This week the Director of National Intelligence appeared in front of the congressional intelligence committee. Updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act (FISA) is crucial because of technological advancements that create a serious case of unintended consequences. The main problem is that FISA does not have a problem with us listening in on conversations with foreign nationals when they pass through the air (cel phone, sat phone etc.). As soon as conversation passes over a wire though it now requires a warrant. Now let me make sure this is clear. If OBL calls the new head of Al Khaida in Iraq and he uses a land line (which today is fiber optic) and most likely will pass through a switch in the US, we can not listen in on that conversation without a warrant. This is giving OBL 4th amendment rights and I do not think was the intend.
We also had a situation last May when some of our troops were kidnapped in Iraq. We picked up a phone call (again land line - fiber optics) from the kidnappers but we could not go "live" with the call without a warrant. Now there is a procedure in place for emergency warrants but the DNI still has to build a case of probable cause which needs to be able to be upheld in court. This took about 12 hrs before and meant we could not legally listen to the conversation for that time. At this point during the discussion, Chairman Rayes (D-TX) said that he believed a common sense approach would have been to go live on the call since our troops lives are at stake and worry about the consequences later. He considered that a common sense approach which I actually applaud him but unfortunately, it would be a felony.
And that's the problem with the FISA it needs to be updated, the Protect America Act has a lot of oversight such as judicial review requirements, constant revision and tightening of legal interpretations. Any member from the Intelligence committee can walk in the NSA and look at any record they choose etc. The methods they outline in the Protect America Act are used in today's wire tap procedures that have been accepted in all legal proceedings. The irony in all this though is not passing this would give terrorists 4th amendment rights and that is something I find unacceptable.
If you are interested in reading the written statement of the DNI you can find it here:
http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20070920_testimony.pdf
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 93
This was addressed at length. What happens is that computers listen and pick things up. Analysts can not access the information until AFTER the Attorney General signs off on the emergency warrant. He can not sign off on the warrant until the DNI has established probable cause which needs to be tight enough to be upheld in federal court. Again, its not filling out a few forms, the DNI has to establish this and my point is...why do we need that...they are foreigners!!! They aren't covered by 4th amendment...but the LAW says that if a call comes over a wire this has to be done. If they would have used a cell phone we could have gone live on that instantly.
This brings out another point. All this discussion, while good and makes people feel better, kind of makes me wonder if is such a good thing. I have to imagine that terrorists can read our newspapers just as good as anyone and THAT may have been the reason they used a land line rather then a cell phone.
Not at all, I just dont think that Terrorists should be protected by our constitution...do you?
Cheri,
We are talking about a technicallity which limits us from listen in to foreign targets in a foreign land only because current technology uses wires and they happen to pass through our country. But you would be happy to know that should OBL come to the US and wake up a sleeper cell with a phone call he would be covered under the 4th amendment.
Its not just Bush that controls this. There are various courts who oversee this, Congress can review any and all procedures or even files without notice.
Isn't that what democrats asked the president to do when he got busted for illigally wiretapping?
He's the type of guy that would say Bush deserves all of the blame for being attacked on 911 but then not give Bush an ounce of credit for not having had another attack on our soil since then.
"Bush has abused our rights and denied them so many times, it's difficult to trust him."
What rights has George Bush specifically denied you from expressing Cheri?
The only way the minimized portion of conversation can be listened to is AFTER a warrant.
I for one do not believe that illigal immigrants should be protected under the constitution. I do understand that determining if the recepiant of a call in the US is a US citizen can not be done instantaniously so would only slow the process down so they are given 4th amendment rights.
That is the cruc of the matter. Since the government is not explaining the kinds of situations that can occur here, it leaves room for the knee-jerkers here to make all kinds of wild complaints. Nevermind that making posts on the Internet is one way for a government to find and track dissident easily ... if they wanted to.
At this point there is no evidence that our own government is acting in bad faith or doing anything they should not be doing.
My biggest fear is that Americans who are really not educated, informed or experienced enough in technology or the Constitution will not be able at some point to fullfill their citizen's duties because they will be ineffective at understanding the questions and threats of all this technology. This is a national conversation that has not happened or even attempted to be brought about.
When technolgy advances so much that you can be effective X-rayed in your own house, probed in your own body, followed everywhere in your life, tracked in every idea that you have ever been exposed to, there is a lot of thinking, and brilliant thinking that is going to be needed to figure out how to live in freedom in such a world, or what freedom even means?
Now our Military is all pomp and follow the rules? Dream on! If somebody didn't listen in, it was not because they did not want to break the law? Incompetence? Asleep?
There are ulterior motives for this lie.
They sacrificed kidnapped troops because they had to give terrorist their rights? These lies work on AM radio where mindless minions tune in and there is no debate. Here, your lies are going to get called out.
The truth is that other administrations have managed to thwart all but a few attacks and have done it within the law. This is the only administration that can't figure out how to do that. Time for another Medal of Freedom for another political hack that can't cut the mustard. The entire situation disgusts me. We are abandoning the Rule of Law which is our very foundation.
I despair that we will even have another election, let alone an honest, certifiable election. Do we realize it would only take a stroke of the Decider's pen to declare martial law and there would be no election in 2008? We are hanging on a precipice by our fingertips and below us is dictatorship and theocracy.
I agree with Rude when he said there is no way the government is going to miss an opportunity of great importance, law or no law! And I've read the number of national security letters that were inappropriately utilized to obtain information. That was appalling!
Perhaps by following the constitution we do run more risk. That is the price of freedom! Our ancestors knew this at the time the Constitution was written. No, they didn't have phones and such then but they knew that freedom was still a risky process and one that is ultimately worth while.
Like Same C. said, many persons fought and many even gave their life so that we might have these freedoms and Constitutional protections. To give them away is like spitting on the graves of those who sacrificed to get and keep them!
I appreciate the article Victor, and you did a great job of presenting it! I just feel that it is time to remind ourselves that this is America and recover all the freedom we can. As Bruce K. pointed out, we can be watched and monitored in so many ways without our even knowing it now. Are we going to abandon privacy and the freedom we have known altogether? I hope not even though that may place both me and the people I care for at risk.
The full implimentation of The Patriot Act barely brings the United States into the realm of such countries as Canada, Britian, France, Germany etc. Do people actually believe that Canadian and the British live their lives without rights?
In Canada, the government reserves the right to eavedrop on anyone who is not a citizen, as well as monitors phone calls reaching outside the country without a warrant.
Are we to expect a wave of refugees fleeing to the United States because of this goverment intrusion?
Let's get a little perspective here folks. I know that paranoia makes for effective politics, but when is reason going to do the same?
Sam,
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that rights can be and must be curtailed for a variety of reasons.
Countless countries have claimed that we were crazy for allowing our people so many freedoms, and many have said that our liberal slathering of freedom all around is what made us vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks, yet our all encompassing freedoms have been the source of our incredible greatness.
We have always lived on the edge.
Our laws start and end at our borders, with the exception of our officially held territories and the UCMJ which governs our soldiers no matter where they are.
If we have an intelligence station in Iraq, those listeners do not need FISA to allow them to listen in on anything. What they would need to do is show discretion in any actions they might take so as not to start an international incident or harm innocent peoples.
The problem with expanding FISA is the whole "listening in on international lines" angle. An American contacting another American within our borders may experience instances where the transmission will cross our border while being routed.
So, even if you are calling just down the street the call may be routed through some transmission point outside our borders, like say a satellite.
We do not need this change in order to listen to calls made from Iraq or Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
The Patriot Act already allows an international call to be monitored despite the fact that it's signal may pass through an American switch.
An interesting note on Greg Schiller's comment regarding the fact that we have more rights (less surveillance) than Canadians, Germans and Brits; even though Britain allows such intrusive monitoring (and always has) they have failed to stop some of the terrorist acts that have taken place in their country, Germany too.
Let's be clear; Each of us living within our American borders has a better chance of being hit by lightening than being injured, maimed or killed by a foreign terrorist attack.
General P said it best. If he sees a terrorist making a call to the US he can shoot him. He just cant listen to him talking.
Sandy,
you said "The truth is that other administrations have managed to thwart all but a few attacks and have done it within the law." Actually Bush did it by BREAKING the law. We've only had the protect america act a few months. The advantage we HAD of listening in on them without them knowing exactly how we do it is now lost.
Land lines (whether copper or fiber) that originate and run through other countries do not fall under the purveyance of our laws. Not to mention that fact that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have always listened in on such calls anyway.
It is only a fool that would think we would not have rescued those soldiers, especially when organizations like Blackwater do whatever the hell they want, including opening fire on civilians.
This is all about asking the American citizens for permission to allow the government to listen in on more calls so that they won't get in trouble when they get caught doing it inappropriately.
In the case of the hostage situation mentioned in this article, there is not a court in our land that would have condemned anyone for any actions taken in that case if the hostages had been rescued.
I am no expert on telecommunication but in the meeting it was discussed that in the past more long distance conversations went through the air (sat etc) which is why the OLD FISA was working but now they go by fiber optics.
I think it was good that the DNI did not break the law even though I agree it was justified. BUT when you are dealing with such a sensitive item like surveillance and you justify breaking the law for one case then how do you know where he draws the line? At what point will he "justify" to break them again. THAT would open Pandora's box and create insecurity. This act established court oversight where procedures are approved. This stuff needs to be clarified that everyone knows how far they can go.
In our courts, a local or federal investigative unit needs to adhere to the law so that cases cannot be thrown out of court over the violation of some technicality. In the case of soldiers being held hostage on foreign soil the same rules do not apply. It's not as if those kidnappers would have been extradited to America for a trial. The kidnappers would most likely have been sent to Gitmo or some secret prison (if they survived the raid to free the hostages) where they would have been interrogated or held incommunicado.
Maintaining wire-tapping as illegal provides a deterrent and protection against over intrusiveness. If it can be forgiven and go unpunished in the right incidences, then changing the law will only cover the butts of people who want to do it in wrong incidences for inappropriate reasons.
Again, I want to point out that when carried out in proper and just situations the legal consequences are nil under the current exercision of the law. The only persons that need be afraid are the ones that would wire-tap in inappropriate situations. Loosening the law will only allow more room for impropriety to take place and be gotten away with.
THis is not changing the status of wiretapping. It is simply saying that it does not make sense that you need to get a warrant to listen in on foreign terrorist in a foreign country when he uses a land line and the call happens to be routed through a US switch but you DON'T need a warrant if he uses a cel phone.
A cell phone is a broadcast transmission where, since anyone could listen to it from anywhere with the right equipment, the right of privacy is not guaranteed by the technology. A land-line is a direct station to station transmission where listening in requires a more deliberate focus and specific process; the technology provides a pretty high level of privacy.
The change they will make in the law, as I understand it from this article and our conversations, will be to say that no warrant is needed if a listener "knows" that someone on the line is a terrorist.
The window for problems come in the decision making discretion of the individual listener and how they determine that a caller is or isn't a terrorist. With the current trend of labeling anti-war voices as terrorist sympathizers, allowing the listener to decide who is what can mean a whole lot of inappropriate behavior and consequences resulting.
I'd prefer to require them to have a warrant, and let them continue to operate under the knowledge that when right, the justice system will exonerate them; and when wrong their butts will be shredded.
It seems that you are trying to apply a broad stroke of the brush with a general principle with good intentions on the U.S. canvas of the basic principle of FREEDOM.
It isn't fair to argue that we should allow SOME wiretapping or SOME eavesdropping or SOME suspected terrorists interrogating by SOME so-called trusted officials because of the 1 or 2 examples you have given.
Maybe I should list my 1 or 2 examples of injustices throughout the years and we should enact laws that broadly prohibit or allow:
* Arresting a suspected child molestor (note the word suspected) and searching their home, printing their photograph in the paper
* Arresting a sodomizer in 13 states even though he or she may be in a monogamous relationship
* Listening/ Wiretapping large corporations to uncover illegal insider trading
* Forcing elected politicians to submit to random wiretapping/ eavesdropping/ lie-detectors to eliminate unethical or illegal kickbacks or lobbying
etc...
You should get the basic idea.
Ideally, we all agree with what you are saying. But as Benjamin Franklin said,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
not passing this would give terrorists 4th amendment rights"
WARNING, WARNING, RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA. Tell me how, not passing the "Protect America Act", gives foreign terrorists on foreign soil any 4th amendment rights? Smoke screen.
"oversight such as judicial review requirements, constant revision and tightening of legal interpretations."
Judicial review, thats a joke. Well, that is, U.S. District Judge James Robertson didn't think so. He was one of the 11 FISA Judges that made up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He thought that Bu$h had gone to far, with the "illegal wiretaps" that he resigned in protest. And then there is the famous "meet you at the hospital" moment with Gonzales, Card, Muller, Comey, and Ashcroft playing the part of the critically ill patient, that was being pressured to reauthorize an illegal program.
"When can a cop break into your home without a warrant? When "HE HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION" that a felony is being commited." Thus lies the problem. We all know there are "Bad" cops out there, that abuse this. What is to protect long haired Joe, from Good Ol' Boy, Officer Bubba, who just don't like the way he looks. Is that "reasonable suspicion" enough for you?
"Our founders wrote the Constitution with the promise of inalienable right to ALL men. That means there is no circumstance where those rights can or should be restricted, regardless of reason. They understood that bad people will therefore be able to do bad things but considered that insecurity a small price to pay for liberty. That's called principal. Freedom requires courage, not cowardice. It is cowardice that encourages the repeal of "inalienable rights" for the illusion of security. The "Patriot Act" has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism."
BRAVO, BRAVO, MORE YEA!
Do you honestly believe that Osama is waiting with bated breath for this law to pass so he can "safely" start conversing with his cell groups in the United States by telephone, "knowing" that this will tie the hands of US law enforcement? If you can honestly answer "yes" to that and keep a straight face then I will understand you feelings on this much better!
I don't believe it for a minute and therefore must appreciate the true value of letting this "protect the administration" act die it's natural and proper death.
And also, most of us have caught on by now, that when Bu$h wants something passed, he names it opposite of what it really is, so he can call "you" unpatriotic if you're against it. No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act I & II, Job Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. One has left them "all" behind, two, well nothing patriotic there, and the last, well lets just say, the rich got richer.
It's time to wake up from this 7 year nightmare.
James no I do not but again its clear that you do not understand this law or the debate because you got it backwards. Old FISA has the stipulation that OBL using a land line requires a warrant. The current passed law treats the land line the same as a cell phone. IF the law were to expire THEN we would go back old FISA.
You know what I found interesting during the hearings, I did not hear one member of the inteligence committee doubt that this law protects us. They all have access to classified information and they know the value.
Think about this man. How can you expect anyone to support a bill to take away more rights, by a known incompetent lier, and passed by a bunch of fools that think they know what's best for America. Anything that this "president" and congress does, will probably just get us in deeper.
I think you all are forgetting something. Bu$h said we didn't need to treat this as a police matter. Why do we need a warrant to kill enemy combatants on foreign soil. If you pick up OBL talking to Abu al Masri in Iraq, step 1 target both sites, step 2 fire! What's so hard about that.
"Freedom requires courage, not cowardice. It is cowardice that encourages the repeal of "inalienable rights" for the illusion of security. The "Patriot Act" has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism."
Eloquent !
Loose laws allow more wiggle room for people to abuse the authority given to them; and every law will get pushed beyond its limits by someone who hopes to get away with something. To tell them that they no longer need warrants for certain situations means a further range for abuse and less ranges of accountability; and that's a bad thing.
According to NOAA there are an average of 90 Americans killed by lightning on annual basis. source
There were over 2,997 casualties on just 9/11 alone. That is more than 30 years of lightning strikes.
While it is not unheard of for lightning to kill or injure more than one person at a time, it is in the design and nature of terrorists to kill or injure as many innocent people as possible.
I don't understand something, you want to change the law, so the Bu$h administration doesn't have to break the law anymore, right. They break the laws they don't like, and change the ones, that take away our civil liberties. They don't care about fighting terrorist. They just care about "taking away."
"so no one HAS to break the law"
They have you fooled. They want to change this law, so they can further "spy" on Americans. Their agenda is a police state, with them in charge. You'll NEVER convince me, this administration has Americas best interest at heart.
You are blinded by your hatred. NSA had the technology to spy on americans for decades. THis law does not make in any easier to spy on americans, it makes it harder because it provides for unprecedented oversight. The point we have been debating about is requireing a warrant for a foreigner in a foreign land ONLY because he uses a land line. If he uses a cell phone OLD FISA has no problem with listening in BUT it DOES require a warrant if the call is made over fiber optics and passes through a switch in the US which many international calls do.
Let me turn the table...OLD FISA does not nearly have the oversight restrictions and madates that this law has. It does NOT require audits by the court, it does NOT require reporting to congress and many others.
Like how would I know if it DID protect us..
How would I know it didn't HURT us..
How would I know he did it AT ALL and isn't just blowing smoke up our snouts...
Oversight through the requirement of warrants is a protection against malfeasance.
I guess I should have said that each of us living within our American borders has a better chance of being killed in a car accident, or by the flu, or by second hand smoke, than being injured, maimed or killed by a foreign terrorist attack.
Your source supports two of those claims.
911 didn't occur because we didn't have enough laws on the books and even in a police state you have no guarantees against all things. If we start enforcing the laws we have and our intelligence agencies start actually working together, it would help a lot. But the bottom line is that there is much risk in freedom, and I, for one, want to keep that freedom with all the risks it may entail. And if we accidental give some small advantage to the bad guys it still beats not having freedom.
Thought you might like to see, why I oppose this. I'll explain, below are some "terms" that I am concerned about, and DO NOT trust the federal government to "just trust" them.
"(3) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communication service provider or "OTHER PERSON" who has access to communications; (4) a"SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE" of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and (5) the minimization procedures (procedures to ensure the "SMALLEST LEVEL OF INTRUSION" while obtaining such information)"
Let's take them one at a time.
1. "OTHER PERSONS", who are these other persons and who do they work for. Are these "OTHER PERSONS" Blackwater, or the Carlyle Group.
2. "SIGNIFICANT PURPOSE", Which would indicate, NOT THE "ONLY" PURPOSE.
3. "SMALLEST LEVEL OF INTRUSION", Again which indicates, SOME LEVEL OF
INTRUSION. And this "without a warrant"
You see they rely on you and me NOT reading between the lines. That's how the "sneak" these thing past us. If you want to lay down and become a "subject" of a police state, go right ahead. Me, I'll fight to the death to protect The Constitution.
But then:
- We spend $Billions on road and car safety. We mandate that people NOT be able to chose whether to wear a seat belt or have an air-bag in their car. We fine them when they disobey.
- We launch $Billion campaigns to combat the flu.
- In state after state it is illegal to smoke in places of business, bars or resturants.
In other words society goes to incredible length and severly restricts free-choice to avert death and injury due to a number of causes. Why not terrorism?
On the other hand Terrorism targets more than death and injury among innocents by design.
Car accidents and smoking may cause injury and death but not by design. These things are caused as a by-product of utility and enjoyment - but they give something as well as take.
The analogy to Terrorism is street violence - something we spend $100's of Billions on and invest our police and prosecutors with lethal force and constitional powers to combat.
James,
Close to 3,000 people died on a clear September morning BECAUSE this country placed too much emphasis on the rights of people who should never be given such rights.
The FBI refused to get a warrant to look at the hard-drive on Zacharias Moussaoui's computer. Moussaoui was supposed to be the 20th hijaker. A glance at his computer would have uncovered the 911 plot.
The FBI refused to get a warrant because they were gun-shy from the political pressure of radical civil rights advocates.
The FBI erred by paying attention to these people.
We must not make that mistake again.
I realize that you are willing, even eager, to give up some of your civil rights in favor of temporary security. I am not. This country, without the freedom that it was found for, is no longer this country!
The FBI and other agencies need to go ahead and do their jobs regardless of "pressure" and disapproval. They don't need to go outside the law and should not. If Moussaoui was the lynch pin of the entire operation and the FBI was already onto him they should have been able to do something, whether popular or not. However, the attack occurred without him so I don't know that he was that critical to it.
You would change this country to a police state and not care who's liberties you destroyed in the process. I cannot support such a concept. Can another 911 happen? Of course it can! But that is the price we must pay if we want liberty. If instant survival is more important to you than liberty then continue to espouse the lines you've taken in this matter, but don't expect anyone who appreciates the heritage of our forefathers to join you.
"If Moussaoui was the lynch pin of the entire operation and the FBI was already onto him they should have been able to do something, whether popular or not."
And even the chairmen during the meeting said to go ahead and listen in (illigally) and worry about consequences later.
The problem I see is the fact we already have the lowest approval ratings in congress and administration. The general public does not trust the government (for good reason I might add) but the effects of arbitraily breaking the law only to do what is right will only highten the sense of insecurity. Won't people wonder what other time id they justify breaking the law?
If you have to break the law to do something that is right...then the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Just like plugging loop holes in bad laws things need to be evaluated in light of unitended consequences.
I would much rather have a law that has significant oversight (much more then old FISA does), fix the problems due to technological innovations but still holds true to the principles of our constitution AND would not cause us to have to break the laws only to do what is right.
FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, would seem to be about monitoring foreigners, not Americans.
Since the 4th Amendment only applies to Americans, a phone call between two foreigners, who are both on foreign soil, shouldn't require a warrant in the first place.
You've stated that "the switch" on American soil is the problem.
Does that mean that a warrant is required simply because the switch is on American soil?
If so, I'd like to know how the 4th Amendment gets applied to an inanimate object. After all, the switch have no 4th Amendment rights, only the Americans that might be using it.
The 4th Amendment should not necessarily apply to foreigners using it.
Yet it does? Can you clarify this for me?
Greg Schiller - Your "But thens" did not change nor challenge the fact that more people die (or are injured) from car accidents, flu and second hand smoke than are injured by foreign terrorists.
Also, you forgot to add that we spent billions forming a brand new government agency to protect us from terrorists; (Der Homeland Security Department).
And
We are spending billions, supposedly fighting the War On Terror by maintaining troops in Iraq.
So, financially speaking, we are spending WAY more on fighting and protecting ourselves from foreign terrorists than we are on protective precautions from the top killers of the American people.
But thats where you are wrong. And we been talking about this for how many posts. FISA DOES require a warrant for a foreign national who is in a foreign country IF he uses a landline and the call is routed through a switch in the US which most calls are.
The law talks about going through a US wire...while being an object as soon as it touches that wire 4th amendment rights are triggered.
The 4th amendment DOES apply to foreigners if they are on US soil unfortunatly that will not change. Reason for that is is because it would be too hard to ascertain if the person on the line in the US was or was not a citizen that it would slow the process down so they err on caution and give everyone in the US 4th amendment rights... but agin this has been standard procedure for decades.
Victor, I don't have to wonder, I know that the "government" breaks the law "everyday". There are people being prosecuted and persecuted in America "everyday". I have been "working poor" all my life and I have seen what police in a police state are like. You know in some areas of the "greatest nations on Gods green earth" (Michael Medved's moniker) being poor is a crime. You can't drive down the street in the only car you can afford without being stopped. I once had an old Cadillac, and was driving to work. I had a light blue shirt on with a red tie. The seat belt was dark brown, and I got stopped because I didn't have my seat belt on. I "always" wear my seat belt and had it on that day. That cop kept me there, for half an hour, made me late for work, and only when I challenged him to write me a ticket or let me go, he let me go, and I'm a middle aged white man. Imagine what young black men in L.A. goes through. You see, where I live it's a "playground" for some of America's most wealthy, and we can't have any junkers on "our" roads.
"If you have to break the law to do something that is right...then the law is wrong and needs to be changed. Just like plugging loop holes in bad laws things need to be evaluated in light of unitended consequences." Bu$h doesn't really have a good record at passing laws that "protect" American's civil liberties. Why trust him again? No credibility. And it was the federal government that made the law in the first place. Why are the passing imperfect laws.
"In other words society goes to incredible length and severly restricts free-choice to avert death and injury due to a number of causes. Why not terrorism?" So your approach to the fact the government is taking our civil liberties away, is give up more? That doesn't make sense. And you comparing getting a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, to being un Constitutionally spied on, makes no sense either. The problem with you right wingers, is you think "we" are to stupid to understand "double speak". Some of us do understand. "What, do you believe your own eyes, instead of what I say?"
Let's get real, James, no one is "giving up rights" what we are talking about is giving up the radical interpretations of the Constitution that came into vogue in the 1960's.
We have been to this point several times in the past, during the Civil War, during the anarchist attacks around the turn of the last century and during both World Wars. The country never turned into a "police state". Why would it do so now.
We need to develop the perspective necessary to not shout "YOUR TRYING TO DROWN ME!!" when someone offers us a glass of water.
Have you lived in England, France, Germany, Japan? Would you describe any of them as "police states"?
Yet none of them take "civil liberties" to the extreme that our Supreme Court did a half-century ago.
That signature is not for a police state is to have everyone work together in case of national disaster. God forbid we have coordinated efforts during a major hurricane or OTHER disaster. What you complaining about is what we needed during Katrina. Do you know that Louisiana govenor made a request to the federal governement for crisis counseling and reconstruction money but forgot to ask for transportation assistance, water, food, medicine? We have burocrats that are idiots. Our entire governement failed during Katrina and the president has stepped up and devising a strategy (with an advisory group consisting of all levels of emergency response) so that next time EVERYONE knows what to do. Not everything is a huge consipacy to strip you of your rights. That was my point with this discussion here.
Victor,
What you are talking about is preparedness and planning. For that we don't need a "Protect America act" or a "Patriot Act." Just management getting together for some planning sessions.
I realize that this is a loosing proposition as there are too many ready to give up certain freedoms, rights and privacy for a little more security. They don't really comprehend the scope of freedom intended by our forefathers. They want "protection" at all times regardless! As their voice becomes the dominant one the rest of us are doomed. They simply don't realize how much it is that we will lose!
Our kids are growing up tethered to a cell phone and constant supervision. They don't understand the need for privacy and freedom, so they can be easily trained to accept this "big brother" which is rapidly encroaching. A life without freedom and risk is a life not fully lived!
Our culture and society is no more inclined to turn into a police state than is a caterpillar to turn into an elephant.
The left should be examining itself rather than howling about Bush. They are the ones who tipped us further toward a police state during the 1980's and 1990's than we have ever experience in our history.
Starting with Janet Reno's infamous Maimii Method of Prosecuting, various forces of the left set off The Child Terror, a campaign of hysteria that resulted in prosecutions against thousands of innocent people and accusations against hundreds of thousands.
It was a modern day Crucible, a 20th century Salem Massachusetts on a national scale.
The people who have actually been hurt by The Patriot Act can be counted on one hand while the harm during The Child Terrorr touched every community in the United States, yet the left refuses to acknowledge what they did, and continues to point at Bush and The Patriot Act and scream like little girls.
That hysteria is what caused The Child Terror, and they are still at it.
The Sedition Act
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be ho]den to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in Republication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.
APPROVED, July 14, 1798.
It seems that some of our founding fathers didn't really want a democracy.
They did want a democracy and they built one. You simply do not understand what a democracy is
I agree but then why did you bring it up in THIS thread. THe problem I have with left complaining about loss of freedom is the fact that THEY define the freedoms. I smoke. Now I do not do it in the house, if I smoke in public I am aware of my surroundings and stay as far away from people as possible. YET there is a movement trying to infringe on MY right to smoke.
Hillary is pushing for legislation MANDATING health care. Actually making it illigal if you do not comply. Show me in the constitution where it says THAT is legal?
The democrats want to amend SCRIPT (or whatever the health plan that is due to expire for kids is called ) to include health care for kids that are 25 year old and cover families who already have health care and annual household income on $80,000. Now I have health insurance, my child is covered..where is MY right to opt out from this. I am trying to help reduce costs so governement does not have to cover my child because she is already covered but I CANT. Where are my rights in THAT?
Don't make the mistake thinking that I am "left" simply because I disagree on this issue. I agree that the left, if by that you mean all Democrats in general, have not been the greatest protectors of our rights at all times. However, it has been since the Contract on America and especially the shrub, that the strongest attack against our freedoms and liberty have occurred. I'm strictly an independent and reserve the right to support or reject any idea on it's merits as opposed to following an ideological line of thinking. By the way, I don't give a damn if you smoke as long as it's not under my nose! I used to smoke also.
Hillary is not mandating health care! She want to provide government assistance with the paying for health care. That's a far cry from saying you must take care of your health. And frankly, he plan stinks! It could have been put together by any of the Republicans as it is a Republican plan. Forcing people to buy anything is wrong. If people must purchase it the profit should be taken out of it for ethical reasons and just have the government run it! Kucinich is the only one with a real solution to the health problems we face. And as far as whether this is the legitimate role of government or not I'll leave that to another thread. You do have some very bad information on the SCHIP program. Although I'll admit that a family with total gross income of $80,000 per year and four kids will not be able to adequately afford the health care that family needs. No one needs insurance except the insurance company, we all need health care!
Thanks Victor!
"YET there is a movement trying to infringe on MY right to smoke."
A right wing talking head once said, Your rights end, where mine begin. She had the attitude that "she" has the rights that protect her health and safety. But the attitude was laced with arrogance, that "she" was the "only" one with these rights. Well with your smoking, "your rights end' where mine begin." I don't smoke, and I don't want to breath second smoke while I'm sitting in a restaurant enjoying a good meal, or take my grandkids to a park. And "you" have it wrong too. These laws aren't to deprive you. your right to smoke. They are to protect the citizens around you while you do smoke. And isn't this a great country, that "all" our citizens have "all" the same rights.
I am sorry about your mother. Thanks for sharing.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/
My thanks to Ron (and his little dog too) for pointing me to this news in a recently posted Gather article.
He is to blame. He was the "president" when it happened. It was on his so called "watch". There is plenty of proof out there that shows he was at least complacent and at worse responsible. Remember the August 6 PDB. Read Richard Clarks book, Against All Enemies
And as far as him "protecting" the country. He's LUCKY, that's all. Just yesterday a report came out of the GAO, that "mock" nuclear materials were smuggled into the US by their agents with no problem at all. Both north and south borders.
" Government investigators were able to cross from Canada into the United States carrying a duffle bag with contents that looked like radioactive material and never encountered a law enforcement official, according to a report released Thursday by investigators from the Government Accountability Office.
"Our work clearly shows substantial vulnerabilities in the northern border to terrorist or criminals entering the United States undetected," the GAO's Greg Kutz testified Thursday at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the topic.
"Although the southern border appears to be substantially more secure, we did identify several vulnerabilities on federally managed lands where there was no CBP [Customs and Border Protection] control."
Only about 5 % of everything that comes into this country gets inspected. He's just LUCKY.