Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeslice
"Equal protection under the law" is valid only as it relates to your rights after you're caught.......not as it relates to who the government chooses to investigate/snoop on. For example, the FBI and NSA don't eavesdrop on everyone equally.....They snoop on people who fit some kind of profile (are tied to a certain political group, make large bank transfers, make calls to certain countries, browse certain websites, etc.). And the TSA doesn't yank everyone out of the line for a pat-down.......They make their choice based on strange or nervous behavior. I guess perpetually nervous/furtive people could sue the TSA charging discrimination, that but I don't think that would get very far
|
You are wrong all over the place on equal protection.
The entire issue with "profiling" and the reason why the government doesn't do it at TSA, resulting in a ton of jokes and complaints, is due to equal protection. Equal protection has quite a lot to do with who and how decisions are made by government agents when choosing who to give any kind of extra scrutiny. "Strange or nervous behavior" qualifies as probable cause and an acceptable reason. You are suggesting the IRS investigate the rich simply because they are rich. This would be the equivalent of TSA pulling anyone out of line that looks middle eastern. What probable cause would there be with the rich? They make a lot of money so they must be cheating on their taxes?
Concerning the NSA, for activities outside America, it is irrelevant. The people they are eavesdropping on do not have the protection of the Constitution, so there is no equal protection issue. The FBI is different. They do snoop on people who fit a certain "profile". The "profile" is the ability of agents to demonstrate, to a judge, that probable cause exists to eavesdrop on them.