Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/16/2005 12:32:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:33:17 PM EDT
Why no talk?

Do you want to end up disappeared?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:34:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Why no talk?

Do you want to end up disappeared?






Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:35:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:45:54 PM EDT
Only been 3 or 4 threads.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:46:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=418727




Thanks...looked to page 4 and didn't find anything before I posted this.

So dupe.


and



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:48:10 PM EDT
I'm keeping a low profile. I've been hearing clicks when I'm on the phone.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:48:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Only been 3 or 4 threads.



The tin foil only goes so far.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:05:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By callgood:
I'm keeping a low profile. I've been hearing clicks when I'm on the phone.




My computer screen just dimmed quickly and came back up.



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:06:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By callgood:
I'm keeping a low profile. I've been hearing clicks when I'm on the phone.




My computer screen just dimmed quickly and came back up.






Don't turn around...............................
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:13:17 PM EDT
Because it's not news.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:13:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 1:14:21 PM EDT by lippo]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Because it's not news.



maybe to you.


Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights".
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:33:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 1:34:17 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Because it's not news.



maybe to you.


Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights".



Yea OK

Lets see the NYT is upset the US is intercepting INTERNATIONAL cell-phone and e-mail communications… something neither illegal or unconstitutional. This distorted revelation comes 10 days before the author releases his bew book and the day after Iraqi elections… ya think maybe the NYTs has an agenda.

And the NYTs could care less that a town in Florida is confiscating 6000 homes under eminent domain so the town can scoop up prime water front property.

I suggest we not be distracted by phantom threats to liberty and focus on real ones.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:44:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Because it's not news.



maybe to you.


Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights".



Yea OK

Lets see the NYT is upset the US is intercepting INTERNATIONAL cell-phone and e-mail communications… something neither illegal or unconstitutional. This distorted revelation comes 10 days before the author releases his bew book and the day after Iraqi elections… ya think maybe the NYTs has an agenda.

And the NYTs could care less that a town in Florida is confiscating 6000 homes under eminent domain so the town can scoop up prime water front property.

I suggest we not be distracted by phantom threats to liberty and focus on real ones.



I think you're missing the point; half of the international call is in the US, and most likely a US citizen speaking. If it was overseas, and two non-US citizens were speaking that would be legal. Plus, the means by which listening to cell calls is done is somewhat indiscriminate. Plus, some podunk town in Florida with a public works dispute is not national news, but the president authorizing a federal agency to spy on US citizens is.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:57:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:00:56 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Because it's not news.



maybe to you.


Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights".



Yea OK

Lets see the NYT is upset the US is intercepting INTERNATIONAL cell-phone and e-mail communications… something neither illegal or unconstitutional. This distorted revelation comes 10 days before the author releases his bew book and the day after Iraqi elections… ya think maybe the NYTs has an agenda.

And the NYTs could care less that a town in Florida is confiscating 6000 homes under eminent domain so the town can scoop up prime water front property.

I suggest we not be distracted by phantom threats to liberty and focus on real ones.



I think you're missing the point; half of the international call is in the US, and most likely a US citizen speaking. If it was overseas, and two non-US citizens were speaking that would be legal. Plus, the means by which listening to cell calls is done is somewhat indiscriminate. Plus, some podunk town in Florida with a public works dispute is not national news, but the president authorizing a federal agency to spy on US citizens is.



I didn’t miss the point... the point is this is an attempt by the NYTs to distract from good news in Iraq and sell books.

The US Government can intercept anything no matter where it originates no matter who the citizen is once it goes over seas… always could nothing new.

Public works dispute... you have not one idea what you are talking about. Confiscating private property/homes has not one damn thing to do with public works and it is occurring all over this Cuntry

If you think intercepting international communications is a bigger threat to your liberty that the ability of local government to confiscate your home anytime they chose to... you need your head examined.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:57:40 PM EDT
I don't care.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:58:08 PM EDT
An "article" from the NY Times? You must be joking...The home of the now fired Blair (a NY Times employee) caught fabricating stories...If you gave the entire NY Times building an enema what would be left is a small bag of dog shit.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:02:40 PM EDT
Because the men in the black helicopters can see through my computer screen and can tell what is in my gun safe from the ultra sensitive detector rays. I don't want to piss them off anymore than I already have.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:08:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:15:35 PM EDT by eddiein1984]

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
Because it's not news.



maybe to you.


Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights".



Yea OK

Lets see the NYT is upset the US is intercepting INTERNATIONAL cell-phone and e-mail communications… something neither illegal or unconstitutional. This distorted revelation comes 10 days before the author releases his bew book and the day after Iraqi elections… ya think maybe the NYTs has an agenda.

And the NYTs could care less that a town in Florida is confiscating 6000 homes under eminent domain so the town can scoop up prime water front property.

I suggest we not be distracted by phantom threats to liberty and focus on real ones.



I think you're missing the point; half of the international call is in the US, and most likely a US citizen speaking. If it was overseas, and two non-US citizens were speaking that would be legal. Plus, the means by which listening to cell calls is done is somewhat indiscriminate. Plus, some podunk town in Florida with a public works dispute is not national news, but the president authorizing a federal agency to spy on US citizens is.



The US Government can intercept anything no matter where it originates no matter who the citizen is once it goes over seas… always could nothing new.

Public works dispute... you have not one idea what you are talking about. Confiscating private property/homes has not one damn thing to do with public works and it is occurring all over this Cuntry

If you think intercepting international communications is a bigger threat to your liberty that the ability of local government to confiscate your home anytime they chose to... you need your head examined.



You are still missing the point. Of course the same equipment that is used to spy on other nations is and always has been capable of spying on Americans. However, in America we have what's called a warrant so that people don't have their privacy violated on a whim.

And yes, confiscating private property has and always will occur. If it weren't for eminent domain, new roads, bridges, tunnels, etc that are in the public interest would never be completed without the city/state/fed paying up the ass to clear out the last hold outs. Of course it isn't a perfect situation, but there wouldn't be a straight road in this country if it weren't for eminent domain.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:17:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:18:37 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Why no talk about Bush and the NSA here today?

The people of Iraq just voted yesterday in the very first open and free national government election in the ENTIRE Arab world.

Overall 70% of Iraqis literally laid their lives on the line to wait in line for hours to choose their own representatives in places like Basra, Mosul, Baghdad and even Fallujah.

The infamous "Triangle Of Death" became the "Triangle Of Democracy" yesterday as Iraqis, freed by the American overthrow of Saddam and liberation of Iraq, swarmed into polling places to freely choose their own leaders and set the course for their own future as they see fit.

Over 100,000 Iraqi Security Forces provided security for their own people and showed the world they are beginning to grow into a competent and self-reliant defender of their own people.

People like Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Reid, Pelosi and Murtha were proved WRONG - Iraq IS growing into a safer and freer nation as this peaceful and highly successful election proves. And GWBush was proved RIGHT, Iraq WILL be an example to the whole Muslim world and democracy and freedom WILL spread for the benefit of all.

Significant history was made yesterday and, in the words of one Iraqi voter, "Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell".



But that's old news now....... back to the Bush-bashing.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:22:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:24:14 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:29:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:34:17 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



There is no violation of the constitution/Bill of Rights in intercepting international communications as long as off shore assets are used. The US Government needs no warrant to intercept international communications never have needed one.

Second have you been on another planet for the last 6 months…ever heard of Kelo. Those houses are NOT being confiscated for new roads, bridges, tunnels they are being confiscated because the city sees it as prime real estate and want to steal the land and hand it over to developers. If you do not find frightening the prospect that a city can take your land under imminent domain for nothing more that speculative reasons to line somebody else’s pockets with virtually no controls you should.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:30:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yet because Bush did it


(careful)
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:31:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:32:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Paul:
Ah, don't really know how to break this to you ... but international calls have been intercepted since the 1950's that I know of ... news 60 years later



Yep very old Cold War practice that is what the NSA does... NO WARRANT NEEDED, NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WHAT SO EVER
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:34:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



There is no violation of the constitution/Bill of Rights in intercepting international communications as long as off shore assets are used. The US Government needs no warrant to intercept international communications never have needed one.

Second have you been on another planet for the last 6 months…ever heard of Kelo. Those houses are NOT being confiscated for new roads, bridges, tunnels they are being confiscated because the city sees it as prime real estate and want to steal the land and hand it over to developers. If you do not find the prospect that a city can take your land under imminent domain for nothing more that speculative reasonsand to line somebody else’s pockets with virtually no controls frightening you should.



WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.


Obviously, you read the article.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:34:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?


NSA intercepting INTERNATIONAL calls and emails going to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is NOT significant "news".

Iraqis "purple thumb" IS.


Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:37:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 2:39:35 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



There is no violation of the constitution/Bill of Rights in intercepting international communications as long as off shore assets are used. The US Government needs no warrant to intercept international communications never have needed one.

Second have you been on another planet for the last 6 months…ever heard of Kelo. Those houses are NOT being confiscated for new roads, bridges, tunnels they are being confiscated because the city sees it as prime real estate and want to steal the land and hand it over to developers. If you do not find the prospect that a city can take your land under imminent domain for nothing more that speculative reasonsand to line somebody else’s pockets with virtually no controls frightening you should.



WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 ­- Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.


Obviously, you read the article.



ONE MORE TIME...

THEY DON'T NEED A DAMN WARRANT.

They are intercepting INTERNATIONAL calls not domestic.

The NYTs is intentional misleading people like you who don't know any better.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:42:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



Those "purple thumbs" mean a hell of a lot. Try arguing the point on the merits without detracting from the historic event that happened yesterday. By dismissing those elections as a mere colored appendage, you scoff at the principles that founded this great nation.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:46:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
I can't believe this. People on this site always hold up the constitution/Bill of Rights, even when it doesn't apply. In this case it clearly does. Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?


NSA intercepting INTERNATIONAL calls and emails going to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is NOT significant "news".

Iraqis "purple thumb" IS.





I am convinced we are going to have to be hit hard again before the American people get it. We are systematically dismantling the very things that have prevented attacks in the last 4 years.

And if the NYTs gets its way we will quit Iraq and set the stage for a major catastrophe.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:52:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



Those "purple thumbs" mean a hell of a lot. Try arguing the point on the merits without detracting from the historic event that happened yesterday. By dismissing those elections as a mere colored appendage, you scoff at the principles that founded this great nation.



First, holding an election (even a legitimate one) does not a functional government make.

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity there. An international to international call is another matter, fully legal. But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 2:56:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



Those "purple thumbs" mean a hell of a lot. Try arguing the point on the merits without detracting from the historic event that happened yesterday. By dismissing those elections as a mere colored appendage, you scoff at the principles that founded this great nation.



First, holding an election (even a legitimate one) does not a functional government make.


No shit sherlock. What it does is mark an historic event. 70% of Iraqis turned out to vote. People of your ilk in this country bitch, and then don't vote.

For the first time in history the cradle of civilization had free elections to choose their government. The very principle on which this great nation was founded. If you don't see why that is a bigger deal than the NSA listening in on international phone call and emails then you truly lack a basic understanding of government, history, and proportion.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:02:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?



Those "purple thumbs" mean a hell of a lot. Try arguing the point on the merits without detracting from the historic event that happened yesterday. By dismissing those elections as a mere colored appendage, you scoff at the principles that founded this great nation.



First, holding an election (even a legitimate one) does not a functional government make.

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity there. An international to international call is another matter, fully legal. But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.



Just plain bullshit and just flat wrong.

The US Goverment can intercept ANY communication once it leaves US soil.

The shear stupidity of what you propose is staggering. Under your badly conceived fantasies a US listening post in say Egypt would have to get a warrant to intercept communications between the US and terrorist in Egypt. That is not so and would cripple us if it were and it is exactly what you propose.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:03:39 PM EDT
Where did you draw the conclusion that I don't vote from? I always vote, including local elections, even when I'm deployed. Second, if you think printing a list of names on a sheet of paper, then having a bunch of illiterates (who don't know anything about the views of the people on that list) select some names and stuff a ballot box is a democracy, then mission accomplished.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:12:44 PM EDT
Today, we find out that Bush ordered the spying on US citizens for the war on terror.....



Tomorrow, we find out they've been doing it all along......



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:17:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
Today, we find out that Bush ordered the spying on US citizens for the war on terror.....



Tomorrow, we find out they've been doing it all along......






We have been for decades on international communications. This is nothing new or unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:22:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By BangStick1:
Today, we find out that Bush ordered the spying on US citizens for the war on terror.....



Tomorrow, we find out they've been doing it all along......






We have been for decades on international communications. This is nothing new or unconstitutional.





SEE!! SEE!! That is how it starts!! They break the news to you slowly!




Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:31:28 PM EDT
Think...ECHELON!

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:34:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Think...ECHELON!


Huh?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:42:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 3:44:31 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Think...ECHELON!




Yep been in place for a long time.

Supposedly gets almost all forms of communication… phone call, fax, email, text message ect. sent from anywhere and analyzes them.

And they don’t even have eddiein1984s premission.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:59:48 PM EDT
You guys have absolutely missed the point of the NYT article, as well as my posts. I'm sure all you clowns that googled Echelon feel like you are in the "know". It is just a system for collection, along with many others. Having a capability is NOT the same as having permission. Of course the NSA or any other agency COULD use these systems domestically. Nothing physically prevents it. That would be no different from any other wire tap. The point is that having a capability doesn't put the consititution on hold. You still need a warrant for search and seizure of US citizens. Why else would they need an executive order to do it, if it was legal? Most of you didn't even read the article, because it absolutely was NOT about two way international calls (which would be legal). It was about international calls and emails that originate in the US.

So if you guys are fine with suspending your privacy, or any other right (yeah, even THAT one), go for it. More power to you. Me, I'm not willing to have my rights enforced selectively.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:53:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 5:54:41 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Most of you didn't even read the article, because it absolutely was NOT about two way international calls (which would be legal). It was about international calls and emails that originate in the US.

So if you guys are fine with suspending your privacy, or any other right (yeah, even THAT one), go for it. More power to you. Me, I'm not willing to have my rights enforced selectively.

Yes and I highlighted that too!

Point is that calling Pakistan or Saudi Arabia SHOULD be monitored because THAT'S where our enemies' leaders are directing domestic terrorist cells here in our country from.

By comparison, the same should have happened in WWII for calls and mail sent from here to Germans in Nazi Germany.

International calls and emails to and from Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. are automatically more suspect just like people travelling to and from those places should be scrutinized more closely.



Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:06:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity there. An international to international call is another matter, fully legal. But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.




Read the goddamn law. You are wrong.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:18:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity there. An international to international call is another matter, fully legal. But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.




Read the goddamn law. You are wrong.



Can you cite what you are referring to? The law that says a US citizen can be monitored if he is talking to a non-US citizen. I'm serious. I want to read that.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:20:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen. There is no ambiguity there. An international to international call is another matter, fully legal. But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.




Read the goddamn law. You are wrong.



Can you cite what you are referring to? The law that says a US citizen can be monitored if he is talking to a non-US citizen. I'm serious. I want to read that.




I don't spoon feed my undergrads, and I'm sure as hell not spoon feeding somebody who couldn't be troubled to look stuff up before posting. Get to researching.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:39:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 6:57:09 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
Are you referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and its employment under the Patriot Act (Section 218)? That still requires a warrant, albeit a "secret" one. Monitoring done under a warrant was never at issue here.

I didn't realize this forum was limited to academics. Fill me in on this one. Show me the case law that establishes that unlimited monitoring of a US citizen can be done without a warrant or probable cause, so long as he/she is making an international call.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:57:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen.



Just plain bullshit and just flat wrong.

The US Goverment can intercept ANY communication once it leaves US soil.



When was the law changed? Because when I worked at NSA that was the way it was.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:04:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 7:49:26 PM EDT by eddiein1984]
Hey SPADE, is this part of the undergrad curriculum? Or is this covered at the PhD level? If you can show something that supercedes this, I'll be happy to eat humble pie.

From the FISA:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) 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 if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:49:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 7:50:33 PM EDT by lippo]
I guess some forgot about this...


Article 4

The Right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses and papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Dictionary:

Effects - Movable belongings; goods

Movable - Law. Of or relating to personal property that can be moved

Belongings - something owned; any tangible or intangible possession that is owned by someone

Goods - Portable personal property


You that say, spying on people is acceptable, do not uphold our Bill of Rights. As you can CLEARLY see, the only way to CONSTITUTIONALLY sieze a persons email or phone conversations is to obtain a warrant. How hard is that? They pass them out like candy. But DO IT THE RIGHT WAY! If the government feels like someone "may" be a terrorist, then go right ahead and get a warrant and listen all you want.

But those laws that say, a government official can "just" listen in, are ok, just because you are talking to someone are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And just because a court says so, does NOT make the law Constitutional. Look at the VAST majority of firearm laws...TOTALLY UnConstitutoinal. And they stay on the books and are used to put people behind bars and have even been used to kill citizens for nothing other than a $200 tax.

The President and the AG DOES NOT have the Right to change the Bill of Rights, period. I don't want another terrorist attack and I support going after terrorists with vigor, but DO IT the RIGHT WAY. Get a warrant, even if you have to pay a judge to be at a scene so a warrant can be given immediately.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:51:08 PM EDT
Interesting tidbit:



FISA does not regulate the use of electronic surveillance outside of the United States. For instance, electronic surveillance of electronic communications like e-mail is only governed by §1801(f)(4) if the surveillance device is installed "in the United States." When e-mail sent by a U.S. person to a foreign person is intercepted outside the United States, that interception does not meet this definition.


Source:
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:52:24 PM EDT
tag for response
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top