Senate Authorizes Broad Expansion Of Surveillance Act

[iheartskins]

Larry--I see where you're coming from (your vitriol aside, which I note, I don't think I've directed at you and if I have, it wasn't intended).

But getting warrants, even on an expidited basis, can take "too much" time such that the opportunity to get meaningful information is lost. And terrorists will take advantage of that. Real time survellieance is an imperfect (even, perhaps, deeply flawed) solution--but it's the best I've heard to this point.

[helptheSKINS]

I've got an idea! You want to be immune from lawsuit! Demand a warrant.

You know, those things which the government actually has the legal authority to get. The Constitution? Remember High School?

That's how it works with landlords. Show the landlord a warrant, he'll open the apartment. Don't have a warrant? Then the landlord can get sued. (And will.)

(I know. It's a radical idea. I got it from a bunch of rebellious radical Britts.)

And if there is not time to get a warrant, what then? Should they just move on and hope the terrorist calls back? Should they do it anyway and hope they don't get in trouble for doing their job?

Here's my problem with your reasoning. You expect your gov't to protect you but you want to do it with their hands tied behind their backs. You want the terrorists to move at one speed and the gov't to move at another. It's like asking me to give D. Green a head start in a race. I'm already trying to play catch up before the race starts.

Who actually thinks the gov't is listening to your phone calls? Do you really think agents care about you telling your buddy what you had for dinner? Our agents are looking for specific information and people.

To do the job right, the need help from the telcom industry. Why wouldn't they get immunity for helping?

Why is it that so many people on this board want to play victim?

[GibbsFactor]

I don't see how we will ever win this war on terrorism with our current mindset. It's the same thing as the war on drugs. We'll have to completely eliminate them, anyone who may be them, and anyone that may be them in the future. We are talking genocide at this point. The more we try to secure our own, the more we give up in liberty and monies. Just as the war on drugs, we get rid of one terrorist, another pops up. We blow up a poppy field, they open a new training center, we capture one shipment of cocaine, they send in another suicide bomber.

It will never end. We must change tactics and strategy. Policing them won't work, we have to look at discouragement. And guess what, death isn't enough of an encouragement to someone that blows himself up as part of the cause.

[helptheSKINS]

I don't see how we will ever win this war on terrorism with our current mindset. It's the same thing as the war on drugs. We'll have to completely eliminate them, anyone who may be them, and anyone that may be them in the future. We are talking genocide at this point. The more we try to secure our own, the more we give up in liberty and monies. Just as the war on drugs, we get rid of one terrorist, another pops up. We blow up a poppy field, they open a new training center, we capture one shipment of cocaine, they send in another suicide bomber.

It will never end. We must change tactics and strategy. Policing them won't work, we have to look at discouragement. And guess what, death isn't enough of an encouragement to someone that blows himself up as part of the cause.

That sounds great. Unfortunately it's completely unrealilistic. How would you go about doing this? Do we just stop going after them and hope the call it a day? If we stop, they will see this as a victory and more terrorists will be recruited.

I agree, we will never stop them. We can slow them down. To do so we have to have the best intelligence in the world. Wiretapping is incredibly important yet so many here want to stop it or make it harder. It's reality. People keep going back to the constitution. First off, it is legal under the constitution. The govt's primary role is to keep it's people safe. Secondly, the world is completely different then it was over 200 years ago.

Many of the people arguing against this because of the constitution are the samepeople arguing for gov't healthcare. Where in the constitution does it say the gov't has to provide it's citizens with healthcare. It's hypocracy at it's best.

[alexey]

And if there is not time to get a warrant, what then? Should they just move on and hope the terrorist calls back? Should they do it anyway and hope they don't get in trouble for doing their job?

Here's my problem with your reasoning. You expect your gov't to protect you but you want to do it with their hands tied behind their backs. You want the terrorists to move at one speed and the gov't to move at another. It's like asking me to give D. Green a head start in a race. I'm already trying to play catch up before the race starts.

Who actually thinks the gov't is listening to your phone calls? Do you really think agents care about you telling your buddy what you had for dinner? Our agents are looking for specific information and people.

To do the job right, the need help from the telcom industry. Why wouldn't they get immunity for helping?

Why is it that so many people on this board want to play victim?

1. General information is not very useful. Specific information can be obtained with a warrant.

2. If telcom companies broke the law then same thing should happen to them as to any other entity that breaks the law.

[Larry]

People keep going back to the constitution. First off, it is legal under the constitution.

Amendment 4

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.

Funny, I seem to be unable to find the "except when the executive branch decides to bestow upon itself the power to demand access to all information regarding all persons, citizens or otherwise, foreign or domestic, simply by issuing a letter, without any sworn cause whatsoever".

Could you please point out that part to me? Cause the only place I can find where the Constitution mentions searches specifically says that they have to be focused, that they can only be issued based on probable cause, and that they are required.

There seem to be very few people in this thread when it comes to the Constitution.

Those who are quoting it.

Those who are either trying to find a word that implies that the entire passage really has no meaning whatsoever.

And those who simply make blanket statements without any need to support it whatsoever. Their mere pronouncement is enough.

[Larry]

And if there is not time to get a warrant, what then? Should they just move on and hope the terrorist calls back? Should they do it anyway and hope they don't get in trouble for doing their job?

Or maybe they should do it anyway, and then get the warrant tomorrow. As the existing law permits them to do.

But wait, that law says that they still have to have a good enough reason for the wiretap. Can't have that now, can we?

[iheartskins]

Larry--you're not making the argument that the text of the Constitution is the only law applicable to an inquiry into whether there's been an "unreasonable search", are you?

[Popeman38]

Or maybe they should do it anyway, and then get the warrant tomorrow. As the existing law permits them to do.

But wait, that law says that they still have to have a good enough reason for the wiretap. Can't have that now, can we?

If you want to get technical, the law only applies to calls that pass over an actual copper wire.

[GibbsFactor]

Larry--you're not making the argument that the text of the Constitution is the only law applicable to an inquiry into whether there's been an "unreasonable search", are you?

I think he's trying to say it's the statute.

[helptheSKINS]

If you want to get technical, the law only applies to calls that pass over an actual copper wire.

LOL, that's just plain funny.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here a say Larry would be the first in line to bash the adminstration (current one only, if a dem it's a different story) if an attack happened because wiretapping wasn't permitted. He would be outraged that the attack was not stopped. You see this way he has an argument on both sides of the fence. He's always covered. It's the govt's role to protect the people. Getting warrents for every phone call the govt wants to listen to is bs. Even getting them later is bs. I'm not a big fan of having our talented agents doing paperwork all day rather then finding the bad guys. And again, you have to be pretty ****y to think the govt is listening to your calls. They target certain people, words, where the call is coming from (Middle East for example). They are not listening to random Skins fans calls.

[Larry]

Larry--you're not making the argument that the text of the Constitution is the only law applicable to an inquiry into whether there's been an "unreasonable search", are you?

No, but I think that when the scales are "weighing" the evidence, and one side says "the exact words of the Constitution are", and the other side of the balance is "Well, my opinion", or "see, I've created this hypothetical", then I think it's pretty clear which side is supposed to be paid attention to.

I think somebody needs to bring something to this debate besides opinions and "maybe"s.

-----

I also think it would help if everybody could agree on which World this debate is going to take place.

I used to think the lamest fantasy used in these discussions were the folks who insist that this entire program exists strictly for cases in which a nuclear weapon is moments from detonation. That was, until somebody decided that the Fourth Amendment needed to be repealed to prevent "frivolous lawsuits".

Here's some of the things that National Security Letters have been used to demand:

All of the financial records of the city of Las Vegas for an entire month. (It may well be a coincidence that Bush recently fired a Federal Prosecutor because he said no to Republican pressure, demanding that he launch, publicly, a money laundering investigation against a Nevada Democrat, right before an election.)

All records of all telephone calls made by several telcos. Not "all phone calls to known terrorists". "All phone calls".

Please feel free to explain to me the Constitutional basis for the government demanding such information.

[Larry]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here a say Larry would be the first in line to bash the adminstration (current one only, if a dem it's a different story) if an attack happened because wiretapping wasn't permitted.

Then you would be full of it.

Got any more delusions you'd like to base your argument on?

[helptheSKINS]

Then you would be full of it.

Got any more delusions you'd like to base your argument on?

I think my presumptions are dead on Larry.

[Larry]

I think my presumptions are dead on Larry.

Then I hope your imaginary friends think you're clever and witty, and that their approval brings you great happiness.

[GibbsFactor]

Got to say, Larry's still got me in his corner here.

[alexey]

if an attack happened because wiretapping wasn't permitted.

You could claim it happened because of wiretapping even if terrorists took several hours to put together a WMD next to the WH in plain sight.

You are thinking in terms of specific actions. Laws do not authorize specific actions, they authorize processes. When authorizing processes you have to take into consideration all actions they authorize.

You assert that wiretapping without warrants is the only way to achieve the objective. A lot of your point seems to be riding on that assertion.

[MurrayH81]

Wow, just wow. Quite a diversity of opinion.

It appears to me that many of the "law and order" folks arguing for both expanded communications interception/analysis and retroactive immunity are avoiding thinking about this clearly.

If the Constitution (as some argue) is flawed, outdated, outmoded, or irrelevant, the document itself gives the People and our government entities the ability to change it. However, if the 4th and 5th ammendments can be tossed aside for reasons of convenience, are you advocating that the same process can apply to all of the others (how about private gun ownership, religous freedoms, or paying taxes)? Our government entities are supposed to fix the laws using the prescribed process, instead of violating them (and consequently, their solem oaths of office to "support and defend the Consitution").

If you need a retroactive warrant to supply you with something you initiated based on urgent need, you go get one at the secret FISA court.

Having worked in the Telecom sector in fraud and security roles, the government or law enforcement agency has to have a warrant (some exceptions are made when there is an immediate issue like a hostage situation with the criminal threatening to kill people). Now keep in mind, that the company involved expects a warrant to show up later to keep everything legal. Many no doubt will seize upon this as the excuse to do what the Bush Administration has done. Please spare us the effort. There is no record of Team Bush going to the FISA courts and getting the warrants needed retroactively. There is no urgency when the illegal activity continues for a year or longer without doing the warrant thing.

Let's face it, the Administration wants the retroactive immunity because it's actions were (and still are) wholly illegal. Again, this issue could have been avoided and the whole thing made legal (but perhaps not Consitutional), if the Administration had followed the rules and gotten the rubber stamp from the Republican controlled Congress. Why didn't they? Please spare us the line about keeping the terrorists in the dark about what we were doing (do you really think that a group that could plan and execute the 9/11 attacks) would not realize we would pull all the stops out in retaliation?

Now, the Senate version of the FISA extenstion is packaged with the IMMUNITY deal and the President flatly states that he will veto any FISA extention bill that doesn't contain the immunity provisons. If the eavesdropping is so completely necessary to our survival, it is difficult to reconcile this position. Take the enhanced spying powers (which I disagree with) and keep plugging away at the immunity thing. The bully position of "give me everything I want, not just some of it" is old, stale and out of step with the give and take of compromise. How can the "protect me/us" folks not demand he sign the FISA expansion irregardless of the presence of any additives, regardless of their support for those additives. Way to practice what you are preaching, that the need for the FISA spying is more important than anything else (like our Consitution and Bill of Rights).

With this administration's record of lying, obstructing justice, treaty violations, law breaking, secrecy, and other ugly machinations, it's very difficult for many who are not blinded by party affiliation, to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this one. I also call to your attention that the eavesdropping has not produced any verifiable leads to terrorism. Not one. Other methods have, including the work of planted agents inserted into groups. Those have been trumpted in the press, but not one story have I seen that the same claim has been made for eavesdropping.

In our entire history, the United States has never been without enemies, has never been without friends, has never been without threats, and has never been without honor. This present threat, and set of circumstances, while unusual, is no more serious than many other problems we have overcome and indeed triumphed over. The difference in this case is that one man has pursued his own course, agenda and methodology, and managed to drag the rest of the country down into the sewer of "law breaking with excuses" that define his character. Those of you who wish to surrender your own liberties one at a time, do not have the authority to surrender mine, or anyone else's for that matter. The President doesn't even practice what he preaches. Many of his communications are secret, but no one else's can be, because we "might" be terrorists, linked to terrorists, or etc...

All that he had to do to avoid this harsh condemnation was to obey his oath of office and the laws of our country. He chose not to do so.

If the companies are convicted of illegal activities, doesn't Bush still have a bunch of pardons and comutations left in his desk? I am quite sure McCain would pardon any of these individuals or corporations, and most of them did it, so what's the problem? Where are we going to get our service from? Whom is really going to be held accountable in the end?

The answer of course, is that we will be held accountable in the end by our children and grand children as the stupid cowards who let the oligarchs take power and make them all slaves.

[MurrayH81]

also, folks might want to take the time to email their opinions (like I did) to both Senators from their state, and their congress person, since the bill now has to be reconcilled since the House passed a bill that did not contain the immunity provisions.

[alexey]

Great post!

Hey, look at the bright side - all of this made Obama possible... Maybe this was the wakeup call the country needed :fingersx:

[iheartskins]

No, but I think that when the scales are "weighing" the evidence, and one side says "the exact words of the Constitution are", and the other side of the balance is "Well, my opinion", or "see, I've created this hypothetical", then I think it's pretty clear which side is supposed to be paid attention to.

I think somebody needs to bring something to this debate besides opinions and "maybe"s.

Look at the ENORMOUS case law on this point that deal with what's an unreasonable stop and search.

Words like "reasonable suspicion", "Terry stop" and other similar phrases will come up that blur your bright line unreasonable test.

I also think it would help if everybody could agree on which World this debate is going to take place.

I used to think the lamest fantasy used in these discussions were the folks who insist that this entire program exists strictly for cases in which a nuclear weapon is moments from detonation. That was, until somebody decided that the Fourth Amendment needed to be repealed to prevent "frivolous lawsuits".

That's a disingenuous and dishonest portrayal of what I was discussing above. You know this because you're an intelligent guy--but interspersing passive aggresive comments like this is not going to achieve your purported goal of moving this conversation forward.

Here's some of the things that National Security Letters have been used to demand:

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link?

As far as the basis of the review of these distinctions, I suggest you, at your liesure, review the following to get a sense on what the current rules are:

Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment by Wayne R. Lafave.

[Larry]

That's a disingenuous and dishonest portrayal of what I was discussing above. You know this because you're an intelligent guy--but interspersing passive aggresive comments like this is not going to achieve your purported goal of moving this conversation forward.

Oh, I must have been mislead by statements like

The immunity is there to prevent frivilous lawsuits,

and

Larry, not to be a dick, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the costs of litigation.

Please feel free to tell me what you really meant, since I've aparantly misunderstood you.

-----

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a link?

Tell ya what.

I'll find links to the government demanding that kind of information.

You find links to the government finding ticking nuclear bombs in US cities.

Care to place odds on which one of us finds more evidence?

[iheartskins]

Larry--I understand that this issue troubles you--but there's no reason to be a dick.

You obviously missed this comment from above:

Larry--I see where you're coming from (your vitriol aside, which I note, I don't think I've directed at you and if I have, it wasn't intended).

Where I laid out that I'm not trying to be antagonistic toward you at all--I'm just trying to discuss the issues as I would with any friend (from ES or otherwise).

Oh, I must have been mislead by statements like

The immunity is there to prevent frivilous lawsuits,

Ok, but I'm not sure how saying that the rationale for the immunity being included (which, I note, was what was indicated in the WSJ article discussing this that I read this morning) indicates that I'm advocating that the Fourth Amendment needed to be repealed. The statue granting the immunity is ALWAYS subject to constitutional review, I presume after considering the issue further that the language relating to the immunity bars the telecom companies from civil liability.

and

Larry, not to be a dick, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the costs of litigation.

Yeah, you were mislead. I was saying that in a way like you would friendly remind me that I don't know jack **** about computers and fixing them (which is your wheelhouse). I work for large companies that are very sensitive to litigation, I know what their sensitivies are.

Please feel free to tell me what you really meant, since I've aparantly misunderstood you.

See above.

-----

Tell ya what.

I'll find links to the government demanding that kind of information.

You find links to the government finding ticking nuclear bombs in US cities.

Care to place odds on which one of us finds more evidence?

I'm sure you'll find more evidence--because evidence of that kind of information is freely available. Information relating to ticking time bombs in the U.S. is not because accessing such information is (a) very difficult, ( top secret given that it's part of determing whether a terrorist plot is being conducted, and © potentially difficult to determine given our "limited" abilities to gather intelligence.

[Sarge]

Please explain to us your legal reasoning, in how you get from the above portion of the Constitution, to a point where "give us all of your records for all telephone calls your company has ever handled, and give us back door access so that we can continue to monitor them in the future without bothering to even ask" is, in your opinion, not illegal.

I'm sure in all of this that soeone has asked you this

Define "unreasonable" searches

And just think, if the ACLU hadn't been suing everything anti-commie for 50 years, there might not be a need to protect companies that help fight terrorists from BS lawsuits. Something for which the ACLU is infamous.

[Sarge]

Oh, and guess who voted against this?

Mr Democratic nominee

A little insight to his foreign policy

Hope you sleep good tonight