Does anyone even care?

[SpidermanTuba]

Does anyone even care that the president has tossed the 4th amendment out of the window by authorizing searches of American citizens without warrants?

 

[MissileMan]

Does anyone even care that the president has tossed the 4th amendment out of the window by authorizing searches of American citizens without warrants?

Did you mean electronic surveillance of American citizens who might have been in collusion with terrorist enemies?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Did you mean electronic surveillance of American citizens who might have been in collusion with terrorist enemies?

By your same logic, we shouldn't have to get warrants to wiretap the phone lines of suspected criminals, as long as the law enforcement agency doing the taps assures us they are only tapping the lines of suspected criminals.


You seem to have trouble understanding the purpose of checks and balances in our government. The courts approve virtually every phone tap ever requested by any law enforcement agency. In fact in 2004 they approved them ALL. Furthermore, the law allows Bush to get warrants for taps which are time sensitive by getting the warrant in a reasonable amount of time AFTER the tap has already been done. So there is NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE to not getting a warrant for these searches, provided of course, they really are being used just to monitor terrorist suspects.

 

[MissileMan]

By your same logic, we shouldn't have to get warrants to wiretap the phone lines of suspected criminals, as long as the law enforcement agency doing the taps assures us they are only tapping the lines of suspected criminals.


You seem to have trouble understanding the purpose of checks and balances in our government. The courts approve virtually every phone tap ever requested by any law enforcement agency. In fact in 2004 they approved them ALL. Furthermore, the law allows Bush to get warrants for taps which are time sensitive by getting the warrant in a reasonable amount of time AFTER the tap has already been done. So there is NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE to not getting a warrant for these searches, provided of course, they really are being used just to monitor terrorist suspects.

If the courts are nothing more than a rubber stamp, what's your beef? Extreme times call for extreme measures. The President was given the "green light" by congress to use whatever force necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. IMO, that "green light" included surveillance. He was doing his job, and you'd be the first whiny ingrate to complain if he had been complacent and another attack had happened.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If the courts are nothing more than a rubber stamp, what's your beef? Extreme times call for extreme measures. The President was given the "green light" by congress to use whatever force necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. IMO, that "green light" included surveillance. He was doing his job, and you'd be the first whiny ingrate to complain if he had been complacent and another attack had happened.

The courts are a check on the executive branch. The reason no wiretaps get turned down is because the law enforcement agencies asking for them know what consitututes cause for a wiretap and what doesn't and they know not to ask for something they won't get. So the only reason one would bypass a warrant is if one were asking to tap a phone for some reason other than to investigate criminals and terrorists.

I'd like to see the bill you are referring to which grants the President the right to make the law up as he goes along. Last I checked the job of the executive was to UPHOLD the law of the land, not to break it.

 

[manu1959]

Does anyone even care that the president has tossed the 4th amendment out of the window by authorizing searches of American citizens without warrants?

here is the text:

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

what proof have you that unreasonable searches have been executed upon citizens?

does this right apply to those here illegally?

does this right apply to those that desire to kill citizens?

simply questions....that none will answer

10-1 the subject will be changed

 

[SpidermanTuba]

here is the text:

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

what proof have you that unreasonable searches have been executed upon citizens?

does this right apply to those here illegally?

does this right apply to those that desire to kill citizens?

simply questions....that none will answer

10-1 the subject will be changed

The President is conducting wiretap searches of AMERICAN CITIZENS within the borders of the United States. You need a warrant to do this. The President knows this, otherwise he wouldn't have assured us in 2004 that he wasn't doing as such w/o a warrant!

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "

My Gosh, was the President LYING in this statement? No, not George Bush! "Anytime" hmm... ANYTIME you hear about the government talking about wiretaps - it requires a court order. Surely, right NOW is a member of the set ANYTIME (draw a Venn diagram if it helps)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

 

[Mr. P]

Does anyone even care that the president has tossed the 4th amendment out of the window by authorizing searches of American citizens without warrants?

The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#084896

It looks like you may be confusing (surprise) the Patriot Act with the Foreign Intelligence Security Act.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We're protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Tapping phone lines of suspected terrorist collaborators is reasonable in wartime. Choke on it, commie.

 

[dmp]

We're protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Tapping phone lines of suspected terrorist collaborators is reasonable in wartime. Choke on it, commie.

Excellent - that's signature material right there..

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Excellent - that's signature material right there..

Thanks man. I think your avatar would be a good graphic design for a woman's bicycle seat.

 

[dmp]

Thanks man. I think your avatar would be a good graphic design for a woman's bicycle seat.

Just changed it - sorry...brought back a classic

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_11_corner-archive.asp#084896

It looks like you may be confusing (surprise) the Patriot Act with the Foreign Intelligence Security Act.

So the President was simply lying when he said:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "









Oh, and BTW, FISA doesn't even say what you claim it say. You lied. It says

(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

Note B "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

See?

Read the act before you pretend to know anything about it.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Excellent - that's signature material right there..

A) We have not declared war. Legally, this is not wartime.

Was Bush lying when he said

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "

 

[dmp]

A) We have not declared war. Legally, this is not wartime.

Was Bush lying when he said

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "

You're hopeless.

 

[Bonnie]

If the courts are nothing more than a rubber stamp, what's your beef? Extreme times call for extreme measures. The President was given the "green light" by congress to use whatever force necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. IMO, that "green light" included surveillance. He was doing his job, and you'd be the first whiny ingrate to complain if he had been complacent and another attack had happened.

 

[Mr. P]

So the President was simply lying when he said:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. "









Oh, and BTW, FISA doesn't even say what you claim it say. You lied. It says

(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
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

Note B "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

See?

Read the act before you pretend to know anything about it.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

Well gee kid, I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

Now, I’d suggest you go to the link you posted and read it “all”. I posted reference to 1801, did ya read it? No? Well hell what a surprise.

You can start with the obvious if you like, your post, “§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order”, but I’d say the beginning would be better, that way you can put er all together at the end. Perhaps then you can grasp the fact that you’re full of shit, and have NO case for this IV amendment claim, or that I lied.

*BTW, that wasn't my summary. I forgot the quote thing, I did provide a link and do agree that the statement is correct.*

Read it an weep. It's just another hollow get Bush drum beat.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well gee kid, I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

Now, I’d suggest you go to the link you posted and read it “all”. I posted reference to 1801, did ya read it? No? Well hell what a surprise.

You can start with the obvious if you like, your post, “§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order”, but I’d say the beginning would be better, that way you can put er all together at the end. Perhaps then you can grasp the fact that you’re full of shit, and have NO case for this IV amendment claim, or that I lied.

No, you posted a reference to 1801 et seq. You do know what et seq stands for? Et Sequitor - And the following. You reference was to the entire FISA act, not just 1801.

1801 is merely a set of definitions. If you had actually bothered to read this yourself, you would know that.

Though if you're convinced that 1801 says that wiretaps can be obtained w/o warrants - please, it would be nice of you to point out where it says that.

Is it in the definition of what a "United States Person" is? Or the definition of what "Electronic surveillance" means?

*BTW, that wasn't my summary. I forgot the quote thing, I did provide a link and do agree that the statement is correct.*

Read it an weep. It's just another hollow get Bush drum beat.

The reference you posted is to what, a conservative blog? The author merely asserts without proof that "The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens" - without citing any specific passage which states this, except for the entire act. (that's what that et. seq. means, 1801 et. seq., 1801, and what follows. Still with me?)


The only reason you agree with what the statement says is because its telling you what you want to hear. You haven't read the actual FISA act at all - or else you would know that 1801 is merely a set of definitions and has nothing to do with stating when a court order is needed for electronic surveillance. That information would be in section 1802, with the lengty title "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" NOT 1801 "Definitions"



Try reading what the act actual says for a change, instead of taking the word of someone who tells you what you want to hear:

1802
"(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; "


It says that electronic suveillance without a court order may be authorized as long as there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a UNited States person is a party (see 1801 if you are confused as to what a U.S. person is). Does it not say this? What does this mean to you? Do you have any other interpretation of this than what it literally says, which is that electronic surveillance w/o a warrant cannot be authorized if it means the communication of a United States person might be intercepted?


Do you actually bother to check out the reference that conservative bloggers post, or do you just take them for their word as long as it sounds good to you?







Oh, yes, and please, tell us all where in 1801 it contradicts my statement. WARNING: This might actually require reading it

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html


So please - try actually reading it, before you claim to know anything about what it says.

 

[Mr. P]

No, you posted a reference to 1801 et seq. You do know what et seq stands for? Et Sequitor - And the following. You reference was to the entire FISA act, not just 1801.

1801 is merely a set of definitions. If you had actually bothered to read this yourself, you would know that.

Though if you're convinced that 1801 says that wiretaps can be obtained w/o warrants - please, it would be nice of you to point out where it says that.

Is it in the definition of what a "United States Person" is? Or the definition of what "Electronic surveillance" means?





The reference you posted is to what, a conservative blog? The author merely asserts without proof that "The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens" - without citing any specific passage which states this, except for the entire act. (that's what that et. seq. means, 1801 et. seq., 1801, and what follows. Still with me?)


The only reason you agree with what the statement says is because its telling you what you want to hear. You haven't read the actual FISA act at all - or else you would know that 1801 is merely a set of definitions and has nothing to do with stating when a court order is needed for electronic surveillance. That information would be in section 1802, with the lengty title "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" NOT 1801 "Definitions"



Try reading what the act actual says for a change, instead of taking the word of someone who tells you what you want to hear:

1802
"(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; "


It says that electronic suveillance without a court order may be authorized as long as there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a UNited States person is a party (see 1801 if you are confused as to what a U.S. person is). Does it not say this? What does this mean to you? Do you have any other interpretation of this than what it literally says, which is that electronic surveillance w/o a warrant cannot be authorized if it means the communication of a United States person might be intercepted?


Do you actually bother to check out the reference that conservative bloggers post, or do you just take them for their word as long as it sounds good to you?







Oh, yes, and please, tell us all where in 1801 it contradicts my statement. WARNING: This might actually require reading it

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html


So please - try actually reading it, before you claim to know anything about what it says.

Yes I've read it. Yes, it contradicts your statement. As D said, you're hopeless.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yes I've read it. Yes, it contradicts your statement. As D said, you're hopeless.

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ

(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—
...(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

READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ READ




Perhaps you can quote the passage from the act which says something to the effect of "scratch 1802(a)(1)(B) - this is what we really mean!"

You claim that the act says something which completely contradicts what it says in 1802 (a)(1)(B) - yet you provide NO QUOTE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.


Here's a tip - its better to admit you were wrong and you werre duped by a conservative blogger, than it is to continue to appear as if you can't read.