Skip to comments.'Protect America violates Constitution' (More Ron Paul Lunacy)
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.
What? Do you think only non-citizens were on the receiving end of these calls into the United States?
According to the article, RP thinks that's perfectly allowable under the Constitution. Whoever posted the article seems to consider this "lunacy".
Terrorism per se is nothing new.
Terrorism on the scale of 9/11 is. The potential for losing a city and half a million citizens in seconds makes the threat one that must be dealt with.
By any means necessary.
If that means listening into overseas calls, so be it. If that means closing all mosques and arresting all imams, so be it.
Incidentally, I have no problem driving anywhere. I have an Escalade. It certainly has better seat room and a better ride than any airliner and a much better sound system. Plus my Akita/Shiba Inu mix dog can ride shotgun with me.
people here getting calls from the Mideast deserve to be watched, too.
Are you under the impression that Americans only have those rights "EXPRESSLY" stated in the Bill of Rights.
If that's the case then you are wrong.
Well, Lincoln had the stones to threaten to lock up the entire Roger Taney court.
We’re at war. get with the program.
Psst! There were Islamists around in Ben Franklin's day.
They didn’t have any way of blowing up Philadelphia back then, either.
All they did back then was seize some ships, and Decatur handled that.
Instead, now PAA lapses and ALL the stuff goes through FISA, which blinds us to activation calls, coordination calls, and disposable contact numbers for action groups positioned previously if they are in US territory.
Some of those last will get through now. For the next 10 days, the terrorists have been told how to operate in the clear on our soil with an assured number of untraceable calls for a pre-determined level of security.
This is a lot more complex than Wired lumping all intercepts of all types under one classification that changed only once in our entire history.
Amazing what passes for "war" anymore.
I don't own any guns, if they want to repeal the Second Amendment, to use your words, "then they can be my guest". BARF
Yea, that pesky 4th Amendment thingy is sooooo outdated.
Ben didnt have to contend with savages like the Islamists.
Actually he did. Read up on the Barbary Pirates you twit.
It's unreal how historically ignorant Freepers are....
I am for national security. I would jerk every perfume prince 0-7 and above in the Pentagon out of their chairs and put their lazy hides back on watch in our skies 24/7/365. I would have armed planes on alert status sitting on Tarmacs at unannounced airbases. I would close our borders to anyone who doesn't have a legal Visa. I would make the hiring of illegals a felony punishable by no less than 5 years prison and make company CEO's and owners do the time for the crime.
I would stop the United States dependency on foreign goods. I would stop supporting China's national defensee with American dollars. Change before trade. No change in national policy? No Trade! All military and national defense needs would be Made In USA no exception. I would halt 8 year military obligations and put it back to a reasonable 6 year one with the GI Bill restored. I would call for an immediate raise of Active Duty Armed Forces End Troop Strengths by one third.
I would place security for commercial air travel where it actually belongs. I would turn it over to the airliners themselves. In doing so they could do as they wish security wise as it would be THEIR private property.
I would encourage private gun ownership and suspend the Brady Bill. I would allow concealed carry and make it a felony for any law enforcement agency to try and harass the gun owner or subvert that right of a law abiding citizen. No records would be kept by the government as to ownership beyond a theft report filed by owner. Note I said law abiding.. Notice Bush has not proposed any of this. Why not? It's easier to herd a nation of willing cowards perhaps?
“Amazing what passes for “war” anymore.”
Ain’t that the truth!
The Constitution restricts government, not individuals.
The 9th Amendment clearly states that there are other rights that are not enumerated.
You are not in any position to say that free citizens should not have a right to privacy. In fact, stating the opposite pupts you in opposition to freedom and liberty
Lincoln may be your patron saint but not mine.
Really? Then explain this one. Look up hijacked airliner +Oak Ridge, Tennessee +Weapons Plants and get back to me. BTW I live ground zero from there. You tell me how the threat was dealt with both then and future.
As opposed to the kooks screaming and pleading with conservatives to get behind McStain.
You guys made your bed; now lie in it. You called the best conservative Republican in the race with huge grassroots support & who was the only one who can defeat Hillary or Obama all the names under the book.
Now you're stuck with a liberal RINO who has cut more deals with the Dems than any other Republican presidential candidate in history with no backing from the conservative base. And we all know those vaunted "independents" and "moderates" will just vote for the Dem, when a guy like Paul could have attracted the independents and cross-over Dems needed to defeat Hillary.
I'll be writing in Paul's name in the general election, and I'll be grabbing the popcorn as McStain loses in a landslide and the GOP will still be clueless as to why they lost another election.
Sic semper tyrannus.
Lincoln was a tyrant who trampled the Constitution and the principle of States Rights and you hail him as a hero. No wonder you like expansive federal powers. It also goes with your screen name quite well.
Just who and what do you think that we are at war with? American citizens and individual liberty? That seems to have been the focus of this war so far along with increased power for the government.
Why would you surrender your liberty to our own government in a so called effort to defend that liberty from attack by terrorists?
Ron Paul...Mr Cut and Run isolationist.
Oh, he’s a racist with ties to WAR, et. al., too.
If I mocked you previously, please accept my apologies, it was meant in good humor, not in meanness or with a jaundiced eye.
I will not willingly impugn anyone's clear dedication as Americans to our Republic's Founding Documents, though I may call into question someone's full knowledge and understanding. This is to inform and to possibly BE informed, and I always come away from such discussions with more to learn about and a deeper appreciation of how universal our Americanism runs throughout the political spectrum. Yes even Democrats, I trust, feel much the same as us in most cases. This even though we can spot the looney easiest on the other side pretty often and those loonies (Michael Moore, etc) are clearly UN-American. Remember that a bunch of your neighbors are Democrats but aren't Leftists. They're our opponents, not our enemies.
But it is foolish, I think we all agree, to assume we have no domestic enemies. We should pause every once in a while and clear our heads, and make sure we differentiate between our neighbors who are just mainly interested in arguing about traffic light placement, and our enemies (far Left and terrorists).