Victory! Illegal Snooping Law Expires!

Yomama has a lot of common sense. I don't know where all the anti government hysteria comes from. I'll bet you that nobody on this forum has been wiretapped, or knows anybody who has been wiretapped, or knows anybody who knows anybody who has been wiretapped.

But it's a banana peel away from...... one's own bump in the the night paranoia.
 
Yomama has a lot of common sense. I don't know where all the anti government hysteria comes from.
Click to expand...

...until we have a Democrat in the White House, at which point the same folks who now say "what's the big deal?" are going to scream and holler "government abuse!" for the next four or eight years.
 
Wild,

Both. I am not asking to be a instigator or smarmy,..I am actually quite curious as to why you said those two statements are wrong.
 
I am GLAD the law expired! I am looking forward to the day that the so called 'Patriot' Act expires as well. Permit me to quote one of our founding fathers:

'Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.'
Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
 
Yomama has a lot of common sense. I don't know where all the anti government hysteria comes from.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of what is right, and what freedom is and what governmental limitations are.

Why don't we just let the gov come in our house and look around anytime they want, do searches, in the name of finding terrorism. As long as you are not doing anything "illegal", why worry?

How about just registering all of our firearms and letting the gov come and inspect them whenever they want? As long as you're not illegal, why worry?
 
Really, I think this is another example of hysteria. I want the government 'snooping', if this means my children are alive and well. I think we are all starting to forget what happened a few years ago, and how this 'snooping' has helped catch people planning to attack us.

I'm in support of our government doing what ever it takes to prevent another attack. I'm sorry more of you won't agree, but think of it this way. If it prevents even one death, it was worth it....and it has!
Click to expand...

And thus we see how the terrorists won. The point wasn't to kill us, the point was to terrorize us (and cause us to become something other than the United States of America that we were).

Yomama has a lot of common sense. I don't know where all the anti government hysteria comes from. I'll bet you that nobody on this forum has been wiretapped, or knows anybody who has been wiretapped, or knows anybody who knows anybody who has been wiretapped.
Click to expand...

ZeroJunk - You lose. So where do I collect my money?
 
I think many people in this country really do not realize how much freedom we have lost. People have no concept of real freedom any more. They believe that as long as they can drive around and shop at whatever mall they want they are free.

We, just like the political parties, have lost our way. Someday maybe we can be a beacon of freedom for the world again. We don't talk about freedom for people any more. Now we go around the world and talk about pushing a form of government, democracy, on other countries. That's what we used to not like about the communists. Democracy does not equate to freedom. People can live in a democracy and be just as oppressed as other forms of government.
 
I however feel that our officials are good people, they may get some things wrong, but they are working for the people and are under paid at the same time.
Click to expand...

Many are not such good people. They use their office to bend the government to serve not the people, but special interests. Often that special interest is their own pocket (though usually very indirectly so as not to be busted quite red handed).

I also think some are a bit parinoid. We are not living under a Sadam or a Hitler here. Speak with someone who survived these dictators. There are not many. We are far from tyranny here. However, I think people in general want to believe this.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. We do not ever WANT to live under such. By removing rights and protections, and not limiting the powers of government, it is INVITING such to happen. It is not paranioa recognize the danger in this. It is foolishness on the part of those who fail to recognize the danger. And since you invoked Hitler, go back to Germany before Hitler. It is amazing how fast things changed once people were convinced that their society was under attack, who to blame and that drastic measures needed to be taken for the "sake of the nation".

This law was necessary to continue to preserve our freedoms. Again, how many of you were tapped? And don't answer EVERYONE, because that is rediculous.
Click to expand...

The correct answer is EVERYONE. Do you not understand it? Okay sometimes I lose sight of the fact that not everyone is in the IT field. Let me be clear on this. The federal government, under direction from the administration, has installed special boxes in the main hubs of our national data network. ALL data traffic (that includes most voice communications as well since they are digitized and routed over the same data network) routes through these major hubs. And the government boxes, get a copy of EVERY single packet that routes through in real time. This is how (or shall I say but one of their ways) the government gets the traffic. Once they get it, they have massive computers at the NSA monitor, IN REAL TIME the content of the traffic. They can watch for keywords. They can watch for traffic between certain nodes. They can listen for voice recognition of certain people. And they can do all of this with computers. It is computers doing the monitoring. Software and hardware, not people. So yes it CAN be done, and IS BEING DONE. Now you must realize, that in addition to trying to spy on potential terrorists, it could also be used to undermine (or worse) political enemies of those in power. It could be used to for oh so much, and none of it good. And for all we know (because it is secret) they may already be. But hey, not to worry because you TRUST the government not to abuse it's power right? The fact that this was even done OUTSIDE LEGAL channels PROVES that we cannot trust our government already, not to mention a history of operating outside the law and the public control.

Also, the IV ammendment states that you are protected from UNREASONABLE searches. This is not unreasonable to me. I think it is entirely reasonable to have our government working in any way to protect it's citizens. Our men and women died so that our country could continue to protect and preserve, which is what we are trying to do here.
Click to expand...

Well, the Supreme Court has held that reasonable is defined as upon probable cause, and specific to the person and subject of interest. Drag net methodology has been specifically rejected as not being reasonable. Tapping everyone in order to maybe find something is a drag net and is not reasonable.
 
Oops, my bad! Funny thing, in rereading about the Alien & Sedition Acts, I discover that the grounds that were viewed as unconstitutional were the 10th and not so much the 1st. And Jefferson pardoned the 10 convicted of sedition.

Teach me to rely on mere memory!
WA said:
Anybody want to tell me how listening on international calls violates the constitution in a scenario where one party is not a US citizen.
Click to expand...
With or without a warrant? [snark]

Wiretapping a US Citizen, who resides within and makes (originates) the call within the US, without a warrant, is a 4A violation. It isn't the intended foreign receiver who was violated. It is the originators 4A rights that were violated. My understanding of current law is that if the originator of the call is a foreigner, then any wiretap is lawful.
 
Wiretapping a US Citizen, who resides within and makes (originates) the call within the US, without a warrant, is a 4A violation.
Click to expand...

How about the border exception Al.? Could you not treat an international call as part of that?

Plus (since you have your library handy), is there a case which holds that such monitoring is unlawful?

Plus, is such monitoring "unreasonable"...

WildplusplusplusAlaska ™
 
I am actually quite curious as to why you said those two statements are wrong.
__________________
Click to expand...

First...you tell me...do you think they are right? Notice, as usual, the poster beleives there are no exceptions...do you think that is the case?

If so, next time you get asked to empty your pockets at the border, tell em to get a warrant.:D

WilddareyaAlaska ™
 
Originally Posted by WA
Anybody want to tell me how listening on international calls violates the constitution in a scenario where one party is not a US citizen. With or without a warrant? [snark]

Wiretapping a US Citizen, who resides within and makes (originates) the call within the US, without a warrant, is a 4A violation. It isn't the intended foreign receiver who was violated. It is the originators 4A rights that were violated. My understanding of current law is that if the originator of the call is a foreigner, then any wiretap is lawful.
Click to expand...

I suggest that correctly interpreted, the art.II, sec. 1 of the COTUS reserves to the executive all executive authority, and that there is no legal limit to that authority beyond US borders. Accordingly, the monitoring of any international communication is within his exclusive authority.

That suggestion is not shared by the drafters of the FISA statutes or the War Powers Act, but it makes more sense to me.
 
zukephile said:
I suggest that correctly interpreted, the art.II, sec. 1 of the COTUS reserves to the executive all executive authority, and that there is no legal limit to that authority beyond US borders.
Click to expand...
Just like Art I, Section 8, clause 1, correctly interpreted, is a general grant of power to the Congress that supercedes any of the remaining clauses and therefore there are no limits to Congressional power... At least, that's what FDR thought. Along with the Court in Wickard and Raich. Just to name a start and end point.

Border exception Ken? That's the same kind of stretch as above. As for "reasonable," that's always been kinda like the definition of "is," hasn't it?

The "reasonable man" standard is better than the elasticity of such legal fictions, because a "reasonable man" would not understand a "border exception" when talking from his home in podunk Idaho to his great aunt in London. A reasonable man is not paranoid.
 
Border exception Ken? That's the same kind of stretch as above. As for "reasonable," that's always been kinda like the definition of "is," hasn't it?
Click to expand...

Correct...but then again, Im not the drafter who used the term "unreasonable" :)

Under the facts presented, is listening into a conversation where one party is out of the US and "unreasonable" search and seizure.

WildmailcoversAlaska TM

PS thanks for raising the antics of our government during WW1 and thereafter Al, how soon we forget!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top