Constitutional Rights are God given to ALL MANKIND

[PsychoKat 0]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

You might thing it's not protected but it appears the the Supreme Court does not agree with you on this

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

You should read things before you post them. That was refering to domestic wiretapping. The NSA program involves international wiretapping.

It took me awhile to respond as I was searching for some information. I know not long after the initial wiretapping report came out another one did stating that internal calls were being monitored also, but I was unable to find information on that. Additionally the it was found that bush had authorized the NSA to amass a database of all US (yes internal) calls.

You can find information regarding this here. USAToday was where that story first broke.

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

[GaryC 7]

It took me awhile to respond as I was searching for some information. I know not long after the initial wiretapping report came out another one did stating that internal calls were being monitored also, but I was unable to find information on that. Additionally the it was found that bush had authorized the NSA to amass a database of all US (yes internal) calls.

You can find information regarding this here. USAToday was where that story first broke.

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

Yes, a database of what number was calling what number. Not the conversations. They used that to run a computer program to find the terrorists. They are not recording or listening to the convesations.

The NSA program hasn't been heard by the Supreme Court yet. I am not aware of any SC finding about international wiretapping.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

This is a perfect example of the type of citizen the bush regime and his supporters are trying to create. So completely overcome by the fear they instill that the very stripping away of civil rights are explained away as protection from the 'enemey'.

[PsychoKat 0]

It took me awhile to respond as I was searching for some information. I know not long after the initial wiretapping report came out another one did stating that internal calls were being monitored also, but I was unable to find information on that. Additionally the it was found that bush had authorized the NSA to amass a database of all US (yes internal) calls.

You can find information regarding this here. USAToday was where that story first broke.

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls

Yes, a database of what number was calling what number. Not the conversations. They used that to run a computer program to find the terrorists. They are not recording or listening to the convesations.

The NSA program hasn't been heard by the Supreme Court yet. I am not aware of any SC finding about international wiretapping.

I've been doing some reading and it appears the datamining is also illegal without a warrant

Government Access to Phone Calling Activity and Related Records: Legal Authorities

[jjjimmy 0]

I just posted it. Now are you going to tell me that it is intended for something other than what it says?

Tapping a phone as you call it is not protected under the constitution. And the only conversations they are listening to are the ones that have one party outside the US. And only if one of them is a suspected terrorist. The phone calls are intercepted outside the USA. Therefore they are not subject to warrents. What objections do you have for trying to find out what the enemy is doing next? Would you rather just have them have free reign to plan as they want to and kill us?

This is a perfect example of the type of citizen the bush regime and his supporters are trying to create. So completely overcome by the fear they instill that the very stripping away of civil rights are explained away as protection from the 'enemey'.

Thats the game you sell um with fear and anybody that cant see that is not paying attension

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Yes, I read both of those years ago. As far as all of our phone calls being recorded goes, do you realize that there are billions of calls made every day? Do you really think that someone is actually listening to them? It would take millions of people working around the clock. That is just parinoid thinking if you believe that "big brother" is listening to everything you say.

I don't think we are giving up any of our liberties. We are protecting them from people determand to take them from us.

Gary,

I know you're a staunch republican, but are you honestly advocating the removal of the system of checks and balances that holds our glorious republic together? I know you're willing to support the government in everything it says it does, however I fail to see how you can be so completely sure of some of your answers. The wiretapping being only done on calls to suspected terrorists? The only way to know for sure is either A. You're doing the wiretapping (in which case it could be argued that your particular taps may not be a representative sample (and also that you're violating national security by talking about it)) or B. That you're one of the judges on the FISA court that oversees the warrants to keep the checks and balances in place (oh wait, that's not necessary, because the gov't says they're doing good work and having up to 48 hours AFTER the tap to get the warrant won't give them enough time to stop imminent disaster). Or possibly C. You're being a bit of a bobblehead and regurgitating what you've been told but can't ever verify.

I mean honestly, the same government that awards a huge no-bid contract to Halliburton (and coincidentally giving a former CEO of that firm millions through his stock-options) is expected to have an accurate list of suspected terrorists and listen only to those calls? Or is it possibly more likely they don't have such a list, and are listening to most calls to/from the "bad" countries?

And for all of you all happy about Amendment #2.....why do you get all upset when people try to use the "well regulated" part? If you keep yelling "no gun control" you're ignoring important words in the same amendment you're hiding behind.

(edited because spellcheck changed a bloody word I thought I told it to ignore)

Edited September 3, 2006 by ILIKEALLCAPS

[Sister Fracas 5]

Mr. Cerise RAWKS! B)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, I read both of those years ago. As far as all of our phone calls being recorded goes, do you realize that there are billions of calls made every day? Do you really think that someone is actually listening to them? It would take millions of people working around the clock. That is just parinoid thinking if you believe that "big brother" is listening to everything you say.

I don't think we are giving up any of our liberties. We are protecting them from people determand to take them from us.

Gary,

I know you're a staunch republican, but are you honestly advocating the removal of the system of checks and balances that holds our glorious republic together? I know you're willing to support the government in everything it says it does, however I fail to see how you can be so completely sure of some of your answers. The wiretapping being only done on calls to suspected terrorists? The only way to know for sure is either A. You're doing the wiretapping (in which case it could be argued that your particular taps may not be a representative sample (and also that you're violating national security by talking about it)) or B. That you're one of the judges on the FISA court that oversees the warrants to keep the checks and balances in place (oh wait, that's not necessary, because the gov't says they're doing good work and having up to 48 hours AFTER the tap to get the warrant won't give them enough time to stop imminent disaster). Or possibly C. You're being a bit of a bobblehead and regurgitating what you've been told but can't ever verify.

I mean honestly, the same government that awards a huge no-bid contract to Halliburton (and coincidentally giving a former SAO of that firm millions through his stock-options) is expected to have an accurate list of suspected terrorists and listen only to those calls? Or is it possibly more likely they don't have such a list, and are listening to most calls to/from the "bad" countries?

And for all of you all happy about Amendment #2.....why do you get all upset when people try to use the "well regulated" part? If you keep yelling "no gun control" you're ignoring important words in the same amendment you're hiding behind.

Not to mention the same government that many people don't trust with their money should be trusted with your privacy and civil rights? That simply makes no sense!

I thought government answers to the constitution, not the other way around.

[ceriserose 1]

Mr. Cerise RAWKS! B)

On this point I completely concur. Of course I might be a bit biased.

[Henia 11]

Gary i have a question.Have you read animal farm or 1984?

I am not trying to be disrespectful i am truely curious.Because it is human nature to protect and always men with the intent of protection that are the first to buy into gov. taking things away in the name of safty.Thomas Jefferson once said that ...He who would give up liberty in the name of security would certainly lose both and deserves niether...

and if you watch the nnews you know that they recorded all our phone calls

Yes, I read both of those years ago. As far as all of our phone calls being recorded goes, do you realize that there are billions of calls made every day? Do you really think that someone is actually listening to them? It would take millions of people working around the clock. That is just parinoid thinking if you believe that "big brother" is listening to everything you say.

I don't think we are giving up any of our liberties. We are protecting them from people determand to take them from us.

Do you think it's reasonable to require that the President of the United States asks for a warrant before doing any wiretapping, or should we grant him unchecked power?

O snaaaps that all we need The Bushman to totall power over us....

I found this cartoon... what do you all think?

Me personally I am counting down the days and hours until that man is not our "LEADER" anymore...

We can't wait this long!

Send a Message

Contact your Congress members to tell them what you think! It's our country and we have to take it back. And even if every last one of them is corrupt (which all aren't) at least they'll know we know. And that we're watching them!

Go to the

Senate and House of Representatives

web sites to look up your representatives and find out how to get in touch with them by mail, e-mail or phone.

(((( warning: This is MY opinion. I am NOT trying to think as I do, just sharing MY views here on the OFF TOPIC forum))))

[meauxna 15]

You should read things before you post them. That was refering to domestic wiretapping. The NSA program involves international wiretapping.

It took me awhile to respond as I was searching for some information. I know not long after the initial wiretapping report came out another one did stating that internal calls were being monitored also, but I was unable to find information on that. Additionally the it was found that bush had authorized the NSA to amass a database of all US (yes internal) calls.

You might like this one, too:

Terror-fying The Greens-Did investigators use post-9/11 warrantless wiretaps to bust accused eco-saboteurs?

"It's going to be embarrassing...for the government if they find out they've used warrantless surveillance," says Lewis & Clark Law School professor John Parry, who specializes in criminal and constitutional law. "They're going to have some explaining to do."

The Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program came to light in a New York Times report in December 2005. The paper reported that shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush gave the go-ahead for federal investigators to eavesdrop, without a warrant from a judge, on Americans' electronic communications with people overseas. The administration is adamant that it has the constitutional authority to snoop on international terrorists—and though the Eugene eco-sabotage case appears to be an entirely domestic matter, investigators have made a point of alleging that ELF has international connections.

"If you can do [warrantless surveillance] for these guys, who can't you do it for?" Parry says. "If this is part of the war on terror, then I think this is a much broader war than anyone ever imagined."

[Artegal 1]

"If you can do [warrantless surveillance] for these guys, who can't you do it for?" Parry says. "If this is part of the war on terror, then I think this is a much broader war than anyone ever imagined."

Right--notice how they have lumped in Narco-Traffickers into the "Named" terrorist organizations. So they can collapse the war on drugs into the war on terror.

It is troubling that the NRA, religious right, and republicans who support some freedoms such as the right to bare arms, freedom of religion, and state's rights--would then turn on the rest of the constitution and bill of rights and support the treasonous so called Patriot Act.

Fishdude pointed out the changes in the German constitution with NAZI laws later--like the NAZI this government uses a propaganda word--Patriot, when to be a patriot would be the total opposite of imposing laws on the US Citizenry that criminalize everyone and that basically burn the Bill of Rights and constitution and all that our country was founded for.

[Scott & Lai 12]

And for all of you all happy about Amendment #2.....why do you get all upset when people try to use the "well regulated" part? If you keep yelling "no gun control" you're ignoring important words in the same amendment you're hiding behind.

What upsets me is the frequent attempt to use that part to claim that the 2nd Ammendment does not confer gun rights to individuals, but instead is refering to a collective right, thus making it really about police and other government officials having guns. We have a term for a country where only government officials are allowed to have guns: "Police-state."

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

And for all of you all happy about Amendment #2.....why do you get all upset when people try to use the "well regulated" part? If you keep yelling "no gun control" you're ignoring important words in the same amendment you're hiding behind.

What upsets me is the frequent attempt to use that part to claim that the 2nd Ammendment does not confer gun rights to individuals, but instead is refering to a collective right, thus making it really about police and other government officials having guns. We have a term for a country where only government officials are allowed to have guns: "Police-state."

Oooooh! I know that one! it's where the government doesn't have to play within the bounds of it's own constitution.....where the passing of an act can allow people to be arrested without warrant, held without bail or counsel, tortured, and all without oversight......for the cause of "homeland security". Am I right?

It's a bit of a stretch to go from "well regulated" to "only government officials are allowed to have guns". You have to skip over the fun things like the abortion rights issue "only govenment officials are allowed to have access to reproductive medicine" and other fun issues. Heck let's suspend the vote (hopefully by 2008, right W?) Oh, and round up all the dark skinned people....they're probably muslim terrorists (Sorry Lai, but you know it's true). Hold on......is this NOT the conservatives dream state? Then why so much resistance to the oversight we're allowed by the frigging constitution?

(Scott.....regulation doesn't = police state. Your own church has it's own canonical laws (or "regulations") but they probably don't hand out the jack-boots with the offering plate)

[Henia 11]

(Scott.....regulation doesn't = police state. Your own church has it's own canonical laws (or "regulations") but they probably don't hand out the jack-boots with the offering plate)

You are right....BTW love the name...LOL