Senate Authorizes Broad Expansion Of Surveillance Act

[MurrayH81]

Oh, and guess who voted against this?

Mr Democratic nominee

A little insight to his foreign policy

Hope you sleep good tonight

Are you trying to say that Senator Obama voted against this legislation (S.2248)?

If that is what you are trying to say, I suggest you look at the Senate vote tally again, because he was not there and no proxy was recorded as being cast for him.

[Sarge]

Are you trying to say that Senator Obama voted against this legislation (S.2248)?

If that is what you are trying to say, I suggest you look at the Senate vote tally again, because he was not there and no proxy was recorded as being cast for him.

I believe not voting goes down as a "No" vote

[Larry]

Define "unreasonable" searches

How about "those searches which were commonplace when the framers wrote that amendment"?

(For example, I'd include routine customs inspections of international travelers in that category.)

(I think a case could be made that airline security searches would be included, too. Even though I really think the Framers would object strongly to them. At the very least, I consider them to be something that's unconstitutional, but acceptable.)

What I don't think it means is "any thing that Congress decides is reasonable". Because if that's what they meant, then the Fourth Amendment was a waste of ink.

If that's what it means, then the Fourth Amendment says that the government is permitted to grant itself any authority that it needs. (Or wants.)

[MurrayH81]

I believe not voting goes down as a "No" vote

Not when the bill passes. In that case, it counts the same as a yes vote.

Not that I particulary care to split hairs, but I thought I would nip your "he voted NO" information in the bud to be accurate.

However, what you appear to say is that the facts do not really matter, but your opinion or belief or interpretation are the only materials that matter for your assertion that "he voted No".

I don't often agree with your opinion Sarge, but I had thought that the facts actually mattered to you.

[Sarge]

Not when the bill passes. In that case, it counts the same as a yes vote.

Not that I particulary care to split hairs, but I thought I would nip your "he voted NO" information in the bud to be accurate.

However, what you appear to say is that the facts do not really matter, but your opinion or belief or interpretation are the only materials that matter for your assertion that "he voted No".

I don't often agree with your opinion Sarge, but I had thought that the facts actually mattered to you.

OK. Let's re-state this. Obama and Billary are the only two Dems missing from the vote. I wonder why?

ANd they both voted for cloture on the bill a couple of weeks ago

[MurrayH81]

OK. Let's re-state this. Obama and Billary are the only two Dems missing from the vote. I wonder why?

ANd they both voted for cloture on the bill a couple of weeks ago

I don't know where they were, or why "not voting" was recorded.

I can only assume it had something to do with their campaigning, since the democratic nomination is the only one still actually up for grabs. But that is an assumption. I have read 3 different articles that say different things about where the candidates were, so I don't know the truth. Personally, I really dislike the fact that campaigning is an excuse for any candidate not doing their job.

[Larry]

OK, some links:

Government demands search engines turn over all searches, world wide, for a week. (My mistake. This one wasn't an NSL, it was a subpoena.) Link

A rather calm (I'd describe it as "good news/bad news") report on Congress' oversight of the NSL program. Link

An interesting quote from the article:

The Patriot Act also expanded the list of people who could authorize NSLs. Formerly, all such requests had to come from FBI headquarters, but since the passage of the Patriot Act, they can also be signed by the Special Agent in Charge in any FBI field office. This expansion was designed to make it easier for the FBI to issue NSLs, and so it did. According to its own records, the FBI issued approximately 8,500 NSL requests in 2000. From 2003 through 2005, the FBI says it issued almost 150,000 NSL requests for phone call and email records, bank and credit card records, and other normally private information. That's a more than five-fold increase in annual requests.

USA Today: NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls. (There's a link, on that page, to a Q&A about the program.)

Re: Las Vegas:

I can find lots of links which say it's been covered elsewhere. And pages referring to it as a past event, in the context of other stories. The only article I've found where the actual focus of the article is the Las Vegas searches is this one, which seems to only cover a few rumors, since it was written when the story first started to break.

[iheartskins]

It's definitely creepy. No question.

But when you know that some of your citizens intend to violate the social contract (and therefore undermine the flipside of that contract), something has to rectify that situation.

I don't know what the perfect solution is here--but like I said earlier in the thread, I think the current wiretap is the best we've got.

[Larry]

It's definitely creepy. No question.

But when you know that some of your citizens intend to violate the social contract (and therefore undermine the flipside of that contract), something has to rectify that situation.

I don't know what the perfect solution is here--but like I said earlier in the thread, I think the current wiretap is the best we've got.

Then explain to me, in your words, exactly what you think the Fourth Amendment says. Please provide some examples of the types of things that you think it prohibits the government from doing.

If you apparently have no trouble looking at the words

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.

and fitting them around things like "every phone call in the world, foreign and domestic", or "every single person who visited Las Vegas", or every single person who buys an airplane ticket, then please, tell me exactly who the Fourth Amendment does protect?

-----

FWIW, I'll tell you my opinion on how to balance security and the Constitution.

I think it needs to be recognized that in the Framer's day, War consisted of fleets of ships, (which had to be built by nations, because they were so expensive), taking months to reach their targets, and then disgorging troops. The Founders didn't live in a world where Boston could be destroyed by one man, using a weapon that was in Cairo that morning. Therefore, National Security demands that the government have access to information sufficient to at least reduce the possibility of an enemy hiding.

However, limitations on government power are a principle that our nation was founded upon. Those limitations are literally what we're defending.

My balance is: Certain government agencies (The CIA, NSA, maybe the DIA) are designated as "National Security Agencies". And their power to gather information shall be unlimited. They can use any method of surveillance they can devise (and they are expected to be inventive), and can collect as much information as they can, and use that information in any way they can devise.

However, they are not permitted to act on their information, unless they discover "information which indicates the credible threat of an imminent attack, against the United States, (not "US Interests"), of military or paramilitary scale".

If they discover such information, then they have the authority to request permission to act, which must be approved personally by the President. The President may chose to delegate his authority to other officials, to act without his authority for up to 72 hours.

If action is authorized, then such agency's authority to act shall also be unlimited. However, the authorization to act shall be reviewed, at least every two years, until such time as such authorization, and the reasons supporting it, can be made public. Severe criminal penalties may be imposed for authorizing action without sufficient justification.

If no evidence of an imminent threat is discovered, then the agencies may not use the information for any other purpose. It may not be used, for example, in any criminal proceedings, nor may it be used as the basis to obtain a warrant so that admissible evidence may be gathered. Any evidence gathered using this authority, was gathered via unconstitutional means, and as far as the rest of the government is concerned, it does not exist.

----

The example I use of my proposed rule is: The NSA should have the authority to scoop up all of the e-mail in the world, and analyze it in any way they can think of, looking for whatever they want to look for. If they discover two hotmail accounts exchanging encrypted e-mail that claims to be pictures, then they're allowed to crack the encryption, and to flag all of the other e-mails that those accounts have sent or received. No warrants needed, before or after. No probable cause needed.

If they discover that one of Saddam's former scientists is talking to one of Osamma's 1,743 "number 2 men in Al Qaeda", and offering to sell him the location where Saddam buried the nukes, then Mr Clark has the authority to set up a meeting and make both of them disappear. (Hopefully after buying the location of the nukes.)

If, however, they crack the encryption, and discover that it's two guys swapping kiddie porn, then they can't do a thing, because the information was gathered unconstitutionally. They can't even make an anonymous phone call to the county sheriff, telling him he might want to check this guy out.

[iheartskins]

Off the top of my head (and at 10:21 PM and still at work), I don't see a major flaw in your approach and see and agree with your thought process.

I was honest before in conceding that I definitely see where you are coming from with respect to the importance of the 4th amendment and the erosions that take place as a result of Acts like the one we're discussing.

I'm reminded to a degree of our discussion of the Kelo (property takings) case.

While the outcome was abhorrent, there was substantial authority to rely on to confirm that the action was, as interpreted through 220 years of case law, constitutional. Not exactly comforting, but at least there's been some due process along the way.

Perhaps that's the best way to view the Act.

Not exactly Rainbows and Teddy Bears--but maybe something.

[MurrayH81]

FWIW, I'll tell you my opinion on how to balance security and the Constitution.

I think it needs to be recognized that in the Framer's day, War consisted of fleets of ships, (which had to be built by nations, because they were so expensive), taking months to reach their targets, and then disgorging troops. The Founders didn't live in a world where Boston could be destroyed by one man, using a weapon that was in Cairo that morning. Therefore, National Security demands that the government have access to information sufficient to at least reduce the possibility of an enemy hiding.

However, limitations on government power are a principle that our nation was founded upon. Those limitations are literally what we're defending.

My balance is: Certain government agencies (The CIA, NSA, maybe the DIA) are designated as "National Security Agencies". And their power to gather information shall be unlimited. They can use any method of surveillance they can devise (and they are expected to be inventive), and can collect as much information as they can, and use that information in any way they can devise.

However, they are not permitted to act on their information, unless they discover "information which indicates the credible threat of an imminent attack, against the United States, (not "US Interests"), of military or paramilitary scale".

If they discover such information, then they have the authority to request permission to act, which must be approved personally by the President. The President may chose to delegate his authority to other officials, to act without his authority for up to 72 hours.

If action is authorized, then such agency's authority to act shall also be unlimited. However, the authorization to act shall be reviewed, at least every two years, until such time as such authorization, and the reasons supporting it, can be made public. Severe criminal penalties may be imposed for authorizing action without sufficient justification.

If no evidence of an imminent threat is discovered, then the agencies may not use the information for any other purpose. It may not be used, for example, in any criminal proceedings, nor may it be used as the basis to obtain a warrant so that admissible evidence may be gathered. Any evidence gathered using this authority, was gathered via unconstitutional means, and as far as the rest of the government is concerned, it does not exist.

----

The example I use of my proposed rule is: The NSA should have the authority to scoop up all of the e-mail in the world, and analyze it in any way they can think of, looking for whatever they want to look for. If they discover two hotmail accounts exchanging encrypted e-mail that claims to be pictures, then they're allowed to crack the encryption, and to flag all of the other e-mails that those accounts have sent or received. No warrants needed, before or after. No probable cause needed.

If they discover that one of Saddam's former scientists is talking to one of Osamma's 1,743 "number 2 men in Al Qaeda", and offering to sell him the location where Saddam buried the nukes, then Mr Clark has the authority to set up a meeting and make both of them disappear. (Hopefully after buying the location of the nukes.)

If, however, they crack the encryption, and discover that it's two guys swapping kiddie porn, then they can't do a thing, because the information was gathered unconstitutionally. They can't even make an anonymous phone call to the county sheriff, telling him he might want to check this guy out.

Larry, that's an interesting idea. I am not challenging it or you, but who then watches the watchers to ensure that they do not, in fact, make that phone call or otherwise use the data obtained improperly? That's the only real issue I have with the idea.