons of prejudice, politics, self aggrandisement, or honest but erroneous belief of guilt. The 4th Amendment has acted as wall in many cases, but unfortunately it is a wall that can be scaled by over zealous officials who will falsify their applications for warrants. Though not a total barrier to abuse, the 4th Amendment has been one of the major reasons that Amercans enjoy greater freedom that exists in other countries.

This statement was made in response to the leaked disclosure that the U. S. Security agencies had software which would allow them to turn Smart TV Sets into listing devices without ever physically touching the TV set—for that matter from any place in the world. This area wgere there was a wide range of poarized scholarly legal opinion. The view here in articulated by Comey was that in a nation, Law enforcment personnel and authorities. albeit with checks and court supervision. must be able to override all comes to and rights of privacy in order to enforce the law. The other view is that from the earliest days of our nation there were certain areas of privacy that may not be breached. Much of the debate in over 200 year has been about the checks and balances that are associated with why the provacy needs to be breached and the due process thereof. But especially with the changes in technology iver the last centuries, the other side that it is not merely the issue of due process, When brain scanning technology is developed can there be any possiuble leagal justificaion to forcing a person to be brain scanned to determine is real rellings about his wife or children, Can privacy of individual thoughts be subject to a search warrant as is speech or action? More and more legal s holars have moved away from Comey's position becasue of the ver poor pewrformance that law enforcement has had in being checked. If the chances of a FISA Court ever denying a warrant is less thatn the odds of being struck by lightening, is there really any meaningful surveilance in our current systems. In addtion to the hundreds of throusands of State and local police department and investigator scandals that have been revealed in teh last 50 years, the FBI, The CIA, Military Inteligence Agencies and the NSA -- all of whom have been exposed for violating the laws about illegal searches and siezures, lying to the Courts and to the Congressional Oversight Commitees and even to a number of Presidents, has shifted the thinking of some to regulate by providing absolute limits on abridging certain kinds of privacy like brain scanning, statements of religioully protected concessions, spousal privilege etc.

Hamilton acknowledged that the major public objection to the new U. S. Constitution was its lack of a Bill of Rights, which Hamilton argued was unnecessary.