Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

[ProfJohn]

There is a HUGE problem with the previous laws and how they were written, so they fixed the problem.

It seems that much of the world?s phone calls travel through US switching systems and under the prior law you needed a warrant to listen in on such calls.

So a terrorist in Pakistan calling a terrorist in Iraq might have his phone call travel through an office in US. This law is supposed to allow the NSA and others to listen into such calls without a warrant. As long as both parties are outside of the US when making the calls.

This law does NOT allow them to listen into phone calls placed in-between two people who are within the US. Most Democrat objections are based on that false premise.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
This really irked me the wrong way too. I think everyone in the government needs to sit down and read 1984 and watch V for Vendetta. Republicans would probably end up getting some new ideas though...

Like returning to the true conservative values of small government? No, that's just wishful thinking, both parties need to be dissolved, Republicans can no longer be trusted to protect us from the Democrat's big-government authoritarian ways, having joined them in it.

You seem to forget which party started as pro big-government. Maybe you?ll remember that before you continue to vote for them.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a HUGE problem with the previous laws and how they were written, so they fixed the problem.

It seems that much of the world?s phone calls travel through US switching systems and under the prior law you needed a warrant to listen in on such calls.

So a terrorist in Pakistan calling a terrorist in Iraq might have his phone call travel through an office in US. This law is supposed to allow the NSA and others to listen into such calls without a warrant. As long as both parties are outside of the US when making the calls.

This law does NOT allow them to listen into phone calls placed in-between two people who are within the US. Most Democrat objections are based on that false premise.

Replace 'terrorist' with 'person'. That's what people are getting upset with.

 

[Lemon law]

The lack of logic in the post amazes me-----First we debate the possible abuses of the law if Hillary gets elected while ignoring the known abuses of GWB. Then we pretend that this can't involve US citizens when colonel SHOWS IT MUST HAPPEN, and fail to note that even if the call does not originate from or go to the US, the US still asserts the right
to monitor it.

And we also fail to note the money involved. Especially if some totally innocent foreign call might wrongly put a US citizen under suspicion, you know as sure as God made little green apples that they are going to spend a fortune then monitoring every activity of that US citizen. So the more they know can only mean the more they will want to know. And also fails to note that terrorists simply don't use monitored communication bands anyway.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.

So I was correct - foreign to foreign calls. You can try to spin this and put on all sorts of tinfoil if you wish but there is just no posible way to know who may be on either end of the line(in each foreign country). THAT is why it could be possible for a US citizen to be tapped which then created the need for "REASONABLY BELIEVES". IF a US citizen(in a foreign country) is using a bad number(flagged) or being called by a flagged number in a foreign country then how could anyone attempting to tap it know for sure? Sheesh - I swear some of you let your Bush hate blind you.

How is that you being correct? You're making assumptions and guesses, which are obviously incorporated into the law. I was making the argument that, given that the "foreigner to foreigner" statement is just a guess, the law should probably err on the side of caution...which is exactly what it was doing before. Wiretapping communications inside the United States seems like it would have a fair chance of including communications between people in the United States, thus the previous requirement for a warrant.

This is not spin, tinfoil or Bush hatred. I just happen to believe that the 4th amendment means what it says it means, and if there is a chance that private conversations involving US persons are being listening to, the 4th amendment requires a warrant of some kind. If there is really is "no possible way to know who may be on either end of the line", it seems like we'd have to assume that a US person IS on one end of the line. A law that allows the federal government to blunder around, accidentally violating my 4th amendment rights doesn't seem like a good idea to me, regardless of who is President.

 

[Lemon law]

I am still optimistic enough to hope that as we enter the primary season and even the repubs
have to desert GWB&co, that we can fix the wagon of this bill by driving a stake through the heart of this Vampire of a abuse of civil liberties.

And ongoing congressional investigation will also show the full light of day on the current set of abuses. But we will likely have to get rid of Alberto first.

 

[StageLeft]

I almost hope the dems lose in 08 just to teach them and everyone else a lesson. They try to be too much like the repubs to gain the repub supporters and yet inveitably are so close that they are not attracting others. Maybe Rudy will win in 08 and in early 10 the US can be sending 200k troops to Iran. Serve everyone right, too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.

So I was correct - foreign to foreign calls. You can try to spin this and put on all sorts of tinfoil if you wish but there is just no posible way to know who may be on either end of the line(in each foreign country). THAT is why it could be possible for a US citizen to be tapped which then created the need for "REASONABLY BELIEVES". IF a US citizen(in a foreign country) is using a bad number(flagged) or being called by a flagged number in a foreign country then how could anyone attempting to tap it know for sure? Sheesh - I swear some of you let your Bush hate blind you.

How is that you being correct? You're making assumptions and guesses, which are obviously incorporated into the law. I was making the argument that, given that the "foreigner to foreigner" statement is just a guess, the law should probably err on the side of caution...which is exactly what it was doing before. Wiretapping communications inside the United States seems like it would have a fair chance of including communications between people in the United States, thus the previous requirement for a warrant.

This is not spin, tinfoil or Bush hatred. I just happen to believe that the 4th amendment means what it says it means, and if there is a chance that private conversations involving US persons are being listening to, the 4th amendment requires a warrant of some kind. If there is really is "no possible way to know who may be on either end of the line", it seems like we'd have to assume that a US person IS on one end of the line. A law that allows the federal government to blunder around, accidentally violating my 4th amendment rights doesn't seem like a good idea to me, regardless of who is President.

I did not say "foreigner to foreigner" - those are your words, not mine.

But since there is no guarantee and as you suggest we must assume that a US person is on the other line then we'll ALWAYS have to get a warrant - which is the problem that is being addressed. It is unreasonable to assume that there is a US citizen on the either end of foreign to foreign calls every time. This seems to be giving the OK to tap foreign to foreign calls if they are routed through our country as long as we "reasonably believe" that neither of the parties are US citizens. And if it is believed that one may be a US citizen then a warrant would need to be sought.

 

[Gaard]

Not to insert myself in your debate (like I ever do that), but...
[*] who is 'we' that you speak of?
[*] what's the difference between 'believe' and 'reasonably believe'?
[*] a resident doesn't necessarily mean a citizen

BTW - welcome back CAD.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Not to insert myself in your debate (like I ever do that), but...
[*] who is 'we' that you speak of?
[*] what's the difference between 'believe' and 'reasonably believe'?
[*] a resident doesn't necessarily mean a citizen

BTW - welcome back CAD.

"we" in that case was the Fed from my view and I assumed Rainsford's too since that is who deals with the wiretapping anyway.

The same as what "reasonable" means when talking about search and seizure.

Yes, and?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
What utter hypocrisy, after excoriating Bush & Co., the Dimocrat controlled Senate and House pass an extension/update on the "warrantless wiretap bill"....except the leftist media now calls it the "foreign wiretap bill". That's rich....

Here's my fav quote from the article "Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress."

Well then why did they pass it????

this is just funny:

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

OHHH>..The President is going to ruin my summer vacation!! That big bad meanie...


come you leftiests....explain why Hairy Reed and Bugeye'd Pelosi got this passed....how did your congressman/senators vote?

Dimocrats approve spying on US citizens without warrants

Before you wet yourself, I'd like to point out the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi. Unfortunately, a few turncoats joined the Repubs in shitting on the Fourth Amendment. Hopefully their Democratic opponents will use this to bludgeon them in the 2008 primaries.

It's also unfortunate that our Senators lacked the integrity to take a roll-call vote, once again depriving Americans of their right to know what our public servants are doing.

 

[Atomic Rooster]

The Party of Fear, the Party Without A Spine, and the National Surveillance State

The passage of the new FISA bill by the Senate and now the House demonstrates that the Democrats stand neither for defending civil liberties nor for checking executive power.

They stand for nothing at all.

Jack Balkin

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.

So I was correct - foreign to foreign calls. You can try to spin this and put on all sorts of tinfoil if you wish but there is just no posible way to know who may be on either end of the line(in each foreign country). THAT is why it could be possible for a US citizen to be tapped which then created the need for "REASONABLY BELIEVES". IF a US citizen(in a foreign country) is using a bad number(flagged) or being called by a flagged number in a foreign country then how could anyone attempting to tap it know for sure? Sheesh - I swear some of you let your Bush hate blind you.

How is that you being correct? You're making assumptions and guesses, which are obviously incorporated into the law. I was making the argument that, given that the "foreigner to foreigner" statement is just a guess, the law should probably err on the side of caution...which is exactly what it was doing before. Wiretapping communications inside the United States seems like it would have a fair chance of including communications between people in the United States, thus the previous requirement for a warrant.

This is not spin, tinfoil or Bush hatred. I just happen to believe that the 4th amendment means what it says it means, and if there is a chance that private conversations involving US persons are being listening to, the 4th amendment requires a warrant of some kind. If there is really is "no possible way to know who may be on either end of the line", it seems like we'd have to assume that a US person IS on one end of the line. A law that allows the federal government to blunder around, accidentally violating my 4th amendment rights doesn't seem like a good idea to me, regardless of who is President.

I did not say "foreigner to foreigner" - those are your words, not mine.

But since there is no guarantee and as you suggest we must assume that a US person is on the other line then we'll ALWAYS have to get a warrant - which is the problem that is being addressed. It is unreasonable to assume that there is a US citizen on the either end of foreign to foreign calls every time. This seems to be giving the OK to tap foreign to foreign calls if they are routed through our country as long as we "reasonably believe" that neither of the parties are US citizens. And if it is believed that one may be a US citizen then a warrant would need to be sought.

Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

 

[Gaard]

"we" in that case was the Fed from my view and I assumed Rainsford's too since that is who deals with the wiretapping anyway.

It just seems sorta ambiguous, doesn't it? It's so close to the line, yet it seems that it's one man's call what classifies as a reasonable belief. It's like one man's cold is another man's tepid.

Yes, and?

The reason I was calling it to your attention is because the article states...If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.
Yet you and others use the word "citizen". (Heartsurgeon even used it in a link to an article)
Granted, the articles may mean 'citizen' and not 'resident', but they're not the same.

Also, looking at this sentence of the article..."If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. "...I'm wondering if either end of a call would equal a "chief target". IOW - if someone is under surveillance, and that person makes a call a person who is a U.S. resident, does a warrant need to be obtained? Obviously, from your statement here, you think it does..."And if it is believed that one may be a US citizen then a warrant would need to be sought."
Your thoughts?


One last thing...

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote.

You feel he's wrong?


Oh, and I wanted (needed?) to point out that you were wrong here...
"There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution."

 

[BMW540I6speed]

I think a an interesting aspect of the FISA legislation is this:

(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to--

(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and

(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.

(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).

(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.

This allows the government to compel a US citizen or US corporation to secretly provide access to their records and communication networks without a warrant. Just because the government is forcing me to provide access in furtherance of foreign intelligence collection does not mean the fourth amendment does not apply.

If the government can get people to cooperate with them than fine, but I am pretty sure the government forcing US citizens to provide access to their records and communication networks without out a warrant runs astray of our current understanding of the constitution.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

RightIsWrong said:

Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

The Dems are a very loose coalition that doesn't have the necessary structure to act as the kind of unit that the R's have become, so where the Republicans bully and focus, the D's have an every-person-for-themselves attitude that makes them look like a bunch of weak-minded pushovers.

Do I hold them responsible for their inability to get things done? Yes. Do I see a quick way for them to start to act like the single-minded unit it takes to get things done? Unfortunately, no.

The Republican party has been taken over almost completely by a hard right minority that springs from the right wing media machine created in the late 80's. It's taken them a while to do it, but they now act almost entirely as a single body, to put into action the dictates of this little loud-mouthed minority.

Meanwhile the Democratic party now represents almost everybody outside the tightly-focused minority that's taken over the Republican party. This includes a significant number of old school Blue Dogs, and a few less-than-liberal newcomers whose only affiliation with the D's is their disgust with the lawlessness of the Bush regime. The single-minded focus that has allowed the R's to be so effective is lacking in the Dems.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
RightIsWrong said:

Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

The Dems are a very loose coalition that doesn't have the necessary structure to act as the kind of unit that the R's have become, so where the Republicans bully and focus, the D's have an every-person-for-themselves attitude that makes them look like a bunch of weak-minded pushovers.

Do I hold them responsible for their inability to get things done? Yes. Do I see a quick way for them to start to act like the single-minded unit it takes to get things done? Unfortunately, no.

The Republican party has been taken over almost completely by a hard right minority that springs from the right wing media machine created in the late 80's. It's taken them a while to do it, but they now act almost entirely as a single body, to put into action the dictates of this little loud-mouthed minority.

Meanwhile the Democratic party now represents almost everybody outside the tightly-focused minority that's taken over the Republican party. This includes a significant number of old school Blue Dogs, and a few less-than-liberal newcomers whose only affiliation with the D's is their disgust with the lawlessness of the Bush regime. The single-minded focus that has allowed the R's to be so effective is lacking in the Dems.

It's pretty amazing when our political system rewards groupthink and punishes individuals who think for themselves...especially since it dramatically favors one party over the other right now. Personally I think party line voting should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but few voters seem to be paying enough attention to notice.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Topic Title: Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

Wow, not even in a year and they are "Freaking Dems" as opposed to your heroes that wreaked havoc on the country and the world for seven years.

:roll:

 

[Genx87]

Why this surprises people I dont know. Democrats and Repubs arent that far from each other.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

"we" in that case was the Fed from my view and I assumed Rainsford's too since that is who deals with the wiretapping anyway.

It just seems sorta ambiguous, doesn't it? It's so close to the line, yet it seems that it's one man's call what classifies as a reasonable belief. It's like one man's cold is another man's tepid.

Yes, and?

The reason I was calling it to your attention is because the article states...If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.
Yet you and others use the word "citizen". (Heartsurgeon even used it in a link to an article)
Granted, the articles may mean 'citizen' and not 'resident', but they're not the same.

Also, looking at this sentence of the article..."If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court. "...I'm wondering if either end of a call would equal a "chief target". IOW - if someone is under surveillance, and that person makes a call a person who is a U.S. resident, does a warrant need to be obtained? Obviously, from your statement here, you think it does..."And if it is believed that one may be a US citizen then a warrant would need to be sought."
Your thoughts?


One last thing...

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote.

You feel he's wrong?


Oh, and I wanted (needed?) to point out that you were wrong here...
"There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution."

Sure, there is always debate on what is considered "reasonable" - but it's already a description in other areas of our law. Unless it's shown to be otherwise - the definition of "reasonable" would be the same - would it not?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...2:./temp/~c110P2dhR3:: That is the text of the bill passed. It looks like it has to do with locations - not citizens/residents.

Yes, I believe he is wrong. If you look at the text it does not allow for nilly-willy wire-tapping. There is a specific review process in place too so it's not like there wouldn't be oversight.

Actually that point was true because this involves foreign to foreign calls - not domestic spying which would need a warrant.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why this surprises people I dont know. Democrats and Repubs arent that far from each other.

I'll be the first to agree that I wish the Dems had beat the Republicans like a bunch of rented mules over this, but please cut the "they're all the same" bullshit. House Democrats voted 181 to 41 AGAINST this bill, while house Republicans voted 186 to 2 in favor of it. The Democratic party may have room for improvement, but the Republicans are so far into the weeds that I doubt I'll vote for another Republican for any position more important than a seat on the local school board. Nobody is perfect, so I think I'll go with the party that at least managed to come up with 181 members with the character to take a stand against this...it beats the hell out of the 2 the Republicans managed to round up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.

So I was correct - foreign to foreign calls. You can try to spin this and put on all sorts of tinfoil if you wish but there is just no posible way to know who may be on either end of the line(in each foreign country). THAT is why it could be possible for a US citizen to be tapped which then created the need for "REASONABLY BELIEVES". IF a US citizen(in a foreign country) is using a bad number(flagged) or being called by a flagged number in a foreign country then how could anyone attempting to tap it know for sure? Sheesh - I swear some of you let your Bush hate blind you.

How is that you being correct? You're making assumptions and guesses, which are obviously incorporated into the law. I was making the argument that, given that the "foreigner to foreigner" statement is just a guess, the law should probably err on the side of caution...which is exactly what it was doing before. Wiretapping communications inside the United States seems like it would have a fair chance of including communications between people in the United States, thus the previous requirement for a warrant.

This is not spin, tinfoil or Bush hatred. I just happen to believe that the 4th amendment means what it says it means, and if there is a chance that private conversations involving US persons are being listening to, the 4th amendment requires a warrant of some kind. If there is really is "no possible way to know who may be on either end of the line", it seems like we'd have to assume that a US person IS on one end of the line. A law that allows the federal government to blunder around, accidentally violating my 4th amendment rights doesn't seem like a good idea to me, regardless of who is President.

I did not say "foreigner to foreigner" - those are your words, not mine.

But since there is no guarantee and as you suggest we must assume that a US person is on the other line then we'll ALWAYS have to get a warrant - which is the problem that is being addressed. It is unreasonable to assume that there is a US citizen on the either end of foreign to foreign calls every time. This seems to be giving the OK to tap foreign to foreign calls if they are routed through our country as long as we "reasonably believe" that neither of the parties are US citizens. And if it is believed that one may be a US citizen then a warrant would need to be sought.

Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

Are you sure YOU read the text of the bill? Because I did, and while I'm not a lawyer, I see nothing in there that provides for oversight on a case by case basis. "Semi-annual" reports about non-compliance with AG and DNI directives and the number of directives issued are NOT acceptable replacements for requiring a warrant from an impartial 3rd party in each and every situation. Perhaps oversight was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the half-ass, Republican Congress from 2000-2006 sense, I meant judicial determinations made about each case based on the facts of that specific case...not a one page memo the AG pulls out of his ass every 6 months.

 

[Looney]

I have to agree with the sentiments here. Democrats have a chance to other make some good changes, but instead it's all lip-service. They just wanted their vacation.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Looney
I have to agree with the sentiments here. Democrats have a chance to other make some good changes, but instead it's all lip-service. They just wanted their vacation.

The problem with a Democracy is that the people are right, even when they aren't. I don't like that fact that some Dems voted for this, but I understand why they had to...it's too easy to make the argument that anyone who doesn't support it is "soft on terrorism" because the average American voter is an idiot. It's easy to blame the Democrats here, it's even easier to blame the Republicans, but the real problem is the people...the people want a police state, and eventually they are going to get it.