Why is the news media all of a sudden making such a big deal over something most of us already knew. The patriot act allowed this and it was covered in the news back when it was being pushed to be approved the first time. Why are people suprised they actually did it now? Were people so nieve to think that the goverment wouldnt use the power they granted themselves? Who here is suprised about this "new" information?
And from what i heard it happened 30 times in 3 years=10 times in 1 year...that aint to bad, and i would much rather have my government watching me for no reason than to let someone who could be a threat get through...just my opinion
Do not shrug off your rights so easily. While this does not seem so bad, it is a dangerous path. Next will they be able to enter your home without a warrant? This is not a concern about how it has been used, but how is could be.
PAX
Ive thrown down the Ben Franklin quote before and il do it again.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
SunfireN2o wrote:Ive thrown down the Ben Franklin quote before and il do it again.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben rocks!
I'm not surprised about the govt using terrorism as an excuse to snoop where they legally couldn't otherwise. Anyone remember reading about Nixon? The Watergate tapes were illegally recorded.
I'm sure the govt has been and will continue illegally eavesdropping anywhere they want, with or without the patriot act.
Hahahaha wrote:Next will they be able to enter your home without a warrant? This is not a concern about how it has been used, but how is could be.
They already can, it's called "probably cause".
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
John Wilken wrote:
I'm not surprised about the govt using terrorism as an excuse to snoop where they legally couldn't otherwise.
I'm sure the govt has been and will continue illegally eavesdropping anywhere they want, with or without the patriot act.
Here's an article that discusses the legality of the surveillances
Quote:
I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.
How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).
Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."
But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.
O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through — if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?
You can answer that one.
— James S. Robbins is senior fellow in national-security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, a trustee for the Leaders for Liberty Foundation, and an NRO contributor.
If you don't think privacy is something you might want, might I suggest reading George Orwell - 1984.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you don't think privacy is something you might want, might I suggest reading George Orwell - 1984.
Who said they didn't want privacy? It's long been legal to have wiretaps with a court order. If there was reason to spy on you, it could be done. It's not much different now. It's just that the president can do it (in an emergency) without the court order. There's still reporting requirements to congress that have to be followed so the potential for abuse is minimized.
Well it would seem I actualy agree with you guys on this one. I do think we need to protect ourselves but not at the expence of our freedoms.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
SunfireN20 wrote:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben and many of our forefathers said many intelligent things modern citizens would be well to do do to learn. Take a trip to Williamsburg, VA and the tourguides recite them like scripture, it's actually very cool.
Labotomi wrote:Who said they didn't want privacy? It's long been legal to have wiretaps with a court order. If there was reason to spy on you, it could be done. It's not much different now. It's just that the president can do it (in an emergency) without the court order. There's still reporting requirements to congress that have to be followed so the potential for abuse is minimized.
The problem is defining what an emergency is. Thus getting the government closer to total control. The patriot act is an abomination of our rights, and those who support it should be ashamed giving up your freedoms so you can feel safer, so you can go to sleep in your nice warm bed and not "be afraid".
Anyone who's been to an airport will tell you that the security is a joke. The ones doing the security fit the stereotype profile of what the government doesn't want boarding planes and no one wants to smell your stinky feet when you take off your shoes. They look at your ID and look at your ticket, and they say "OK...... it's you".
So in short, Patriot Act = Silly = Throwing your rights in the garbage = Stupid.
-Chris
mw10bvh wrote:Why is the news media all of a sudden making such a big deal over something most of us already knew. The patriot act allowed this and it was covered in the news back when it was being pushed to be approved the first time. Why are people suprised they actually did it now? Were people so nieve to think that the goverment wouldnt use the power they granted themselves? Who here is suprised about this "new" information?
The media is making a big deal over it because 1) Bush was authorizing internal spying w/o any authorization, which is most likely an impeachable offense 2) it proves what detractors of the Patriot Act always said, that the government cannot be trusted with such powers.
Labotomi wrote:Who said they didn't want privacy? It's long been legal to have wiretaps with a court order. If there was reason to spy on you, it could be done. It's not much different now. It's just that the president can do it (in an emergency) without the court order. There's still reporting requirements to congress that have to be followed so the potential for abuse is minimized.
Right. Which is why congress went ape-shiz when they found out via the NY Times. They didn't know. The potential for the abuse was MAXIMIZED.
---
I gotta ask...... How is that an impeachable act? I disagree with it too and I think Bush is stupid as sh-t for proposing let alone letting it be done but how is this latest bout of Washington stupidity an impeachable act ? Please explain.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:I gotta ask...... How is that an impeachable act? I disagree with it too and I think Bush is stupid as sh-t for proposing let alone letting it be done but how is this latest bout of Washington stupidity an impeachable act ? Please explain.
To summarize...
Firstly, the spying upon Americans without probable cause, due process and a warrant supported by evidence and sworn before a competent magistrate violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution.
...
The 1st Amendment guarantees our right to associate and communicate unimpeded by state and federal government. Merely communicating overseas is not grounds for monitoring,
....
The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The US courts have held that a wiretap is an unreasonable search unless it is executed upon a valid warrant. The US congress has held such as being so unreasonable that it has passed the following laws that guarantee limits upon the execution of surveillance, investigation and record keeping by use of communication, telecommunication and records (including dossiers and case files):
— The Telecommunications Privacy Act of 1984 (TPA)
— The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA)
— The Privacy Act of 1974
— The Wire And Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral Communications
— The Wireless Telecommunications Privacy Act of 2000
— The Freedom of Information Act
.....
The 5th Amendment guarantees the right of due process. The acts of spying on American citizens and residents without application, review, approval and issuance of a warrant is, without a doubt, a complete negation and circumvention of due process.
....
It goes on and on...
http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/JMDowney/view?PostID=9607
.. and before any responds to the above, be sure to read the entire article. Again, I only posted a summary.
More here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=impeach+bush&btnG=Search+News
I've been reading the conservative defense of his actions. I haven't found a good argument supporting Bush yet. I'd welcome any such link.
---
Labotomi wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you don't think privacy is something you might want, might I suggest reading George Orwell - 1984.
Who said they didn't want privacy? It's long been legal to have wiretaps with a court order. If there was reason to spy on you, it could be done. It's not much different now. It's just that the president can do it (in an emergency) without the court order. There's still reporting requirements to congress that have to be followed so the potential for abuse is minimized.
The problem is that you didn't need an emergency or PC under the Patriot Act to have a wiretap. You actually didn't even need a warrant, court order or writ.
Now that PA is no longer in effect, the old way (that worked very nicely as well, considering PA didn't net a single new indictment for terrorism) is back in.
Playing fast and loose with the laws and your freedoms is something I would really question the President and all elected representatives about.
Patriot Act originally was a usable piece of legislation that actually improved security before it got changed into the monstrosity it became (fast sleight of hand on the part of Rumsfeld). The 4 years that it's been in effect haven't netted a SINGLE terrorism charge, so in effect, all evidence gathered under its auspices is in jeopardy unless it's collection could have been discovered inevitably with laws previously in force.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Thanks AGuSTiN, good stuff but wouldn't that warrent the impeachment of all those who signed off on the patriot act ? I think maybe if anyone is removed from office he should be the first in a long list of those who need to go.
The govt takes more and more of our freedoms away as they see fit. Its been going on for many years, what makes you think that all of a sudden its going to change? Remember we have a RIGHT to bare arms but thats been taken away from us how many times with the passege of different bills outlawing the bad guy gun of the moment. Who gives them the right to say we can't own whatever gun we want?
Or how about the prohibision ? They took away your right to have a drink of YOUR
choice. Or perhaps even now with the rediculousness of makeing certain plantes that grow naturaly in this country illegal. I know the govt ban on smoking ! What freedoms
do you speak of that have not been taken or limited to what your govt sees fit ?
I could go on more but you get my point. Govt has been stealing your rights granted to you in the constitution since before any of us were even born and its not going to change and their is nothing you or I can do about it except bend over, take it and try to enjoy the life that our wonderful govt decides we should have Despite our silly thinking to the contrary.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:it got changed into the monstrosity it became (fast sleight of hand on the part of Rumsfeld). The 4 years that it's been in effect haven't netted a SINGLE terrorism charge, so in effect, all evidence gathered under its auspices is in jeopardy unless it's collection could have been discovered inevitably with laws previously in force.
Gam: Thanks for bringing that up.
One big part about ACT's that isn't seen is that both sides will slip in a sleight of hand clause in a revision, that if not read carefully causes dire results. Many times this results in media bursts such as "(Democrats/Republicans) say babies should be slain" from an act to prevent busses from running over children, when what they fail to mention is that they children are still usable as a delicacy food in fine restaurants when served with scotch is also written in the proposal.
This happens all the time.
-Chris
Jackalope wrote:Thanks AGuSTiN, good stuff but wouldn't that warrent the impeachment of all those who signed off on the patriot act ?
No, see, because you're getting two different issues confused.
The first issue is Bush signing off on spying on Americans immediately after 9/11.
The second is the Patriot Act. Bush did what he did before the Patriot Act even came into existance. Further, what he did (and actually continues to do) still isn't allowed in the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act has a secret panel of judges approving warrants, and as sinister as that sounds, he's not even going through that!
---
Ok, then help me out. What is the difference if the rights are still gone in the end ?
Either the president does it during a state of emergency or the govt takes them away
by passing bills and laws. They are still gone and like I said we can't do anything about it.
Heres a good example. WWII all the Japanise people in country were rounded up and placed in internment camps. Now I could be wrong ( please correct if I am ) but wasn't that too authorized by the president ? He took away ALL their rights because they were of a certain background. Same thing now, If you choose to have contacts with people from these "bad counties" then your rights are taken too. As I said before its nothing new and we can't do squat about it.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
AGuSTiN, I'm only asking cause I really don't know, I'm not asking to be a smart ass
( well not this time anyway
)
I don't see what the difference is. I do however think its complete BS that they can do whatever they when they want and watch us for no reason.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I really don't know how to explain it to you.
The difference is the Patriot Act had an expiration date. It had an expiration date because Congress knew it was vile but maybe necessary, and they wanted a chance to decide on it when things were calm (after 9/11 wasn't that time).
Bush is blatantly disregarding the constitution and other established, supporting law. And he says he'll continue to do so, Patriot Act or not. He's basically saying he doesn't care what out locally elected reps think, he'll do whatever he wants to whoever he wants whenever he wants.
Doesn't take long to find other leaders with that mentality throughout world history.
---
Ok, gottcha Kinda like they did in WWII. It was BS back then and it still is. If he can't give good reason perhapps he should be impeached.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Might have been better to not have voted for him in the first place.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Echelon is a myth.
The required computing power is equal to about 200 Big Blue installations just for the US.
There are about what... 30 Big Blue's? All at the Atomic Energy Commission...
Mike Frost worked at CSIS, and what you don't hear is that he was canned after a leak sting. He was the weak link, got canned and was selling his "expertise" to whomever would pay him.
Also, CSIS was created in 1984.. in 2000, he wouldn't have been working at CSIS for 20 years.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
