Democratic Congress Legislates Away 1st Amendment

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Why is it U.S. authoritarians cannot see anything between warrantless searches and no searches??

You'll have to find one and ask them. Personally I think you misunderstand the system in question.

The 4th Amendment allows the government to search anything as long as a warrant is issued, and standard for getting a warrant is low.

The fault with this logic has been pointed ou t by Ogie

After 9/11, Congress set up a secret court where investigators could go and get an expedited warrant -- up until three days after the beginning of the tap. But for some inexplicable reason this is too much effort for investigators.

The fault with this logic has been pointed out by Dinodoc. The NSA clearly had problems with the three day limit to the warrantless taps. We dont know why that was - it's classified-. What I note is that to the best of my knowledge no congressman or senator who has had the classified briefings has said the program is "a waste of time"or that "the threat to american liberties was not worth the gains". That leads me to believe that it has been effective.

All we've heard from the dems is the political rhetoric about it's "illegality". If its worthless, then they should put up or shut up.

All this new statute does is permit the government to eavesdrop on Americans who are NOT suspected of committing crimes or engaging in terrorist activities.

Yes and if they are uninvolved then the tap is destroyed. That needs congressional oversight not elimination from law.

Why do Bush and Congress fear their own people?

Jejune froth.

[Winston]

to threads full of

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Does that have a USB port? Definitely needs teh external knee jerk attachment drive.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Lorizael


How many Congressmen can you fit into a man-sized safe, exactly?

From the outside it only looks like one, but knowing Cheney there is probably a trap door in the bottom leading to some sort of torture chamber.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
More to the point anything can be searched and seized in many instances without a warrant as well.

Customs anyone?

Implied consent.

DUI roadblocks?

Unconstitutional IMHO.

and many others as well.

Inventory search, pat-down, yeah yeah yeah. But there's reasoning behind all of these.

Here, all I'm seeing is the wholesale searching of citizenry for no purpose which has been articulated.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

But there's reasoning behind all of these.

The implication is reasoning or more to the point as the 4th says "...secure .....against unreasonable searches and seizures....." It goes on to say that no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, etc.

What is not explicit in this is that the test of reasonableness be only satisfied by warrant and judicial review. And as a matter of fact the many myriads of searches and seizures allowed without warrant have been decided as reasonable for reasons of public safety etc.


Key word reasonable. 4th says that the test of reasonability be satisfied via the judicial warrant process, but is silent on other allowable means of satisfying reasonableness.

[Ramo]

Alberto "I don't recall" Gonzales' opinion is not exactly a universally recognized standard of reasonableness. This rubber stamp legislation allows Speedy Confession to get past FISA review (lax as it is) at will. This amounts to arbitrary executive power.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Arbitrary executive power limited in scope to foreign communiques.

[Ramo]

Foreign communcations that may involve American citizens located in the US. And even domestic communques that Gonzo "reasonably believes" one party is foreign. And these intercepts can be used for further court orders. Unconstitutional asshatery

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Key word reasonable. 4th says that the test of reasonability be satisfied via the judicial warrant process, but is silent on other allowable means of satisfying reasonableness.

That's true. A warrant is issued once a judge determines the search is reasonable.

If no such finding is sought, that does not necessarily make the search unreasonable. F'instance, when the police arrest the driver of a car, they aren't going to leave the car but rather they will take it too into custody. To protect both themselves and the owner, they take an inventory of what in the car. No warrant is needed because what they are doing is reasonable, even though its technically "a search."

What concerns me about this new law is that, it appears, the new law grants a blanket right for the government to search through communications. No warrant; no reason given. I don't see how this can meet constituional muster.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It's the 4th Amendment.

QFT

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, IIRC this is about our ability to tap conversations between two people on foreign soil which happen to pass through the US. Which is obviously something we should be doing. So Ramos of the world, quit whining

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anyway, IIRC this is about our ability to tap conversations between two people on foreign soil which happen to pass through the US. Which is obviously something we should be doing. So Ramos of the world, quit whining

I think you recollect incorrectly. I think it's about the ability to tap conversations involving someone on foreign soil but also an American (even a citizen) on the other end of the conversation.... as long as the target is the guy on foreign soil.

So not necessarily two people on foreign soil (which wasn't a problem in the first place, IIRC).

[Kuciwalker]

FTA:

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.

i.e. the law was marketed as fixing that problem (which is a problem, and obviously acceptable), but some people claim it does more than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

From the article as well:

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

It was that part which was the problem. The Dems wouldn't have raised a stink (justifiably, may I add) if it was only foreign-to-foreign surveillance being done without warrants.