Posted on 07/10/2008 7:36:59 PM PDT by tobyhill
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a law on Thursday overhauling the rules for eavesdropping on terrorism suspects but immediately met a civil liberties challenge calling it a threat to Americans' privacy.
"This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence," Bush said at a White House ceremony to mark a rare legislative victory for the president during his last year in office.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in Manhattan federal court as Bush signed the measure and called for the law to be voided as a violation of constitutional speech and privacy protections.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power, and that's exactly what this law allows," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said in announcing the suit.
The action was filed on behalf of human-rights groups, journalists, labor organizations and others who say they fear the law will allow the U.S. government to monitor their activities, including compiling of critical reports on the United States
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
A British ditty from the beginning of the last century:
"You do not have
To bribe or twist
The arm
Of the British journalist.
Considering what he would do
Unasked
There is no reason to."
This, of course, applies equally to the American BlameStreamMedia.
Long long overdue. Too bad the UN can't tag along.
Summertime at the Ranch there are an abundance of flies. I’ve often wondered what good the damned things are. Other than feed for some birds and lizards they seem to exist simply to torture the animals and us. I’ve wondered if we could turn them into alternative fuels at times.
I’ve considered the ACLU in the same light as flies. Wondering what good the damned things are.
there’s a legitimate concern about government use of the public media to ferrett out terrorists.
but i don’t understand why the libs wanted to set up the telephone co’s for lawsuits. that ain’t gonna fly.
I expect someone like the ACLU to sue but for journalist to be suing only tells about their wanting to be the story instead of reporting the story. There’s nothing in the laws that grant them access to terrorist.
The Fourth Amendment: "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."
agree.
many people i talk to have no idea how the nsa or a like govt org goes about getting this.
some older people actually think there’s someone listening in.
no! no! no! i tell them—303,000,000 americans and 303,000,000 people would be required to listen in!
then i tell them about arab language specialists and mathematicians developing algorithms to grab the stuff out of the air—radio signals of cellphones.
not to mention the old level 5 phone co switching stations.
so on.
Since the communication derives from outside the US I guess the feds will only listen to half the conversation.
I think we can depend on our government officials and employees of the communication companies not to engage in any inappropriate snooping, even if they can do it without warrants.
I have never understood why the administration couldn’t go after terrorists in accordance with the limitations placed on it by FISA. Why does our government want to be able to operate in total secrecy, spy on whoever it wishes with no record? Doesn’t sound good to me. To protect our freedom, we must protect ourselves against our own government as well.
Yes, the ACLU does a lot of crazy things. But if this is right:
“The law lets government “conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to surveil, what phone lines and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, or why it’s conducting the surveillance,”
then I have to say I am in agreement with them. A secret government invites abuse of our rights. Remember, it may well be Marxist, terrorist-loving libs we’re giving this power to.
“It would appear that the ACLU is an extension of AQ in the USA. Time for them to go.”
Does anyone have an idea on how the ACLU could be legally eliminated? I’d love to hear a viable option detailed.
“I think we can depend on our government officials and employees of the communication companies not to engage in any inappropriate snooping, even if they can do it without warrants.”
Of course we can depend on our elected officials not to do anything unethical. Who could believe otherwise?
Exactly! Privacy laws as against the government are superfluous, if not merely unenforceable. And warrants are only needed if the government takes the evidence to a court. As long as the evidence never goes to court, there can't be a fourth amendment violation. The government can snoop as much as it wants, as long as it never charges the bad guys in court. Courts are bad anyway. They let the bad guys off. Down with courts, up with surveillance.
A choice has to be made ~ you're with us or against us.
If their talking to americans, then you’d only need 151 million. LOL!
***A secret government invites abuse of our rights.***
and loose lips sink ships. If you’re not talking to terrorist then you have nothing to worry about unless you’re naturally paranoid then you probably worry all the time anyway.
You are So right. Today, America and the American people are facing one of the greatest threats in their history. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We can willingly give up a few of our liberties to help our government protect us from the barbarians at the gate.
if the ACLU is ticked... then it is a good thing.
Before the terrorists, it was the communists. Someone is always out to get us. Obviously you trust the government more than I do.
At the gate? You are too protective of your rights. The barbarians are IN OUR COUNTRY. The blokes who did the 9/11 job weren't out of country, they were in country. Surely you can't think that warrants are required to snoop when the terrorist threat is present in our homeland. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
“If you’re not talking to terrorist then you have nothing to worry about unless you’re naturally paranoid then you probably worry all the time anyway.”
Okay, so I’m paranoid. So were the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights. They just didn’t trust the government very much. It doesn’t have a very good track record when it comes to abusing its powers to spy on people, does it?
NSA discovers imminent homeland threats from international communications involving one U.S. based party. Primary concern for detecting and preventing another 9/11 is over 200 billion minutes per year of calls between people here and in other countries. Also, NSA monitors greater volumes of entirely foreign communications. Self-proclaimed experts who say NSA computers operate from key words and routinely entrap calls among innocents overseas or across town speak nonsense. If calls average 10 minutes, a group of gifted, dedicated, eccentric professionals apply science and art to identify a handful of meaningful leads, covering terrorism and a multitude of other vital national security concerns, from background noise of 60 – 100 billion calls per year. The volume, velocity and variety of communications, means leads representing serious and continuing threats to our homeland can be so perishable they require immediate and continuous analysis. The President uses his Constitutional and statutory authority to authorize proceeding without warrant, because professional analysts we rely upon, judge a fleeting opportunity appeared to detect or prevent an attack. However, debate precludes realistic civil liberty and national security discussions.
Media and Democrat rhetoric uses the term “American”, but never “U.S. person”. Intelligence bills never use “American”, but the term “U.S. person”, which defines the party mentioned in laws governing intelligence. Should Osama bin Laden join 10 million plus illegal aliens utilizing myriad infiltration opportunities, he becomes legally protected as a ‘U.S. person”.
This country suffered a devastating civil liberties assault on 9/11, because the Constitution requires an invincible society within which freedoms exist. The first responsibility of federal government branches is to consider Alexander Hamilton’s admonition that power to defend our country exist without limitation, providing national defenses capable of thwarting dangers as well as responding to attacks. Robust intelligence gathering is inseparable from effective warfare, and inseparable from the 2001 authorization “to use all necessary and appropriate force”.
Critical counterterrorism intelligence measures have been degraded from the Terrorist Surveillance Program of 2005. New York Times provided priceless incites to terrorists for identifying operational vulnerabilities. Democrats feigned legislative and intelligence unawareness, and fabricated complacency about nuclear/biological/chemical warfare potentials. President Bush abandoned traditional Commander in Chief “warrantless” authority for archaic, dysfunctional FISA court pronouncements.
We must appreciate threats balanced with civil liberties using Hamilton’s vision of capabilities to withstand unforeseen perils. We cannot tolerate enemies exploiting our freedoms to establish a legal conduit through which to move personnel and material for a savage war against us.
Below is a link to General Michael Hayden’s remarks to the National Press Club on 1/23/06. The public should never received such extensive information on NSA activities. Such information should have remained limited to select members of Congress and the Executive branch. Our national security has been changed into a minor political prop.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.html
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Nice. That was a good solid laugh. We laugh because it is funny and we laugh because it is true. Delusion and denial are part of our human nature accelerated at times out of boredom or outright despair.
Those that deny that flies exist get maggots infested into there skin, and then must leave public site forever humiliated. These flies also convince the mental dwarves that flies don’t bite they only plant dung, germs and maggots on you so it’s fine to do nothing about everything. It is this effect that must be countered most, time for way more Internet ads to get the Republican message out there and those who are conservative to walk-the-walk instead of talk-the-talk.
PS - I could have wrote a book on that analogy :)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Even the people conducting the wiretaps without warrants?
You have to come up with a big new American Safety Union, fund it, advertise it to the public for a year with content and why our government is failing (gridlock from our own internal axis of evil) hire tons of lawyers and researchers whom compile dozens of lawsuits to be filed over a six month period. Repeat as necessary and the other side goes broke and can’t focus on filing lawsuits every public figure whom gives a damn and knows we are at war. How else do you beat the communists ;)
I keep telling the Republican leadership I am great at propoganda, but really guys in gov stopping by, you must put more loot in Internet media and blogging =0=
And as long as the government protects its subjects from being harmed, the BoR is unnecessary.
LOL! Best laugh all day. Thanks.
Good point. Those folks are from the government, and can be trusted.
That is a good quote to remember. Another good one: Is it worth destroying it in order to save it?
I trust about 10 total people but they include the current President and Vice President, 6 Senators and about 2 in Congress. All are Republican and acted conservative which if we include Christian it means waging war to win, never a popular choice and protection such as eavsdropping of the enemy.
Does the ACLU or this ‘tarded Congress never read WWII and why we actually won? Radar, spies and the atom bomb. The objective (for all of you dumb Democrats whom are reading this) is to get all the information on the enemy while we all shut up and protect OUR information. An Arab Islamist getting the bomb and using it on an American city an issue? 911? Hello? Think in WWII many private companies assisted in the development of advance aircraft. Were they evil, pirates conspiring with an out of control government. You Dems, your lack of common sense and power grabs get more Americans killed then all of the GI’s in entire Iraq affair. You Dems make me now. You had a point in the late 1950’s... What happened?!?!
As far as I can throw them.
I am not sure the founders wanted to protect criminals with the Fourth Amendment, the goal was to protect innocent citizens and resident aliens from government fishing expeditions and harassment, protecting criminals was a necessary side effect.
Secrecy is so that the enemy doesn’t know that they are being watched.
The govt doesn’t spy on whoever it wishes. It has basic logical targets though sometimes there are name problems. There are almost always a record. If the person caught in a surveillance operation is not involved, their name should be expunged, or noted that this is not the person they thought they were searching for (same name, similar characteristics. Would prevent future confusion and problems).
BESIDES, WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE ANYWAY. Surveillance would be redundant.
Besides, why worry if you don’t have anything to hide?
You just aren't patriotic enough. You probably see black helicopters and wear a tinfoil beanie too. If the government says a program of surveilling the public is so important that it shouldn't be revealed to the public, that ought to cause you to have more trust, especially after the terrorist attacks of the DC snipers, 9/11, and Oklahoma City.
What, the government doesn't get to spy on its selected targets? Shit! I thought the point of being in the government was to be able to spy on whoever you are suspicious of. Are those the logical targets with name problems?
Not to break your bubble, but the terrorist threat is going to outlast those 10 - and the government power to snoop on your ass is going to outlast the terrorist threat.
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.