Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment

[emmitt01]

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.

So, to sum up...you are silly in your first paragraph and dead wrong in the second.

First off, that you readily admit that the 4th amendment was "thrown out" pretty much proves why actions like this should never have been taken in the first place (WWII) and should never be taken again. "Throwing out" the 4th amendment removes the only true safeguard that the citizenry has against it's government. Oh yes, we would still have the 2nd amendment but let's be honest...with people like you who don't mind unreasonable search and seizure how could we ever really get mad enough to form a militia? And, yes, police intrusion to find a criminal is along the exact same lines as gathering war intelligence. Both are intrusions into the privacy of Americans for "the greater good." And in fact the gathering of war intelligence is a far more nebulous end that Americans can't even put their finger on or discern just how righteous the searches are to begin with. Furthermore, as Justin already pointed out, we knew who Adolf Hitler was...we knew where he was...our government has no clue where Osama Bin Laden is (if he is still our true target). There was an end game strategy. And to think that wiretapping in the "war on terror" has a true expiration date, no matter how many sunset clauses you throw out there to appease the easily fooled, is even more silly than the original idea of Americans "surviving it." The middle east has been in a state of instability since long, long, long, long, time...terror cells will exist somewhere there in as long as their ideology is counter to our own. You tell me then when your sunset clause will be a reality and more than a shiny object to dangle in front of the children. (And please, pretty please, resist the temptation to say that since terror cells will always exist we will always need to be hyper vigilant by tapping Americans' phones)

And, yes, FISA has led to warrantless taps of American phones and internet transmissions. That you think it hasn't is asinine.

This is the last I'll say on this subject...feel free to respond with a rehash of the same circular logic. I am truly and wholeheartedly happy that you have a possible new student senate seat to set your sights on (keep bringing us that inside info on the stadium) and not political office. Me, and the rest of us no matter where you stand on this issue, can breathe easy knowing the bedrock principles our country was founded upon won't be violated and that we'll have to "live through it." Nothing against you, I'm sure you're a swell guy...I just wish you had some real world experience as to where that fine line between the common good and the rights of the individual is.

Edited June 28, 2008 by emmitt01

[UNTflyer]

The "War on Terror" is an abstract, I agree. It is ridiculous to declare war on something intangible. Our war is against al-Qaeda, and that is what it should be called. Our war is also against any country that harbors and aids them. Why the hell we're not in Pakistan flushing them out is something I just don't understand.

Emmitt, I take exception to your claim that I "don't mind unreasonable search and seizure". I most certainly do. I guess where we differ is that I wouldn't define this as unreasonable search and seizure. American citizens are not the targets of these wiretaps. And none of our rights are absolute. There are limits to free speech, there are limits on the 2nd amendment, there are limits on freedom of religion.... So why do we expect an absolute right to privacy? Don't get me wrong, my privacy is very important to me, but I do understand that there are limits.

First off, this bill allows warrantless wiretaps only when the target of the investigation is located overseas. It does not allow eavesdropping on domestic communications. In other words, I can pick up the phone, call Paris, and the government can listen if the target of their surveillance is the Frenchman is Paris. If I pick up the phone and call New York, they must have a warrant to listen in. If I'm wrong here, I would appreciate anyone posting one story where the warrantless wiretap was used to listen in on a domestic phone call.

Second, the warrantless wiretapping is to be used in extraordinary circumstances. Is there potential for abuse? Yes. But there is oversight for every time it is used. It must be reported to both Congressional Intelligence Committees, and it must be reported to the FISA court in, I believe, 7 days. There is a lot about this that the American people never hear, and I imagine that when the case is reviewed in committee that if anything seems fishy the wiretap would get shut down. Call me an optimist, but I believe in and respect the people who volunteer to serve the People and that with so many involved in oversight that our rights will be protected.

I don't like it, but I do understand the need for it. Of course, if Bush and his pals hadn't f&*^ed up the capture of al-Qaeda in 2002, we might not even be having this conversation.

[emmitt01]

Of course, if Bush and his pals hadn't f&*^ed up the capture of al-Qaeda in 2002, we might not even be having this conversation.

I know I said I wouldn't say anything more on the subject but I just had to. I finally found something we can unequivocably agree upon.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The myth has been that the Bush administration was listening in on domestic calls between U.S. citizens.

Of course, if Bush and his pals hadn't f&*^ed up the capture of al-Qaeda in 2002, we might not even be having this conversation.

---You need to read more or listen to more variety in news sourses including TV stations. That has happened and some have been completely ridicious without any justification.

---I do absolutely agree with you about Bush messing up the hunt for Ben Laden... he could have devoted more resourses and intelligence gathering to him (who really was connected to 9-11 and not Saddam), if we had not invaded Iraq. More Americans have now died in Iraq than in 9-11. A more citizens of Iraq since our invasion have died than was dying before plus a lot of public services (water and electricity) that worked fine then, don't now. Various groups of Islamics in Iraq were not trying to kill each other then or us either.

Edited June 28, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Green Gas]

---You need to read more or listen to more variety in news sourses including TV stations. That has happened and some have been completely ridicious without any justification.

---I do absolutely agree with you about Bush messing up the hunt for Ben Laden... he could have devoted more resourses and intelligence gathering to him (who really was connected to 9-11 and not Saddam), if we had not invaded Iraq. More Americans have now died in Iraq than in 9-11. A more citizens of Iraq since our invasion have died than was dying before plus a lot of public services (water and electricity) that worked fine then, don't now. Various groups of Islamics in Iraq were not trying to kill each other then or us either.

Could you possibly be slanted?

All Suddam had to do was let the UN inspectors in, and the US wanted payback don't put this all on Bush. The House and Senate Intelligence Committees voted unanimously for the war and they don't get briefed by the White House. So as you sound like you believe the absolute bile the Democratic party spins, I guess Bush is that silver tongued devil the Democrats tell us about how he lied, and conned the hell out of the poor old gullible Democratic Party into voting for a war. Right

Dems do the same as always, win opinion changes and it does because as a country we don't have the stomach for war, they changed sides slicker then goose shit. Then the spin went out of control.

I realize you seem to have an education agenda, but damn, you might want to look at the facts a little closer. We have not had another attack in the US, I don't think we have had any other attacks outside these military zones. Put hey why should you look for any good in it. You are clearly voting democrat no matter how bad the candidate is, come hell or high water. You might like to think you would not but you will talk yourself into it.

The dems make new expensive social programs and raise taxes the community develops more dead beats, the Republicans lower taxes and promote business.

Edited June 28, 2008 by Green Gas

[UNTflyer]

SE-66, I don't believe that is the case. The media has always said "American's phone calls" but an American's phone call can be wiretapped only if the calls are going overseas and only if the purpose is to gather foreign intelligence. If I'm wrong here, I will do a complete 180... but I'm pretty certain that this program cannot be used for domestic phone calls (both ends of the call being within the United States).

While many pundits have called it "domestic spying", this is more hyperbole than fact. One end of the conversation being domestic does not make it domestic surveillance. If the target of the surveillance is foreign intelligence, then a wiretap is not required because the purpose of the wiretap is not to target an American citizen for prosecution of a crime. This was actually ruled on by the Supreme Court back in 1973, 1974, 1984, and 1997 after FISA was passed. Each case involved an American citizen and a foreign agent located overseas. In fact, warrantless wiretaps have been done for years, it's just being stepped up now and it's political fodder. Do you really think this will stop when (yes, when) Obama is elected?

[UNTflyer]

Well, isn't this interesting...

SOURCES: BUSH ANGER AT COMING NEW YORK TIMES STORY DETAILING HUNT FOR BIN LADEN... The newspaper is planning to expose a 'highly classified Pentagon order' authorizing Special Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leader in mountains of Pakistan... DEVELOPING....