Is it justifiable to violate certain civil liberties in the name of national security?

that's not what I am arguing.
What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant but the country where they go to "kidnap" that "terrorist" may not have such laws AND may also practice kidnapping by law enforcement, that is THEIR laws, rule, way they play the game how ever you want to look at it. The CIA going to another contry and playing by that countries rules is correct (I am not saying right or good just correct) if that counrty then also would allow the taken person to be removed to another country well again that is THEIR way. That should not ever happen in the USA or in a country which has laws against such things

My arguement is that if people want to cry foul about "fourcing US standards of "civil" on other nations" then they should not cry foul when we do not use US standards but the standards of the other countries. You can not make a cat bark you can not make a thing something other than it is unless you use force and trying to make another country/nation implement US standards is what everyone is decrying. So don't use that nations standards.

Is it "RIGHT" I have no real opinion on that would it be better if every operitive of the USA stay true to the standards of the USA well to say that earns critisim of forcing views on others its a darned if you do darned if you don't situation.
Currently my opinion is do what it takes to keep MY child safe because I do not care very much about anyone elses child and yes that is selfish and no its not very humane of me but I brought a child into the world and that child is my priority and if "violating" the "civil liberties" of someone in another nation who may not even recognize what a civil liberty is nor be even hesitant to violate MY child's rights and liberities will keep MY child safe them so be it.

>>>What I am saying is that the CIA doesn't NEED a warrant. a "warrent" is a US ideal so if the CIA were to fly into... say Great Britian then they would need a warrant issued by THAT government becasue while not the same GB has the laws which require a warrant<<<

But the CIA did not have a warrant when it took suspects from Great Britain. In fact, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign secretary Jack Straw, and MI6 are currently being investigated for possible crimes related to CIA renditions.

According to an article in the Britain's The Guardian dated 11 Apr 2012:

Straw has said: "We were opposed to unlawful rendition. We were opposed to any
use of torture. Not only did we not agree with it; we were not complicit in it and nor
did we turn a blind eye to it."

However, Straw has added: "No foreign secretary can know all the details of what its
intelligence agencies are doing at any one time."

Notice that they are being investigated for allowing the CIA to perform "unlawful rendition". (That means it's against the law there).

The article went on to say:

The US is preventing MPs [Ministers of Parliament] from seeing evidence of British
involvement in the CIA's practice of secretly sending terror suspects to prisons
where they faced torture.

If Britain wanted a person arrested, why not arrest and prosecute him inside the country? If it's a matter of legal extradition, why does the CIA need to be involved?

No, the CIA KIDNAPPED (not arrested) a British subject and secretly took him to Libya specifically to face torture so that the CIA and MI6 could gather intelligence from him. And when Britain was outraged and began an investigation into their leadership's role in these illegalities, the U.S. government protected its friends in Britain's intelligence agencies by refusing to help in the investigation.

I'm thrilled that you want to protect your child. But I believe your and my government - a government unfazed by the concept of rule of law except as it applies to its subjects - are a far greater threat to your child today than all the terrorists in the world combined!

If you're not aware of liberties being lost by the Patriot act, then why do you think it needs to be repealed?

But I digress....from

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-v...

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. i.e. Freedom of association.

US Patriot Act: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... i.e. Freedom of speech.

US Patriot Act: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

Amendment IV: 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. i.e. Freedom from unreasonable searches

US Patriot Act: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. i.e. Right to a speedy and public trial

US Patriot Act: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Amendment VI: ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. i.e. Right to legal representation

US Patriot Act: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

Amendment VI: ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him ... i.e. Right to liberty

US Patriot Act: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

Now do you understand my reasoning that even though the government is supposed to be subject to us, the reverse is currently true?

with or without the patriot act government can and always has "monitored" religion... how do you think the Branch Davidian incedent came about a decade before 9-11 and the Patriot act.... so as my students like to say (fail) but its a common arguement I hear all the time. You mistake (and reasonably so) monitoring with interfering with free exercise of... monitoring has been happening since the 1950s "red" scare (and really even before this as the inturnment camps of WWII proved) and we still went on even got better.

In every case from small criminal/civil actions to class actions and supreme court decissions the information requested by subpoena are general conceled its known as subpoena duces tecum and is used to preserve chain of custody for documents so they can not be claimed as missing or out of availability. Your mistake is in believing that warrentless and unreasonable search (invation of privacy) has result in some judgement against the individual having his 4th amendment rights violated.

I shall direct you two 4 cases which disprove your stance but again it is a reasonable mistake I hear often from people who find government far to intrusive. Katz V US: US v Jacobsen: Kyllo v US and Terry V Ohio. in each case the courts found in favor of the individual in respects to "expecation of privace" and the "reasonability of the expectation". Thus it still stands that any material no matter how incriminating can not be used against an individual if that material was obtained without a legally issued warrent.

The second mistake you make with this arguement is taht there is some "right" to privacy. there is not. The 4th amendment is not about privacy it is about possession. you are in possession of material which may incriminate you and the government wants it they must obtain a warrent. Privacy and the "expectaion there of" is a socital ideal but it does not exist absolutly. the determination of a voilation of the "expectaion" of privacy is thus: "The classic two-prong test in judging whether the Fourth Amendment protects an individual's right to privacy asks: (1) whether the individual expects privacy, and then (2) whether society finds this expectation reasonable. The first prong, the subjective expectation of privacy, is difficult to contest because a defendant will almost invariably affirm that expectation. Therefore, the second prong is what courts generally focus upon. Yet it is this second prong that most often flies in the face of what the general public accepts--that courts' interpretations of the Constitution do not reflect the subjective expectations of society" (Boston Instatue....)

Now for the next several comments all pertaining to rights under juris prudence.... the first note to make is that under the patriot act one must be proclaimed a "unlawful combatant". And yes sadly this is not very hard to achieve, but not because of provisons of teh act itself simply by teh selective evidence produced when seeking arrest warrents and this happends rutinely without need of the act.

Admittedly there have been more than ... well too many, cases of US citizens being declaired combatants and being arrested. However you must fairly acknowledge that each person was given fair and speedy "redress" and in each case has not only won their freedom back but in many cases won a settlement against the government.

It is for this reason, that the potentenial exists for abuse without redress exists that I oppose the patriot act. I do not oppose it for what it HAS done, for it has actually done nothing, but for what it MIGHT do.

Government is not yet the master but I easy admit we are nearing a tipping point where freedom may be held only with the spilling of blood.