WP: House Approves Wiretap Measure

[Teller]

Do you know said this?

Honestly, I don't. I've been trying to remember, and also trying to track it down online. Unfortunately, most of the floor testimony I heard was from some pretty-well-unknown congressmen. Dan Issa was one of the few whose name I recognized, if that gives you any perspective of the people I'm talking about.

[Koolblue13]

We know they have been doing this and much, much more for over 30 years now. This just makes it a little closer to legal. Is that what people are having the problem with? When we found out the CIA has been doing domestic spying on protestors and whoever else they feel like, there was no outrage or sense of betrayal. Now that it's allowed by all of us, people have a problem with it.

Domestic spying is certainly becoming a cause for concern. There has been a few threads about this over the last few weeks, wether it's the chip or the CIA or cell phones. Somebody made a great point the other day(PeterMP I think). How many allegded terrorist attacks have been broken up because of domestic spying and how many have been broken up by local law enforcement. Ah, the things public fear will allow you to get away with.

[Burgold]

Ken, these laws can't castrate the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courst simply has the ability to find them unconstitutional. Why do you have such a hard time understanding the role of the Supreme Court?

My guess is he thinks that the judges that Bush appointed has tilted the Court in a fashion where it will bow to its wishes rather than staying neutral.

[Ken]

My guess is he thinks that the judges that Bush appointed has tilted the Court in a fashion where it will bow to its wishes rather than staying neutral.

That, as well as explicit language in some of these bills that says no court can overturn anything in those bills.

Not to mention Alberto Gonzalez telling judges to not even think of challenging, I believe, Guantanemo?

[Larry]

That, as well as explicit language in some of these bills that says no court can overturn anything in those bills.

I've got to admit, though, that I have trouble understanding why the courts haven't just ruled those clauses as flat-out Unconstitutional, the instant the laws got passed in the first place.

(And they clearly are Unconstitutional. Yes, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the jurisdiction of the courts, but I think it's pretty clear that what that meant was to decide which cases went to the First Circuit and which ones went to the Second. I would have thought that the only reason it would take the Supreme Court longer than ten seconds to rule, 9-0, that nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment has the power to remove jurisdiction from the entire Judicial branch, would be them arguing over who's going to write the opinion.)

I would have thought that, if there's ever one thing that all judges could agree on, it's that all judges have the power to judge.

[Vinnick]

Congress- Can you explain the need to wiretap the Ohio DNC?

CIA guy- Well Sir, we had a tip that suggested some terrorist related calls were routed through that number.

Congress- Really? Who provided this tip? Also, do you believe it had anything to do with the upcoming election?

CIA guy- The tipster didn't make him/herself know. (Somewhere, Karl Rove is giggling while playing with himself and watching this on Cspan)

Congress- And did you find any threat?

CIA guy- No Sir

Congress- Did this tap play any role in the change of RNC strategy in that state right after the tap?

CIA guy- What tap? Why am I here? What's going on? I don't remember anything! The White House has order Exec Priv. Ummmmm, JUMANJI!

[PeterMP]

My guess is he thinks that the judges that Bush appointed has tilted the Court in a fashion where it will bow to its wishes rather than staying neutral.

That actually makes sense and might be true, but that isn't what he says. He seems to think that the IRS has control of the lower courts and REFUSES to have cases heard about it by the Supreme Court, which there is no way it can do. This comment seemed to be well in line w/ that idea.

[PeterMP]

That, as well as explicit language in some of these bills that says no court can overturn anything in those bills.

Not to mention Alberto Gonzalez telling judges to not even think of challenging, I believe, Guantanemo?

I don't know if the law has that language, but it clearly did them no good:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/18589prs20040929.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/

http://hlp.home.igc.org/

http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6256310.html

[twa]

A little bit of a explanation for the need for this bill.

I know it won't reassure some of you but it addresses some specific problems with FISA.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=924812&nid=321

In 1978 when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was written, almost all telephone communications were conducted over landlines and the lion's share of international telephone traffic traveled via microwave and satellite.

The law was designed to open the door for the intel community to listen in on those wireless international conversations while protecting the privacy of ordinary U.S. citizens.

But 30 years later everything has changed.

Now, according to intelligence officials and the telecom companies, most of the U.S. domestic telephone traffic is "wireless" while 90 percent of international telephone traffic is conducted via fiber-optic lines - basically glass "wires".

Interestingly enough, many of those fiber optic lines operate on U.S. owned networks. So if two terror suspects, both in foreign countries, are talking via one of the U.S. owned landlines, the intelligence community wants to be able to listen in and capture any valuable information that could be exchanged.

Remember, the domestic telephone wire (networks on U.S. soil) is the very thing the 1978 FISA was designed to protect.

DNI Mike McConnell sent a letter to Congress late last week asking that the language be changed to make it possible to tap these lines. The letter intimated it needed to be done before Congress goes home for summer vacation this weekend. Why? I would imagine it has something to do with those ominous warning about al Qaida's supposed resurgence.

But some in the intelligence community say al Qaida is not the biggest terror threat the U.S. faces. Dennis Pluchinsky, counterrorism specialist with Innovative Analytics and Training, in an interview, was very clear about what he thinks is happening.

"I believe that this is a wrong characterization (that al Qaida is the biggest threat) of the true enemy that this country faces at home and abroad.

...

JJ - what I hear you saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the government is misleading.

Pluchinsky - The government in my opinion is misleading the American public by focusing on al Qaida and painting it as the primary threat."

He says government is "misleading" the American people -- because al Qaida is tangible.

"It has a number one leader. It has a number two that can be arrested... It is something that people can identify with, it has faces behind it."

Pluchinsky is one of a growing number of analysts that think the global jihadist movement as a whole is much more dangerous than al Qaida, because it's bigger, more fluid, harder to find, and ultimately harder to defeat.

Regardless of what the biggest threat is, critics are concerned that FISA, whether it's the old 1978 version or an updated version, will somehow invade their privacy.

[Larry]

Which may be an excellent reason for the law to be clarified. Perhaps specifically stating that a conversation between two people, neither of whom is on US soil, is a "foreign" conversation, regardless of who owns the "wire" it's traveling on.

It does not explain why the words "warrant" (and the associated need for a good reason) needs to be removed.

[Koolblue13]

Remember, the domestic telephone wire (networks on U.S. soil) is the very thing the 1978 FISA was designed to protect.

That just seems like an odd word to use there. They're not "protecting" a telephone wire, they're survalliancing it to protect us from "domestic" threats correct?

So again, this just confirms that there has been illegal domestic spying, by the gov't, on American citizens, for 30 years and now they just want to make it official. I wonder what they're up to, that we'll find out about in another 30+ years.

[PeterMP]

Which may be an excellent reason for the law to be clarified. Perhaps specifically stating that a conversation between two people, neither of whom is on US soil, is a "foreign" conversation, regardless of who owns the "wire" it's traveling on.

It does not explain why the words "warrant" (and the associated need for a good reason) needs to be removed.

Because in order to get a warrant you need to show probable cause. That is a Constitutional protection granted to people in the US. For the case where the two individuals are not in the US, but their conversation is travelling over a US line, this clarifies that the US goverment doesn't need a warrant (and therefore show probable cause) to listen to the conversation. I mean essentially the CIA during the Cold War, according to US law, was allowed to tap lines carrying conversations in the Soviet Union w/o a warrant, because they are not subject to that protection. Under the current law it was not clear though if the Soviets had been able to rout their conversations through US phone lines, if a warrant would have been required.

The idea that this extends to cases where one person is the US is a little worrisome, and it will be interesting to see what the courts think of that. The idea that this law would extend to a case where two people in the US are talking about a 3rd party not in the US (as Burgold said he heard on the radio somebody), is very worrisome, but I'd be shocked if that survived a court challenge.

[PeterMP]

Remember, the domestic telephone wire (networks on U.S. soil) is the very thing the 1978 FISA was designed to protect.

That just seems like an odd word to use there. They're not "protecting" a telephone wire, they're survalliancing it to protect us from "domestic" threats correct?

So again, this just confirms that there has been illegal domestic spying, by the gov't, on American citizens, for 30 years and now they just want to make it official. I wonder what they're up to, that we'll find out about in another 30+ years.

Are you paying attention to the converstation at all? Yes, during the Nixon administration (and probably before that) the US goverment was doing things that were Unconstitutional, but beyond what Burgold heard somebody say on CSPAN, I've seen no evidence that this law would apply at all to two conversations between to US citizens in the US.

Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

[AsburySkinsFan]

How many allegded terrorist attacks have been broken up because of domestic spying and how many have been broken up by local law enforcement. Ah, the things public fear will allow you to get away with.

Just imagine how many crimes we could prevent if we simply removed the idea of due process of law.

[Koolblue13]

Are you paying attention to the converstation at all? Yes, during the Nixon administration (and probably before that) the US goverment was doing things that were Unconstitutional, but beyond what Burgold heard somebody say on CSPAN, I've seen no evidence that this law would apply at all to two conversations between to US citizens in the US.

Can you provide a link that says otherwise?

Yes I'm paying attention. So what your saying is, although they were doing something unconstitutional, they are now telling us that is it, we're not now though and we should just say "well okay then".

[Koolblue13]

Just imagine how many crimes we could prevent if we simply removed the idea of due process of law.

And put cameras everywhere or just had everybody get a chip that can moniter them. Now thats a safe world.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Remember, the domestic telephone wire (networks on U.S. soil) is the very thing the 1978 FISA was designed to protect.

That just seems like an odd word to use there. They're not "protecting" a telephone wire, they're survalliancing it to protect us from "domestic" threats correct?[/quote]

Eliminating due process, and several other Constitutional rights could also be argued that they allow the government to protect the people more, but then the ultimate protection for the people could be found in a complete dictatorship.

So again, this just confirms that there has been illegal domestic spying, by the gov't, on American citizens, for 30 years and now they just want to make it official. I wonder what they're up to, that we'll find out about in another 30+ years.

That's right, the government has been acting unconstitutionally for 30 years, and now they want to legitimize their unconstitutional behavior and I guess we're all just supposed to sit back and be ok with them chipping away at those very things that set us apart from other countries for the sake of fighting a foreign enemy.

IMO, this is exactly how the terrorists win.

Remember after 9/11 we were all told that we keep doing the things that we do because by acting in fear lets the terrorists win, well our government is acting in fear and they are changing who we are as Americans, thus Bin Laden wins.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And put cameras everywhere or just had everybody get a chip that can moniter them. Now thats a safe world.

George Orwell warned us about this and we ignored him and have run blindly into that which we sought to avoid.

[Koolblue13]

George Orwell warned us about this and we ignored him and have run blindly into that which we sought to avoid.

Be careful ASF, your starting to sound like Ken and I. Next thing you know, you start to relize how much power the gov't is gaining from post-9/11 fear. It dawns on you the Iraq war has nothing to do with anything except money and bases for future profittiering wars in the ME, justified by the flag of fear. Then your saying to your self, well building 7 did fall down without being hit by a plane. They told us it was debrie from tower 2,but it couldn't possiblly go through building 6 without touching it. Fema was the only group to analize it and they don't believe thier own story. People say explosions and fires hours before it came down and Silverstien did say to pull the building, hmmm. Maybe it's not impossible. A few people with a hell of a lot of power did make a ****load of money post 9/11. Maybe I should look into it again.

You don't want that, just keep telling yourself everything is to keep you safe, regardless of your rights.

[redskins59]

Unless you talk to Osama on a daily basis, you have nothing to worry about.

[PeterMP]

Yes I'm paying attention. So what your saying is, although they were doing something unconstitutional, they are now telling us that is it, we're not now though and we should just say "well okay then".

That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that you seem to think this bill legalizes something (e.g. wiretapping Americans) that other than one comment by somebody who heard somebody else say it on CSPAN, nobody seems to think this bill legalizes.

Now, if you can provide a link that even suggest you are right that would be a different story and a different conversation.

**EDIT** Note, I am not saying that H_H was wrong.

[PeterMP]

\Then your saying to your self, well building 7 did fall down without being hit by a plane. They told us it was debrie from tower 2,but it couldn't possiblly go through building 6 without touching it.

My parents have a tree that is at least as twice as tall on as their house on one side of their house. On the other side, they used to store a boat. One time in a bad storm a branch fell off of the tree and landed and destroyed the boat. Their house wasn't touched.

Maybe goverment agents actually did it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You don't want that, just keep telling yourself everything is to keep you safe, regardless of your rights.

Everything is ok, its all ok, there's no place like home, no place like home.

[Koolblue13]

My parents have a tree that is at least as twice as tall on as their house on one side of their house. On the other side, they used to store a boat. One time in a bad storm a branch fell off of the tree and landed and destroyed the boat. Their house wasn't touched.

Maybe goverment agents actually did it.

Yeah, i'm sorry. I went off on a tangient there. What I think might of happened is absolutly impossible, right?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Unless you talk to Osama on a daily basis, you have nothing to worry about.

Riiiiiight, I love this line. Oh, the criminals are the only one's who have to worry, about these things, except even criminals are afforded due process, this is OUR way, its the way of the Constitution, and if you are ok with doing away with the Constitution for all people then ok, but I for one am not ok with the systematic chipping away of the rights of all Americans.