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

Skip to comments.

'Protect America violates Constitution' (More Ron Paul Lunacy)
presstv.ir ^

Posted on 02/16/2008 7:49:09 AM PST by no nau

Presidential hopeful Ron Paul opposes the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 as the legislation violates the US Constitution.

"The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant, which violates the Fourth Amendment," Paul said.

Speaking before the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, he said the Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight.

The 10-term congressman added that it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of an electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.

"We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the US Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens," said Paul.

The libertarian-leaning Texan noted that the only legitimate 'upgrade' to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States.

"Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," Paul concluded.

Constitutionalist Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of current US fiscal and monetary policies. He advocates a full troop withdrawal from Iraq and the abolishment of income taxes.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 110th; fisa; paultards; ronpaul; surveillance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: David
Our founding fathers are gravely disappointed in what we have done with our inheritance.
41 posted on 02/16/2008 9:20:36 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
You can't be serious. To have posted that without the information that the PAA covers foreign calls TO OTHER foreign numbers that route through the US.

Foreign citizens in foreign nations have NEVER been subject to Constitutional protectections EVER by ANY decision of ANY court until after 9/11.

None of the intercepts originated in or ended on US territory. They were foreign in origin and foreign in destination, they were merely routing THROUGH the US. The Dems decided to hobble the US by encouraging the lawsuit that spuriously argued that communications that PASSED THROUGH the US were covered by the Constitution, which demanded that the intercepts which UNIVERSALLY were NEVER previously subject to review (since the Constitution does not cover a French Citizen in Belgium Calling A Turkish Citizen in Brazil SINCE THEY ARE HEY NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS OR EVEN IN FRIGGIN' AMERICAN TERRITORY) .

Talking about the intercepts being compared to the original FISA specs (FOREIGN NATIONAL CALLING INTO AMERICA OR TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN) is absurd at best, but is simply irresponsible and deliberately misleading.

So your point is refuted, eliminated, and shown to be not only untrue, but deliberately misleading and false. In simpler words, your arguement is a lie of the highest order.

42 posted on 02/16/2008 9:21:05 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
I do hope someone takes names of all who have no matter what backed Bush’s abuses of the Constitution in the name of the WOT. Watch and listen for them to squeal like pigs when the DEMs use those powers. They will all of the sudden get Constitution Religion. Not because they actually support or believe in the Constitution but rather because to them it’s all about Dems vs GOP and they don’t even bother to understand what is Constitutional and what isn’t. Their minds will change when a Dem is in the Oval Office. It's OK in their mind if it's THEIR Party that subverts the Constitution.
43 posted on 02/16/2008 9:21:33 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: no nau

What’s that stench? Is it boiled frog?

What happens when these slowly creeping powers of the Federal government start to encroach on US? By a Democratic President?

Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth shall begin.

Since it’s “our guy”, it’s okay!

The scary thing is that unlike a war against a well defined nation state, this War has the stench of the War of Drugs or the War on Poverty on it.

When will these powers ever expire? There is always the ‘threat’ of terrorism. There’s probably millions of Islamist Extremists all over the globe. The threat probably won’t end in our lifetime.

This should make conservatives very nervous. Especially with a new administration only months away.


44 posted on 02/16/2008 9:22:51 AM PST by rom (Real Conservatives don't vote for Socialists with an (R) next to their name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$

Read Shadow Warriors you’ll never trust the FBI again. When I read the history of the FBI and the Biography’s of J Edgar Hoover it’s hard to believe that anyone ever trusted them in the first place.


45 posted on 02/16/2008 9:23:08 AM PST by kublia khan (Absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
It's OK in their mind if it's THEIR Party that subverts the Constitution.

Unfortunately you are correct. I'll probably be voting for the Constitution Party this year since our choices are liberal McCain, liberal Clinton or liberal Obama.

46 posted on 02/16/2008 9:24:27 AM PST by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Republicanus_Tyrannus

Thanks for that.


47 posted on 02/16/2008 9:25:48 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: alice_in_bubbaland

“Makes you wonder, why this guy is still in the race? He’s not garnering enough support to win the position of dog catcher.”

What makes me wonder even more is why you anti-Paul posters go on and on and on about the guy even though, as you correctly note, he hasn’t enough support to win the position of dog catcher.


48 posted on 02/16/2008 9:26:18 AM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
You are right but I am worried about the rights of US citizens and thier ability to conduct their affairs (legal) in private. these days I can guarantee you that you commit at least four felonies a day and do not even know it. if you let me in your house I can find enough evidence to convict you of at least three felonies. If you live in Kalofornia if is five.

Guys like do not understand that they can haul you away and they do not even have to tell your lawyer or your family where you are or if they even have you. There are 5-7 such cases right now. Habeas Corpus is gone.

Oh and exactly how many cases have been initiated and stopped terrorist actions because of wiretapping. Exactly NONE! Fort Dix was an informant and so and so on.

Besides as long as the border is open this is all just mental masturbation.

49 posted on 02/16/2008 9:28:34 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine; rb22982
EP you have more to fear from your Government than you do from the terrorists. The actual chances of being a victim of terrorism is five time less than being in a crash of a commercial airliner.
50 posted on 02/16/2008 9:30:57 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
Strikingly, the report said that the FBI's software for recording telephone surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists intercepted 27,728,675 sessions.

That's a hell of a lot of "potential terrorist" activity. Either that, or a lot of indiscriminate spying on US citizens by the Executive branch. Makes Hillary Clinton's 900+ FBI files look positively amateur by comparison.

51 posted on 02/16/2008 9:32:10 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Therefore the prudent keep silent at that time, for it is an evil time." - Amos 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
If Hillary wants to have her Administration eavesdrop on the calls of Americans speaking with foreigners who are suspected to be terrorists or affiliated with them, that would not be a bad thing. She won't of course, because her enemies are domestic Republicans, not foreign terrorists.

The point is that the 4th Amendment is not absolute. It implicitly allows reasonable searches, as determined by objective standards. If an American citizen is speaking on an overseas call with a person he has reason to believe is terrorist-affiliated, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

52 posted on 02/16/2008 9:33:50 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (Kill the terrorists, secure the borders, and give me back my freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
One of the highest callings of a citizen of the US is to resist the left due to their "slippery slope" tramline service they seem to be enamoured with.

Seems like 33 out of 34 of their ideas have initial ideas (whether or not it should be addressed, extra-or contra-constitutional aspects of programs or goals, etc) result in a precedent that could be used by tyrants to subvert the healthy tyrant-roadblocks put in by our Founders. The precedent of "hate crimes" can be used to horrible effect by a tyrant.

But FISA? You're being manipulated about FISA. What FISA in the 1970's did was make it explicit (where it wasn't before) that if a communication that was suspect either originated IN or had a destination TO either US Territory OR a US Citizen, then Constitutional protections kicked in and you had to justify a court order (FISA COURT) just like any agent investigating Mafia control of sewage hauling in Kansas City would have to get from the District Court. That's consistent with the Constitution. In fact, it protects non-citizens in our territory with the assumption of innocence (we assume they aren't illegal until proven guilty of the crime, so to speak). That's a big heavy burden that is rightfully borne by law enforcement.

It isn't one that is Constitutional if you apply it to foreign nationals on foreign soil calling other foreign nationals on foreign soil. They don't get the Constitution - they're not covered. See?

53 posted on 02/16/2008 9:34:56 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: no nau

Can you prove that there are absolutely no abuses of the monitoring system?

Or do you assume that since it is the Government, and a Republican administration, that all is good?

If these are known identities on the other end of these phone calls, what is the problem with getting a warrant?


54 posted on 02/16/2008 9:36:27 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

That’s all intercepts, because they are counting the foreign-to-foreign intercepts in that count because of the MIS-application of the Constitution to those foreign nationals on foreign soil who have their coms routed THROUGH the US. It is an artificially high number because they forced the US to go to the FISA court for calls that were explicitly not covered - foreign to foreign. The dems supported a horrible lawsuit that in effect said that our Constitution protected every citizen of every country in the world, even if they never step inside our borders.

THAT’S the crime against the Constitution - not the PAA or the FISA court.


55 posted on 02/16/2008 9:38:30 AM PST by Republicanus_Tyrannus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: no nau

“Nobody is spying on American citizens.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

How is the weather in LaLa land? If you believe that statement you are a lot more of an idiot than Mr. Paul!


56 posted on 02/16/2008 9:39:28 AM PST by RipSawyer (Does anyone still believe this is a free country?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
EP you have more to fear from your Government than you do from the terrorists. The actual chances of being a victim of terrorism is five time less than being in a crash of a commercial airliner.

The Sheeple have been duped with the WOT. They follow the leader blindly into the Constitutional Rights Slaughter House gladly and obediently raising their necks to have their throats cut. We have always had terrorist. They were here in the 1700's. Only a fool would believe in the WOT while our elected leave our borders wide open yet wish to be more intrusive in our private affairs.

Homeland Security? A loaded 12 gauge. A concealed weapon while out with the family. The willingness like the passengers on the last hi-jack plane not to become victims. That is Homeland Security and nothing Bush is pushing can match it in effectiveness. The Bush WOT is nothing but a ruse designed to put us under complete government authority. BAA Blind Sheep.

57 posted on 02/16/2008 9:39:37 AM PST by cva66snipe (Proud Partisan Constitution Supporting Conservative to which I make no apologies for nor back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Emperor Palpatine
You show me anywhere in the Constitution where the word privacy is mentioned. I guarantee that you will not find it there.

The Founding Fathers were all good enough writers that had they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have EXPRESSLY put it in there.

You are such a dumbass.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

58 posted on 02/16/2008 9:41:03 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO cuz I'm too conservative to be a Republican. McCain is the Conservatives true litmus test)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kublia khan
I did not trust the FBI BEFORE I read it!
59 posted on 02/16/2008 9:43:52 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (John McCain - The Manchurian Candidate? http://www.usvetdsp.com/manchuan.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I’ve always said, when it comes to Liberty, Americans will give it up faster than a drunk prom date when faced with the right threat. We just don’t have the stones for it anymore.


60 posted on 02/16/2008 9:47:29 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 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