Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment

[FirefightnRick]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0...dh9wDwD91E4M503

I watched the arguements by members of the House on C-span about the new FISA amendment and thought the differences between those supporting and those not pretty amazing. 188 Republicans voted for it, 1 voted against it. 105 Dem's Also voted for it, 129 against it. Of course, all the Dems against it kept spouting how it was going to take us back to the Hoover administration...How our Civil Liberties are going down the drain...etc etc. But still the majority who voted for it, including Nancy Pelosi, who also didn't miss a chance to take a shot at the president while giving her remarks, seemed to show true bipartisan in working out this comprimise. For me I'm not that worried about my civil liberties when it comes to the survival and safety of this country. So what if a Telcom is given a waiver? It's a tool of communication people who want to do us harm will use and I don't see how this could have been worked out any other way if 289 others couldn't either.

What is your take on this? Good legislation, bad????

Thoughts?

Rick

Edited June 21, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[emmitt01]

Bad legislation. 9-11 has received all the mileage that it should...loooooong long ago. Not to say that terrorism is dead, far from it, just that the Bush administraton has long since disproven the theory that we can catch and detain anyone with REAL connections to what is threatening our nation. Not to be overly dramatic but one of our fore fathers once said "Those who would trade liberty for a little security deserver neither" and I am inclined to agree.

[meangreenacct]

Bad legislation. 9-11 has received all the mileage that it should...loooooong long ago. Not to say that terrorism is dead, far from it, just that the Bush administraton has long since disproven the theory that we can catch and detain anyone with REAL connections to what is threatening our nation. Not to be overly dramatic but one of our fore fathers once said "Those who would trade liberty for a little security deserver neither" and I am inclined to agree.

Well said Emmitt.

[Censored by Laurie]

Bad legislation. 9-11 has received all the mileage that it should...loooooong long ago. Not to say that terrorism is dead, far from it, just that the Bush administraton has long since disproven the theory that we can catch and detain anyone with REAL connections to what is threatening our nation. Not to be overly dramatic but one of our fore fathers once said "Those who would trade liberty for a little security deserver neither" and I am inclined to agree.

I couldn't agree with you more...by the way it was Benjamin Franklin (of course...I would've loved to have a beer with that guy) and to be nit-picky: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." 9/11 has become a fear-tactict rather than an actual rationale...and I think that anybody who continuously work in 9/11 into every speech need to really have their motives questioned

[UNTflyer]

It's better than what we had before. Even Barack Obama approves of this legislation.

There has to be a system where we can listen in on suspected terrorists without having to go through the red tape of obtaining warrants, while at the same time protecting the rights of Americans and maintaining some type of oversight. This bill seems to be a good compromise. And the sunset clause ensures that this doesn't continue indefinitely.

Edited June 21, 2008 by UNTflyer

[EagleD]

Even the old FISA law said you could obtain a warrant after the fact if time was an issue. And to that end I believe only two requests have ever been denied by FISA courts. If it's not two, it's a very small number.

I'm just a little cautious of big brother watching me, no matter who it is.

Edited June 22, 2008 by EagleD

[FirefightnRick]

I'm just a little cautious off big brother watching me, no matter who it is.

Why is that? If your not doing anything wrong what is there to fear?

Question: And be honest here, has your Civil Rights ever been violated before?

Rick

[UNTflyer]

Why is that? If your not doing anything wrong what is there to fear?

That's not a valid argument. Would you be OK with the cops searching your house secretly? If you have nothing to hide...

On the other hand, the facts of the warrantless wiretap have been grossly exaggerated. Big Brother is not watching us. The government wants to target international calls, even if they involve an American. And they must go to the FISA court to show cause for their surveillance, and sometimes it's going to be after the fact. The kook bloggers and other paranoids claiming that Bush and the CIA are listening to your private conversations with Mom is ridiculous (unless your Mom is in a cave in Afghanistan, and then it's probably a certainty).

[emmitt01]

Why is that? If your not doing anything wrong what is there to fear?

Not buying this justification in the least. It is exactly because this logic has been roundly rejected that we (police) can't set up "safety stops" on roadways where we randomly select vehicles for search...even in areas of heavy drug traffic. It's why locked glove boxes and trunks don't fall under a "terry frisk" of a vehicle, even if you've made furtive gestures that suggest you may have something to hide.

[FirefightnRick]

That's not a valid argument. Would you be OK with the cops searching your house secretly? If you have nothing to hide...

On the other hand, the facts of the warrantless wiretap have been grossly exaggerated. Big Brother is not watching us. The government wants to target international calls, even if they involve an American. And they must go to the FISA court to show cause for their surveillance, and sometimes it's going to be after the fact. The kook bloggers and other paranoids claiming that Bush and the CIA are listening to your private conversations with Mom is ridiculous (unless your Mom is in a cave in Afghanistan, and then it's probably a certainty).

Searching a home and listening in on a phone conversation seems like a vast difference to me, but I have nothing to hide from the cops, either, but that's just me. But your absolutely correct with the exagerations, and I found the arguements by the 105 who voted against it completely exagerated with comments about us going back to the Hoover administration and all. And when Nancy Pelosi got up you could tell she was having a hard time trying to figure out a way to explain it to them also. She directly stated that the amendment would not violate the 4th amendment, and she started sounding like she was talking to a bunch of 6 year olds, breaking it down into finer and finer details.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Not buying this justification in the least. It is exactly because this logic has been roundly rejected that we (police) can't set up "safety stops" on roadways where we randomly select vehicles for search...even in areas of heavy drug traffic. It's why locked glove boxes and trunks don't fall under a "terry frisk" of a vehicle, even if you've made furtive gestures that suggest you may have something to hide.

Emmit, what's the difference between listening in on a phone call of a suspected Evil Doer(I just wanted to use that once in a sentence) without them knowing it and following an Evil Doer in a car without them knowing about it?

Rick

[DeepGreen]

Bad legislation. 9-11 has received all the mileage that it should...loooooong long ago. Not to say that terrorism is dead, far from it, just that the Bush administraton has long since disproven the theory that we can catch and detain anyone with REAL connections to what is threatening our nation. Not to be overly dramatic but one of our fore fathers once said "Those who would trade liberty for a little security deserver neither" and I am inclined to agree.

Really, emmitt01? Tell that to George Martin. It's hard for me to believe how many have forgotten what really took place on that fateful day.

Ex-Giants DE Martin finishes 3,000-mile walk for 9/11 charity

Associated Press

Updated: June 22, 2008, 9:20 PM ET

George Martin Completes His Walk Across America SAN DIEGO -- It took 10 months, 24 pairs of shoes and 40 pounds of flesh, but former New York Giant George Martin can finally rest after taking the final steps of a cross-country walk to raise money for people with health problems linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Martin began walking from New York to California on Sept. 16 to draw attention to the plight of rescue and recovery workers who developed respiratory problems after working in the dusty ruins of the World Trade Center.

He marched the final 4½ miles Saturday, arriving at a finish line in San Diego, where he was met by police officers, firefighters and other NFL alumni.

The trip began on the George Washington Bridge in Manhattan and covered 3,003 miles, winding south to Tennessee, west through Texas, and through high plains and desert to California.

Along the way, Martin trudged through rainstorms, winter ice and brutal heat, averaging 22 miles per day. He lost 40 pounds, burned through 80 pairs of socks, and raised more than $2 million, organizers said.

"These heroes need our collective support," Martin said in a written statement. "Many who answered our nation's call for help now cannot even walk up the steps in their own homes due to severe respiratory and other ailments. Some are dying. They deserve our help."

Former Giants DL George Martin walks across America in effort to raise money for his foundation, Journey for 9/11.

Martin was a co-captain of the Giants team that won Super Bowl XXI. A defensive end who played in the NFL for 14 years, he is now an executive at AXA Equitable, a financial services firm. He lives in New Jersey.

Some medical studies have indicated that thousands of people may have been sickened by exposure to toxic World Trade Center dust. The number of people who suffered permanent damage is still unknown.

Martin's walk wasn't without hitches. High winds forced him to walk some segments of his route backward, from west to east, because headwinds were exhausting him.

He had originally planned to head for the Golden Gate Bridge, but adjusted his route part way through to finish in San Diego.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

George Martin Cross Country Walk

[emmitt01]

Really, emmitt01? Tell that to George Martin. It's hard for me to believe how many have forgotten what really took place on that fateful day.

Ex-Giants DE Martin finishes 3,000-mile walk for 9/11 charity

Associated Press

Updated: June 22, 2008, 9:20 PM ET

George Martin Completes His Walk Across America SAN DIEGO -- It took 10 months, 24 pairs of shoes and 40 pounds of flesh, but former New York Giant George Martin can finally rest after taking the final steps of a cross-country walk to raise money for people with health problems linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.

Martin began walking from New York to California on Sept. 16 to draw attention to the plight of rescue and recovery workers who developed respiratory problems after working in the dusty ruins of the World Trade Center.

He marched the final 4½ miles Saturday, arriving at a finish line in San Diego, where he was met by police officers, firefighters and other NFL alumni.

The trip began on the George Washington Bridge in Manhattan and covered 3,003 miles, winding south to Tennessee, west through Texas, and through high plains and desert to California.

Along the way, Martin trudged through rainstorms, winter ice and brutal heat, averaging 22 miles per day. He lost 40 pounds, burned through 80 pairs of socks, and raised more than $2 million, organizers said.

"These heroes need our collective support," Martin said in a written statement. "Many who answered our nation's call for help now cannot even walk up the steps in their own homes due to severe respiratory and other ailments. Some are dying. They deserve our help."

Former Giants DL George Martin walks across America in effort to raise money for his foundation, Journey for 9/11.

Martin was a co-captain of the Giants team that won Super Bowl XXI. A defensive end who played in the NFL for 14 years, he is now an executive at AXA Equitable, a financial services firm. He lives in New Jersey.

Some medical studies have indicated that thousands of people may have been sickened by exposure to toxic World Trade Center dust. The number of people who suffered permanent damage is still unknown.

Martin's walk wasn't without hitches. High winds forced him to walk some segments of his route backward, from west to east, because headwinds were exhausting him.

He had originally planned to head for the Golden Gate Bridge, but adjusted his route part way through to finish in San Diego.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

George Martin Cross Country Walk

Thank you for proving my point further. The plight of rescue workers, obviously, is a subject close to my heart. Now, whether they receive the monetary resources they need to pay for their health care, though, has ZERO to do with listening on our phone calls. This is an issue with our horrid healthcare system denying coverage to those who are obviously America's heroes. Tell me, of the several trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq just how much of that would have been better spent to treat the upper respiratory diseases of these fine men and women in law enforcement and fire fighting? If our President and his supporters were truly concerned where was the executive order or piece of legislation designed to fund their health care? Who would have possibly voted against it?

So, no, I won't be painted into a corner as one who has "forgotten" what took place on that day. Nor, though, will I allow myself to be taken in hook, line and sinker by propoganda that seeks to use the tragedy we ALL suffered on that day to push an agenda.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I really don't see how this will affect my liberty--I am fully confident that I will be able to do all the things I did before. But I do see how it could help the nation's security. I don't see it as a trade off.

[forevereagle]

This is an interesting debate. I see both sides on this one and there really isn't an easy solution. What worries me about this kind of legislation is the "snowball effect" that can happen. Whether or not this actually infringes upon liberties is up for debate. It seems that as more and more of this legislation passes, the easier it gets to justify more legislation in the interest of protecting the country. That can lead to a direct violation of our liberty, but the machine will be too big to stop. These kinds of acts should be questioned and challenged so that we always have that ability.

[CMJ]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

----Abraham Lincoln

[CMJ]

Lincoln, like many other great men, is fascinating with his contradictions.

[Quoner]

His logic has a hole in it the size of a ....ahhhh..... clever.

[emmitt01]

Lincoln, like many other great men, is fascinating with his contradictions.

Thank you.

[JayDub]

What worries me about this kind of legislation is the "snowball effect" that can happen. Whether or not this actually infringes upon liberties is up for debate. It seems that as more and more of this legislation passes, the easier it gets to justify more legislation in the interest of protecting the country. That can lead to a direct violation of our liberty, but the machine will be too big to stop. These kinds of acts should be questioned and challenged so that we always have that ability.

THIS.

I don't have anything to hide in my phone calls...but allowing warrant-free wiretapping opens the door for all kinds of losses of liberty down the road.

Really, emmitt01? Tell that to George Martin. It's hard for me to believe how many have forgotten what really took place on that fateful day.

For anyone to question a police officer's memory of the events of 9/11 is almost a slap in the face. First responders, like Emmitt, and airline operations personnel, like myself, don't get the privelege of "forgetting" that day. I personally believe that giving up my personal liberties...something that makes this country so great, envied, and even hated...is similar to conceding defeat to the ideology of the bastards that were at the controls of AAL11, UAL175, AAL77, and UAL93.

Edited June 27, 2008 by JayDub

[UNTflyer]

I don't have anything to hide in my phone calls...but allowing warrant-free wiretapping opens the door for all kinds of losses of liberty down the road.

I disagree. We did it in WWII and we seemed to have survived it.

Extraordinary measures for extraordinary times. This bill only allows warrantless wiretapping in extreme cases, and it requires oversight from the FISA courts. It also requires that anytime a warrantless wiretap is implemented that it be reported to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. It has a sunset clause that would require re-authorization every few years.

[emmitt01]

I disagree. We did it in WWII and we seemed to have survived it.

Extraordinary measures for extraordinary times. This bill only allows warrantless wiretapping in extreme cases, and it requires oversight from the FISA courts. It also requires that anytime a warrantless wiretap is implemented that it be reported to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. It has a sunset clause that would require re-authorization every few years.

First off, with the very first tw sentences of your post you lose all credibility in my eyes. We "survived" it? As someone who knows all too well the ins and outs of when and why warrants are necessary I must say you are a fool. You ever chased a murder suspect into a neighborhood and lost him? You wanna ok my going into every home in that neighborhood without warrant so that I can find him? You know, desperate times and all. Please tell me you read Jaydub's post, took a break long enough to get really really drunk/stoned, and then returned to your keyboard.

Now, as to the actual FISA amendment...so as not to talk out of my ass (see my above comments) I did a little research and found that this amendment deals exclusively with persons outside of the U.S. The amendment actually pertains to foreign individuals' phone calls and transmissions.

[UNTflyer]

In WWII, we performed warrantless wiretaps on phones. We read the mail of citizens. Our government pretty much threw out the 4th amendment when it came to gathering war intelligence. That is a bit different from you as a police officer looking for a criminal. The difference between now and then is that we had a citizenry who knew that sacrifices had to be made in order to win the war. We accepted it and when the war was over, the People made sure that it stopped and we went back to normal life.

I'm not sure of the point you were attempting to make in your 2nd paragraph. The warrantless wiretapping has always been about listening in on international calls in an attempt to gather intelligence on terrorists. The myth has been that the Bush administration was listening in on domestic calls between U.S. citizens.

[JayDub]

The difference between now and then is that we had a citizenry who knew that sacrifices had to be made in order to win the war. We accepted it and when the war was over, the People made sure that it stopped and we went back to normal life.

So you're saying you see some kind of end in sight for the "Global War On Terror"? Because, let me tell ya, this thing has the potentional to be almost as successfull as the "War on Drugs". You can't declare war on things that are abstract and expect to defeat them when all you're doing is pissing off the people who already hate you. The Nazis and Japanese Imperialism were not abstracts...they were actual, organized entities...

Edited June 28, 2008 by JayDub

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Not to pick on Lincoln but in 1860 in an era of such a slow communications and transportation, an invasion was pretty much impossible.. Now we could go up in smoke in a few minutes with some very big "booms". The world has changed but is the amazing part about our Constituion... it still works with little revision 200+ years later.