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.
No.
The man is a dangerous kook who needs to be exposed as the “useful idiot” Handmaiden of al-Qa’eda that he is.
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
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?
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:
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.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.
- "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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.