Sen. Russ Feingold is now temporarily my new hero. Why? He has gotten a lot of the responsibility/praise for stopping a bill in committee pushed by The Shrub and Sen. Arlen Specter that would have made Bush's warrantless wiretap program legal.
"The president has basically said: I'll agree to let a court decide if I'm breaking the law if you pass a law first that says I'm not breaking the law," Feingold said. "That won't help re-establish a healthy respect for separation of powers. It will only make matters worse."
You go Russ. Thank you for trying to protect our rights.
8 years ago
5 comments:
Okay..
Time to start another flame-war.
Open un-warranted taps I don’t agree with. However…
Being able to tap into communications from the U.S. or to the U.S. from known terrorist locations outside of the U.S. needs to be responded to in real time. Some of this interception that the U.S. and U.K. have accomplished in stopping bombs and attempted terrorist activates (some of which don’t get in the news) is from such actions.
I think that writing such a broad based bill is unacceptable, however I am totally on the bandwagon for on the spot interception and tapping of communications from the U.S. or to the U.S. of locations that are known (terrorist friendly) locations with out a warrant, as those lines of communications need to be responded to when they happen, not 12-24 hours after they happen.
So if the lines of communication happen within our boarders, Then Yes, You need a warrant and just-cause to be tapping us.
However when it deals to middle east or other locations that are terrorist hotspots then we should allow tapping to help deal with the crap that goes on globally. If a person has legitimate business with in the terrorist locations then they have no worries. The government isn’t going to go nab someone with legitimate work..
There is way too much teens chatting with each other about he said/she said crap at the mall and undereducated/overeducated people talking about crap or fluffing their own egos talking about themselves for the government to even try to get a handle on.
So I’m not worried about them tapping us so they can hear what I puked up last time I went on a drinking binge. Or the fact my friends wife ripped his head off because it was “that time of the month”
Those communications to/from terrorist locations though should be intercepted and listened to, especial considering Nukes could be involved, along with bio-chem weapons that you can’t simply wipe off with a law suit of someone listening in on a conversation with.
-Psyber
The problem with Bush's warrantless wiretapping is simply this: it is illegal.
Under the law, they could have done everything you said. They could intercept phone calls to terrorists, in real time, without a warrant. Under the FISA law, they have 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. If they were legitimately using the wiretaps to trace terrorists, they could do it whenever they wanted to and get the warrant later.
They want to not have to answer the law. They want to wiretap whoever they want, whenever they want. And there's a simple reason: they aren't just using the wiretaps for terrorist case, or other legitimate crimes. They haven't admitted to that yet, but I will bet my own body parts they are.
The point is not whether they are listening to our innocuous conversations while trying to find terrorists. The point is, we have a Constitution, with a Bill of Rights, that protects us from this. And there's a very good reason for it.
Without warrants, without oversight, the government can invade anyone's privacy whether they're a criminal or not. J. Edgar Hoover did it illegally in the 50s and 60s to gain political power. He used it for blackmail, he used it to get intelligence on perfectly legitimate political and minority groups he was personally opposed to. If you give them free reign to invade anyone's privacy, they will. They will abuse that power. And I am certain the current administration already has.
It's the principle. We have to uphold the laws, the Constitutional rights we were given. If we give them up, we lose our freedom. I am not willing to do that.
I'm with Matt on this one. From what I understand this bill would allot for phone tapping, but it wouldn't require the authorities to appear before a FISA court to get an approved warrant before or after the fact, which basically allows them to rule whether it can be used as evidence during prosecution.
I can't see how the President can have us believe that the current process is not enough to combat terrorist communications. I'm with Psyber in that yes we should monitor suspicous activity, but only as our judicial branch allots and in this case I believe the system works already. I don't see the need to sidestep the court's approval except in the vision that Matt has defined.
There may be more to the bill that any of us are aware of; however I can't see how not receiving court approval after the fact is a good thing.
Well as the second line said.
"Open un-warranted taps I don’t agree with. However…"
So I'm on your boat too, within our boarders.
So I'm not against your argument. As you stated:
"Under the law, they could have done everything you said. They could intercept phone calls to terrorists, in real time, without a warrant. Under the FISA law, they have 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. If they were legitimately using the wiretaps to trace terrorists, they could do it whenever they wanted to and get the warrant later."
I didn't bother to look any of the info up, which it sounds all that is in place, so there is no reason for warrentless wire-taps. (Was just spouting off, cuz my constitutional rights say I can regardless of how much or lack of information I have.) Besides I knew if anyone would drop the info you would, ...
So what's the next issue to argue about?
Porn.
Post a Comment