Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Emerging Surveillance State[Ron Paul]
House.gov ^ | 07 Apr 2008 | Ron Paul

Posted on 04/07/2008 9:49:09 AM PDT by BGHater

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens.

Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past.

The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant.

We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fisa; lunatic; ronpaul; surveillance; warrant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2008 9:49:10 AM PDT by BGHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BGHater
We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions.

LoL, OMG, when the Spitzer case first came out, someone made a parody post, and others made a lot of jokes that the rats would use it to attack the Patriot Act.

2 posted on 04/07/2008 9:52:57 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Hey Guys,
“LEAVE RON PAUL ALONE!!!”


3 posted on 04/07/2008 9:57:27 AM PDT by dr.zaeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Once the dems are in charge, opinions about the “patriot” act are going to change around here. Republicans would have never allowed Gore these broad powers, and now Obama or Hillary are going to have them. Big mistake.


4 posted on 04/07/2008 9:59:46 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Have any innocents come forth yet?
5 posted on 04/07/2008 10:05:09 AM PDT by larryjohnson (FReepersonaltrainer,USAF(Ret))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

I’ll have to see what other opinions from people ‘in the know’ I can find on this act. I take everything Ron Paul says with a grain of salt.


6 posted on 04/07/2008 10:06:45 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Ron Paul is as nutty as squirrel sh1+.


7 posted on 04/07/2008 10:07:01 AM PDT by weezel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Ron Paul may be wrong on foreign affairs but he is right on about these ever increasing Government powers.

Just think about it- why should a bank be forced to spy on their customers for depositing or withdrawing their money. The Government must first establish a reasonable cause to have a bank monitor the activities of a customer. After that has been established then monitor that customer’s accounts, not before.


8 posted on 04/07/2008 10:12:56 AM PDT by EdArt (free to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Ron Paul is wrong.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution DOES NOT require the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals.

The Fourth Amendment says:

“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.”

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

Further it states that Warrants require probable cause.

It does not say that the government has to have a warrant for a search and seizure to be reasonable.

In fact, there have always been many circumstances in which a search or seizure is reasonable even without a warrant.

Courts have developed a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement: Plain view doctrine, Open fields doctrine, Exigent circumstances, Motor vehicle exception, Searches incident to a lawful arrest, Border Search Exception and other miscellaneous exceptions.

Why would Ron Paul get this wrong when he should know better?


9 posted on 04/07/2008 10:14:11 AM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Ron Paul maybe an educated moron on at times but are you so blind that you can not judge for yourself the threat of the new provisions of the Patriot Act.


10 posted on 04/07/2008 10:18:47 AM PDT by EdArt (free to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
Once the dems are in charge, opinions about the “patriot” act are going to change around here. Republicans would have never allowed Gore these broad powers, and now Obama or Hillary are going to have them. Big mistake.

Hey. Would you cut out all that logical thinking please? We still have a little time left to give President Clinton more power to spy on us.

11 posted on 04/07/2008 10:26:15 AM PDT by maclay (America First - The rest of the world comes second)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL

Ron Paul does know better- its about the power of Government.

The Constitution has been and continues to be eroded with these type of exceptions.

Do you really want any Government to have these kind of powers of requiring banks to spy you?

You sound like the, “Legal Mind After Sun Down”


12 posted on 04/07/2008 10:29:57 AM PDT by EdArt (free to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

It is already here. Surveillance cameras have been on every street corner throughout the nation for several years, but the RAT party, and the terrorist sympathizers are only concerned with wire -taps of their phones. Go figure.


13 posted on 04/07/2008 10:36:08 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdArt

LOL Untwist your panties, Ed. I said I was going to seek out other opinions on the issue, as I take what Ronnie says with a grain of salt. If my other research bears out what Paul has claimed, then fine. But I don’t take what he says about things as gospel, as he has shown himself to be a bit reactionary at times.


14 posted on 04/07/2008 10:40:01 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
I'm glad somebody finaly mentioned the surveillance cameras. We never voted for this crap, but they watch us everywhere.
15 posted on 04/07/2008 10:47:54 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Im always amazed by the patriots here who back the patriot act


16 posted on 04/07/2008 10:49:58 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

That is because they are not Patriots at all.


17 posted on 04/07/2008 11:04:12 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL; BGHater; Revelation 911
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures....It does not say that the government has to have a warrant for a search and seizure to be reasonable.

"Look, I'm a reasonable guy, but I've just experienced some very unreasonable things..."
- Jack Burton, from the film Big Trouble In Little China

18 posted on 04/07/2008 11:12:55 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

The only whining I have heard from the old media is when terrorists are wire-tapped. It is ok for big brother to monitor honest citizens. Just more hate-filled behavior by the old media.


19 posted on 04/07/2008 11:17:11 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Innocent American citizens????

How about terrorists, their enablers, and their sympathizers?

BTW, So what if Spitzer got caught? Sorry to the Paultards here, but he was GUILTY as sin.

Ron Paul needs to get it into his empty head that everything changed on September 11, 2001. His naive and moronic outlook will get hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens killed.


20 posted on 04/07/2008 11:48:20 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dr.zaeus

No.

The man is a dangerous kook who needs to be exposed as the “useful idiot” Handmaiden of al-Qa’eda that he is.


21 posted on 04/07/2008 11:49:32 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EdArt
"..why should a bank be forced to spy on their customers for depositing or withdrawing their money..?"


To keep terrorists from being financed. To keep organized crime from laundering money. To catch tax cheats. I can think of many reasons.
22 posted on 04/07/2008 11:51:49 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

you know it and I know it - but I didnt want to hurt any feelings - for as quirky as RP is on one or two issues, he nails this right on the head


23 posted on 04/07/2008 12:57:57 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

I was for the Patriot Act, but only so long as it had a “sunset” proviso that would require it to be re-newed by vote every couple years.

I don’t recall if they left in this last time or they made it permanent. Do you?


24 posted on 04/07/2008 1:06:36 PM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
It does not say that the government has to have a warrant for a search and seizure to be reasonable.

Are you joking?

Are you seriously suggesting that only "unreasonable" searches or seizures need a warrant?

If so, you ought to study some of the original writings around the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One of the reasons the Bill of Rights was adopted is to assuage the concerns of the Anti-Federalists:

Your present frame of government, secures to you a right to hold yourselves, houses, papers and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants granted without oaths or affirmations first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search your houses or seize your persons or property, not particularly described in such warrant, shall not be granted.

How long those rights will appertain to you, you yourselves are called upon to say, whether your houses shall continue to be your castles; whether your papers, your persons and your property, are to be held sacred and free from general warrants, you are now to determine.
    - "Centinel," Number 1, October 5 1787

"Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed." - Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616 (1886)

25 posted on 04/07/2008 1:11:35 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
BTW, So what if Spitzer got caught? Sorry to the Paultards here, but he was GUILTY as sin.

Guilty of what besides moral depravity? Depositing and withdrawing too much cash too often?

Was the landscaper who got his inventory-purchase cash confiscated "guilty" too?

26 posted on 04/07/2008 1:14:07 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
Why would Ron Paul get this wrong when he should know better?I>

For the same reason he gets other things about the Constitution wrong (such as the war being illegal). Like many liberals, he is not so much a "constitutionalist" as a "constitutional contortionist". He interprets it the way he wants. Though I have to say he is much closer to the truth than the average lib.

27 posted on 04/07/2008 1:16:31 PM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

Yup. You nailed it. I dont mind hurting a few of my friends feelings when warranted.

If people want to open up their lives to the scrutiny of the new King George, that’s fine. But let them speak for their own ignorant selves and keep me and my life out of their ridiculous plans.


28 posted on 04/07/2008 1:29:06 PM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

As long as the Patriot Act has a “sunset clause”, I am for it. Does that make me “un-patriotic”? I wore the uniform for 11 years.

The problem with the Patriot Act is that it is too “all encompassing”, which is the problem with all legislation these days. Nobody wants to let individual pieces stand on their own.

Was Lincoln “un-patriotic” for taking the steps he did, suspending habues-corpus, during the civil war? It was necessary.

So far there have been no violations or misuse of the act that anyone can point to. The next re-authorization comes up in 2009. And if it is reauthorized, we need to make sure that the “sunset” clauses are retained (probably the only issue I have agreed with the ACLU on).

The first time there is credible evidence that it has been misused or that they want to make the provisions permanent without proper safeguards, I’ll be all for trashing it.

I’ve found that most people that are against it have not really read the act or any objective analysises of the act (they usually rely on partisan report from one side or the other).

Regardless of which group you fall into, don’t go around calling people who are in favor of it “un-patriotic”, unless you simply want to look stupid. I’ll stack my patriotic cred against yours any day.


29 posted on 04/07/2008 1:48:21 PM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
All of the provisions that were set to sunset got renewed except two. And there was an effort to make them permanent, which will happen eventually.

It was the first time I felt betrayed by President Bush. I voted Republican in 2000 specifically because I knew they wouldn't knee jerk unconstitutional legislation after a large event like Clinton tried to do after Columbine. But just a month after September 11, we have this policy, and you and I both know how reluctant the government is to give up spying power once it is established. And what the dems will do with these powers. As if our Constitutional freedoms contributed to us getting attacked.

I still feel let down, to tell you the truth.

The Janet Reno justice department tried to push through a bill almost exactly like the "patriot" act, and was stopped dead in their tracks.

I know a lot of you fervently support the "patriot" act, and that's fine. I don't think you supported it in the mid 90s when Janet Reno pushed it, but that's neither here nor there. My point is I argued it exhaustively in '01 and '02, so I don't have any desire to go round and round about it again.
30 posted on 04/07/2008 1:52:10 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

I am not suggesting that only “unreasonable” searches or seizures need a warrant.

I am stating the fact, as recognized by the Supreme Court, that there are situations when it is reasonable to permit a search or seizure without a warrant.

I listed several recognized doctrines that generally describe the situation.

The fact is that Ron Paul is incorrect when he says that the government always has to have a warrant. He is wrong. There are situations when it does not have to.


31 posted on 04/07/2008 2:08:19 PM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: mysterio
All of the provisions that were set to sunset got renewed except two. And there was an effort to make them permanent, which will happen eventually.

Only if we let them.

It was the first time I felt betrayed by President Bush.

More than that for me, but that is beside the point. Also, I believe one of those was the FISA, which was blown out of all proportion. This why I think the Patriot Act ought to be broken down into its constituent parts and examined and voted on piece by piece. There are some I would make permanent, and others I would throw out completely. The problem is that the entire thing has been turned into a political football that few actually examine. In the meantime, with troops in harms way (including my daughter and son-in-law), we can't afford to throw out the baby with the bathwater--so to speak.

And what the dems will do with these powers. As if our Constitutional freedoms contributed to us getting attacked.

Which is exactly why I insist there must be a sunset clause.

I know a lot of you fervently support the "patriot" act...

I do not "fervently" support it. I recognize it as necessary evil in the WOT and take umbrage at being called "un-patriotic" for doing so. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue, and regardless of which one you line up with, vigilance is the price of freedom--on our part and the governments.

32 posted on 04/07/2008 3:03:14 PM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

Hey, I served and still do.

So please, spare me. The fact is that those of you (perhaps not you) who would seek to include the rest of us in your game of “please look under my skirt, Govna”, do not adequately consider the fact that there are those of us that don’t like the idea.

You wanna give up your rights? Fine, do so. Reap what you sow. I, for one, ain’t buyin it.

Like the nutty Paul says, if it ain’t illegal, then why do you need immunity?


33 posted on 04/07/2008 3:09:08 PM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

TSchmereL represents the Legal Mind After Sundown

It is amazing how many stupid people have no understanding of human nature- (Power Corrupt and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely,which what the US Constitution is based on. To limit the power of government.


34 posted on 04/07/2008 3:15:00 PM PDT by EdArt (free to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

And to answer your question about Lincoln, yes. In my opinion, Lincoln did more to hurt the concept of free people than any other President. He deficated on the graves of our genius founding-fathers, of which he is not one of.

Thank Lincoln for the income tax.

Just my opinion.


35 posted on 04/07/2008 3:16:48 PM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine

None of your reasons are valid without due cause. A valid reason - The USA was not fonded on “Lets cast a big net to stop terrorists from being financed. To keep organized crime from laundering money. To catch tax cheats.

You represents the Legal Mind After Sundown

It is amazing how many stupid people have no understanding of human nature- (Power Corrupt and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely,which what the US Constitution is based on. To limit the power of government.


36 posted on 04/07/2008 3:19:12 PM PDT by EdArt (free to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp
When I said "you," I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to those who might read my post and want to get into a point by point "it's not unconstitutional" two page back and forth with me that I don't want to have, since I spent much of '01 and '02 doing just that.

And thank you for the service of your family, and best wishes to your family.
37 posted on 04/07/2008 3:51:57 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
I am stating the fact, as recognized by the Supreme Court, that there are situations when it is reasonable to permit a search or seizure without a warrant.

Yes, of course there are. But before the Supreme Court ruled in Terry, there was an actual, significant, open legal question of whether police could permissibly conduct a warrant-less cursory pat-down for weapons of people acting suspiciously, for example.

I'd much rather that the exceptions to the warrant requirement be extremely important and very narrowly tailored, as opposed to categorical and sweeping, wouldn't you?

38 posted on 04/07/2008 4:41:54 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
You wanna give up your rights? Fine, do so. Reap what you sow. I, for one, ain’t buyin it.

Like the nutty Paul says, if it ain’t illegal, then why do you need immunity?

just curious how the same crowd of supporters would howl if gun rights were suspended with a sunset clause

39 posted on 04/07/2008 5:22:14 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911

Very good point. That’s may be right around the corner with either McCain or Obama. All it will take is a teeny tiny bit of Anarchy.

Let us pray that chaos can stay at bey for at least 4-8 more years, because either of these two “patriots” will be the ruin of America should it rear its ugly head.


40 posted on 04/07/2008 7:15:04 PM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

Then we agree. When Ron Paul is a dishonest demagogue playing on the ignorance of the electorate when he states as a fact that “The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals.” He knows that is not correct, but he plays to the indignation of his ignorant supporters.

The fact is that there is no general warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment. Yet you continue to talk about “exceptions to the warrant requirement.”

The requirement is that searches and seizures be reasonable . . . and that warrants require probable cause.

If the only basis for a search or seizure is a warrant that isn’t based on probable cause, the search or seizure isn’t reasonable. But if it is reasonable to do the search or seizure without a warrant, it is legal even without a warrant.

Because I believe that the kind of foreign intelligence surveillance currently being conducted by the government is reasonable, I don’t believe that the kind of foreign intelligence surveillance currently being conducted by the government should require a warrant.

I also believe Ron Paul is a demagogue who uses tactics more commonly used by leftist Democrats.


41 posted on 04/08/2008 6:01:53 AM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
When Ron Paul is a dishonest demagogue playing on the ignorance of the electorate when he states as a fact that “The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals.” He knows that is not correct, but he plays to the indignation of his ignorant supporters.

Well, in fact, the Constitution does require it, the Supreme Court's self-serving carve-outs notwithstanding.

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent . . . The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Justice Brandeis (1928)

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. That should be manifestly evident given how they rubber-stamped the "Africans are sub-human," FDR's "general welfare" poppycock, and "the unborn are sub-human" theories.

42 posted on 04/08/2008 7:41:17 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
So, you would rather have had the country split into two separate entities in 1861 rather than have Lincoln do what he did? Well, here's something that bound to get under your skin. "When Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office as President of these United States, there was nothing to protect the national life. Yet with all these discouragements staring us in the face, the Republican party undertook to save your government. We raised your credit; we created navies; raised armies; fought battles; carried the war to a successful issue, and finally when the Rebellion surrendered at Appomattox, they surrendered to a government. The admitted that they had submitted their heresy to the arbitrament of arms, and had been defeated, and they surrendered to the government of the United States of America. They made no claims against the government, for they had none. In the very ordinance of seccession which they signed they pledged themselves, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the overthrow of this government, and when they failed to do it they lost all that they had pledged. They asked, as a boon, that their miserable lives might be spared to them. We gave them their lives.      They had forfeited all their property—we gave it back to them. We found them naked, and we clothed them. They were without the rights of citizenship, and we restored to them those rights. We took them to our bosoms as brethren, believing that they had repented of their sins. We killed for them the fatted calf, and invited them to the feast, and they gravely informed us that they had always owned that animal, and were not grateful for the invitation.. By the laws of war, and by the laws of nations, they were bound to pay every dollar of the expense incurred in putting down that rebellion. But we forgave them that debt, and today you are being taxed heavily to pay the interest on the debt that they ought to have paid. Such magnanimity as was exhibited by this Nation to these rebels has never been witnessed on the earth since God made it, and, in my humble judgment, it will never be witnessed again.      Mistakes we undoubtedly made—errors we committed—but, in my judgment, the greatest mistake we made, and the gravest error we committed, was in not hanging enough of these rebels to make treason forever odious." - Senator (R-NH) Zachariah Chandler, Speech at McCormick Hall, Chicago, October 31, 1879.
43 posted on 04/08/2008 8:09:56 AM PDT by PsyOp (Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EdArt
My attitude changed because of this:



This must never be allowed to happen again. PERIOD.
44 posted on 04/08/2008 8:22:02 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

Well, in fact, the Constitution does not require it.

The Fourth Amendment says:

“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.”

There is a comma between the word “violated” and the words “and no Warrant shall issue . . . .”

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

Further it states that Warrants require probable cause.

The Supreme Court has said that some searches and seizures may violate the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement even if a warrant is supported by probable cause and is limited in scope.

Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example “where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.”

The government needs probable cause for a search or seizure to be reasonable, not a necessarily a warrant.

In addition, the amendment applies only to the government. It does not guarantee to people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.


45 posted on 04/08/2008 8:22:02 AM PDT by TSchmereL ("Rust but terrify.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PsyOp

Under my skin? Not really. The first sentance says it all....”there was nothing to protect the national life”

What is a Nation if free people do not have the rights vested to them in the Constitution to seceed from a corrupt mother Government? It’s why we fought the Revolutionary War. It’s why we made rules allowing us to cast off the chains of tyranny when a State found it appropriate.

Lincoln re-wrote the rules to fit his grand vision. Look at what it wrought.

And for the record, I’m a Yankee. I just happen to be a Yankee that completely disagrees with Lincolnites. If our fore-fathers had been alive to see what he accomplished, they’d have spit in his face.


46 posted on 04/08/2008 8:37:59 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TSchmereL
The Supreme Court begs to differ, to an extent.

"The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is a cardinal principle that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate [a "warrant"], are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment ..." - Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 357

Indeed, the Fourth Amendment was patterned after the Constitutions of the 13 States. Pennsylvania's reads:

The people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search and seizure, and therefore warrants without oaths or affirmations first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right and ought not be granted.

General warrants are contrary to the inherent right to be free of search and seizure by government, it says - how much more so having no warrant at all?

In Virginia:

SEC. 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.

If a general warrant is grievous and oppressive, how much more so no warrant at all?

47 posted on 04/08/2008 8:55:55 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
FISA expressly forbids warrantless wiretapping of domestic conversations. That is not at issue. The problem is that foreign terrorists and non-citizens generally abroad, now use lines of communication that are electronically routed through the United States. The vast technological changes that have occurred in the 30 years since FISA was enacted have rendered its restrictions moot.

FISA defines two broad classes of intelligence: "wire" and "signal". These groupings are not further classified into domestic and international categories because in 1978, all wire intelligence was either one or the other, but never both, while signal intelligence was presumed to be radio and satellite-based, and therefore subject to intercept.

FISA was amended to address the changes brought about by the advent of internet and cellular communication networks, and the threats to our national security that have arisen as a result. An Iranian terrorist in Afghanistan calling a fellow Saudi operative in Mexico may have his call routed through San Jose, California. Does this make it a "domestic" phone call, within the original meaning of FISA? The answer is "yes" it does, and exempts it from surveillance, even though neither party is a US citizen and neither is physically in the US. This was not the intention of the original legislation, nor does it comport with the 4th Amendment, which does not extend to foreigners on foreign soil.

The amended FISA statute, which was allowed to expire by the Democrat House, allowed our intelligence agencies to intercept and record such communications, and provided a grant to telecommunications companies that reasonably relied on written government assurances that what they were being asked to do was legal.

Democrats object specifically to this latter provision because their multi-billion dollar funders in the Trial Lawyer industry would be foreclosed from a round of potentially lucrative class action lawsuits. Ron Paul objects, apparently because he believes that companies shouldn't require immunity if they are not breaking the law. Normally, that would be a fair argument - but this is not a "fair" situation. A law (FISA) was amended to remedy a legal fiction. The telecom companies acted with reasonable reliance upon written guarantees from the Federal government that they were acting within the bounds of the law. Now, the law has expired, and the same industry is afraid that they will be retroactively held to have violated the original statute, or that they will again in the future if a future version is also allowed to lapse. Given the voracious and hyper-partisan nature of our trial lawyers, is this not a reasonable fear?

Either way, I do not believe it is a legitimate 4th Amendment issue where foreign operatives are concerned, or where a foreign operative is in communication with an American citizen outside of the United States. Even as presumptively amended, FISA provides very real protection for citizens engaged in domestic conversations, the vast and overwhelming majority of which are none of the government's business.

48 posted on 04/08/2008 9:38:04 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

Vance Packard ‘The Naked Society’ 1962
Not much new here.


49 posted on 04/08/2008 9:39:36 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Vance Packard was a liberal pop sociologist who made a career on exploiting public paranoia. He believed that people’s minds could be so easily manipulated by advertisers that they no longer possessed free will and that Capitalism was morally bankrupt. I read lots of him in college. Thanks, but I’ll pass.


50 posted on 04/08/2008 9:48:49 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson