Government appeals wiretapping decision

[LadyRaven]

I understand the point completely.

Bad man contact American, American have 10 minute conversation with badman in ethnic tongue. Badman and American hang up and pretend conversation never happen.

5 minute later Government official receive warrant to tap and record conversation.

This make sense to some, other people confused about what impact on security.

No you don't get it.

Bad man contact american, talk ten minutes while NSA record conversation and phone number of american. Bad man and American hang up.

1. 15 min later government official get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

vs

2. government official dont get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

the first is legal and constitutional

the second is unconstitutional, but apparently legal anyway.

[buckthesystem]

quote buckthesystem: "government should have no trouble at all getting a warrant to intercept and eavesdrop."

How long do typical conversations last? Especially with international long distance rates? It would take more time to write up the warrant, fax it, have a judge review it, sign it and fax it back, than the conversation would last.

You can't work that way. Besides, why in the world is an American having a conversation with an international terrorist? That is suspicious enough to warrant anyone's attention. Any American that chooses to associate with a known terrorist, is a traitor and needs to be watched very closely. This American could be in a terrorist cell and receiving orders to carry out the next attack.

We all have to sacrifice a little when our country is at war. Ask the WWII generation. They sacrificed eating meat and driving vehicles, so our soldiers could receive food and supplies and fuel to support the allied forces.

Look what's going on nowadays in America, SUV's are still the best sold vehicles in America. Our country is lacking humility, which is an important virtue we are losing. Me, Me, Me, Now, Now, Now.

I think you're missing the point Justin. The point is that I don't believe that this legislation is limited to "overseas calls between Americans and known terrorists". If it was, the legislation would make that clear.

Also before this Bill, it was necessary to "get a warrant" and it wasn't a problem, so what is so special about now?

Exactly. See if the "known terrorist" is making a call INTO the US or out of it in this scenario there is already a warrant for HIS phone calls. So we hear OSAMA talking to Bill. While Osama is on the phone we cull Bill's number. 15 min to get a warrant to tap Bill's phone, due to his association with OSAMA. What's so hard about that? And we have the contents of the convo because we already had a tap on Osama's phone.

Now when BILL calls people, no would be permanently recorded unless he starts talking about something terrorist related, then those numbers are culled, warranted and then tapped. again, this should not be a problem.

We have the recording and the number, we don't need the wire tap warrant for THAT phone call, we want a wire tap warrant for subsequent calls. It takes 15 min max time to get the warrant. People make this out like it takes weeks or something, it just doesn't. Even if it was done on foot it would take no more than a few hours, and nobody at NSA does anything on foot, those facilities are HUGE.

As for "any American who chooses to associate with a known terrorist is a traitor" - that is surely simplifying things a bit. You are assuming that we can trust govenment employees to get things right 100% of the time. Giving gov't open access to your communications is a lot of trust, or naivety.

What people have to understand is that the government is not a person, it is a "thing" and as such has no loyalities other than to itself. Washington said it was a "fearsome master"...

We also need to understand what our founders understood...if the people IN the government are good, even then things can go wrong. (Who is to say that Osama didn't mash the wrong button on his phone to get your number?) What happens when the people IN the government stop being benevolent and start being corrupt, powerhungry despotic tyrannts? Do we really need laws to make their transition into power easy or should our laws make it hard for these people to operate? We don't make laws based on our government functioning at it's best, we should be making laws which protect us from it at it's worst.

Just because they SAY they are collecting information about terrorism, it does not mean that that is what they are collecting and if you take away the one item that is put there to make sure this is what they are doing (the warrant), how do you KNOW what they are doing? YOu don't. For all you know this could be a formalised watergate type operation. Or something along the line of the 1960s when hippie types were tapped and investigated due to being against the war, or who knows what all.

What I do know is that the way things sit now, any one or any thing which opposes the government can be arrested based on nothing and held without trial as long as they are labelled a terrorist. Tell me if this is what the men and women who fought in WW2, and the people who went without, would have fought for or sacrificed for? No, it is the very epitome of what they were going AGAINST.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: America is not at war! If you are referring to the Iraqi conflict, it is just that: A conflict. As much as it would seem that you want to compare this bizarre situation to WWII, it is not even comparable.

You can't fight an idea with guns, or wiretaps. Terrorism and Islamofascism is an idea just like poverty or illiteracy or any other of the hokey things people have decided to declare "war" on recently. To have a war you have to have two countries in armed conflict or a country in armed conflict within itself. There is none of this here and there never will be. Terrorism will not go away, just as the British. How many years are you willing to live in a police state to avoid something that has less of a chance happening to you than getting run over by a car?

And if we allow our civilisation to turn into a police state in order to "protect" ourselves then the terrorists have won. They have destroyed us. We may look like we are still doing well, be we would have changed to the point we are no longer what we were. Everyone needs to read two books..."The Constitution in Exile" by Judge Napolitano (if I spelled his name right) and "The Crumbling Wall Against Tyranny" by T V Webber. I have links to them on my political blog, or you can just get them from Amazon yourself. Judge N's book is just about everywhere. TV's is a bit harder to find, he self published.

Ladyraven you're closer than you would think, or maybe you realise this anyway. Here's a bit that I posted to another website, that is relevant to, quote: " YOu don't. For all you know this could be a formalised watergate type operation. Or something along the line of the 1960s when hippie types were tapped and investigated due to being against the war, or who knows what all":

"With advances in technology, i.e. "facial imaging technology", "face recognition technology" (i.e. if your face is on a database, you can be picked out of a crowd, and "targetted") appearing in one of these protests is very dangerous indeed. Particularly with the new "detainee" legislation that was announced last week:

http://www.worthynews.com/news/foxnews-com...216458,00-html/

October 13, 2006

Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 12

[amdntstr]

Attacks on American soil have already been stopped because of these wire-tapping.

I would rather have my phone tapped than to be dead.

I would also like to add that just because Clinton did it does not mean that everyone else is doing it. Clinton did alot of things that were against the law. does anybody remember filegate?

]What Clinton did in this case was not against the law. It was allowed under the law that Reagan put into practice. When I went to work for NSA we had to sign this form explaining that we knew we were not allowed to spy on private citisens. If the person's number was called by...say...a Peruvian drug lord, Saddam's Uncle...whoever, it was allowed for that call to be listened to. What we didn't have was the right to tap that number AGAIN after the drug lord or Saddam's uncle hung up without a warrant (which could be easily gotten with a transcript of the phone conversation and the number, again 15 minutes and this was over 12 yr ago).

Agreed!! This is exactly what Bush is doing!! There isn't any difference.

And frankly, since I was in the military, I have made it obvious to everyone around me that I'll willingly lay down my life in the defense of liberty. And I'd much rather be dead and my children free than alive to see my children live under tyrrany. Perhaps that comes from being Southern.

Don't disagree with you there. I too am southern. The question though wasn't rather we are willing to lay our lives down (as being a person in the military, I want to thank you!! I do not think that our military hears that enough), but are we willing to let the Government tap calls from or to US soil and known terrorist OUTSIDE the country.

A warrent is asked for and issued so that they are able to be tapped again.

I am!!

Edited October 18, 2006 by amdntstr

[amdntstr]

I understand the point completely.

Bad man contact American, American have 10 minute conversation with badman in ethnic tongue. Badman and American hang up and pretend conversation never happen.

5 minute later Government official receive warrant to tap and record conversation.

This make sense to some, other people confused about what impact on security.

No you don't get it.

Bad man contact american, talk ten minutes while NSA record conversation and phone number of american. Bad man and American hang up.

1. 15 min later government official get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

vs

2. government official dont get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

the first is legal and constitutional

the second is unconstitutional, but apparently legal anyway.

And the second isn't being done.

[LadyRaven]

I understand the point completely.

Bad man contact American, American have 10 minute conversation with badman in ethnic tongue. Badman and American hang up and pretend conversation never happen.

5 minute later Government official receive warrant to tap and record conversation.

This make sense to some, other people confused about what impact on security.

No you don't get it.

Bad man contact american, talk ten minutes while NSA record conversation and phone number of american. Bad man and American hang up.

1. 15 min later government official get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

vs

2. government official dont get warrant and start listening to all phone calls made by american to anyone.

the first is legal and constitutional

the second is unconstitutional, but apparently legal anyway.

And the second isn't being done.

That is what the warrentless wire tapping IS, tapping the calls of US citisens without a warrant.

We don't need a warrant when Osama calls Bill to listen to Osama talk to Bill the government has has this right for oh, lesse, my son is 12, and I got out of the military when I got pregnant with him. I worked for NSA for about a yr before that so...oh about 13 to 14 yrs ago we could listen to Osama and Bill without a warrant. We don't need a warrant to listen to Osama talk to anyone.

What the NSA wants to do is tap BILL's phone, all his calls, to find out if there is a cell he's participating in. Which indeed they should. But they need a warrant to do it and the government is making it out like this is a major hardship to do when it is not.

[LadyRaven]

Agreed!! This is exactly what Bush is doing!! There isn't any difference.

No, it is not the same thing. The government wants to tap all the calls made to and from the phone of the person that Osama called, without a warrant because the process would cause a "hardship" (of 15 minutes sheesh).

And frankly, since I was in the military, I have made it obvious to everyone around me that I'll willingly lay down my life in the defense of liberty. And I'd much rather be dead and my children free than alive to see my children live under tyrrany. Perhaps that comes from being Southern.

Don't disagree with you there. I too am southern. The question though wasn't rather we are willing to lay our lives down (as being a person in the military, I want to thank you!! I do not think that our military hears that enough), but are we willing to let the Government tap calls from or to US soil and known terrorist OUTSIDE the country.

A warrent is asked for and issued so that they are able to be tapped again.

I am!!

If you have warrantless wiretapping, by definition there is no warrant. Therefore they do not ask for a warrant. Sometimes they will ask for one after the fact, but if you are participating in a "warrantless wire tap" then there is no warrant. That is my beef. Our government should be able to tap any calls to Osama's number if they know what it is. It's Osama's number after all. But this is not anything new they 've been doing it for years.

What Bush wanted was new. Therefore it can't by definition be the same thing that has been going on. What they want is to tap anyone who is called by or calls Osama...all their calls not just the ones they accidentally pick up on by listening to Osama. They want to find cells, so they have to find people in the US. Fine, do that...after you get a warrant.

[JustinM]

I still do not understand why people are so concerned. Warrants are used so that any evidence gathered after the issuance of the warrant can be used to try and convict criminals. The president isn't looking for legal action against the individuals making the calls. He is looking for how, when and where an attack is going to take place or who is part of the terrorist network and how they are being funded.

We know terrorists change out cell-phones on a daily if not hourly basis. So, how are we able to know when so and so has been contacted by a known terrorist? If we have even the slightest hint that an American is in contact with a terrorist, we need to be able to tap that American's conversations, no matter who he calls. He's lost his right to privacy by associating himself with an international fugitive. I have no problem with waiting 15 minutes to get a floating wiretap on the American, he is going nowhere anyway. But, the idea of taking even 15 minutes to receive authorization to listen to a recorded terrorist conversation may be too long. He could've activated that cell 15 minutes ago and now they are out of contact and executing their plot.

[JustinM]

I'll tell you though, the whole vast right-wing conspiracy of big brother from the 60's is still alive and well today. Those same hippies that demonized our Vietnam Veterans are the ones setting up government policy today. That has got to be the most disgraceful generation in American History and the shockwaves of their liberal, free love, drug infested lifestyles are being felt today. I pray that that generation will finally lose it's influence and we can get back to a normal, traditional, noble lifestyle.

[JustinM]

Who was it that sang that song. . ."Say it Loud."

I believe my generation is fully justified in blaming our 60's generation for the ammoral/free expression/self-serving lifestyle that America now has.

[LadyRaven]

I still do not understand why people are so concerned. Warrants are used so that any evidence gathered after the issuance of the warrant can be used to try and convict criminals. The president isn't looking for legal action against the individuals making the calls. He is looking for how, when and where an attack is going to take place or who is part of the terrorist network and how they are being funded.

A WARRANT is our protection from unreasonable search and seizure and is required by our constitution.

If the government can't abide by the constitution in relationship to it's citisens then what good is it to live here? This makes the government above the law of the land. Why can't people GET that.

Fine, Bush might not be the penultimate tyrannt and so we think we're safe (our safety is debatable though). But who are we going to get next? what about the time after that? You do know that Bush also pushed legislation to allow him to suspend elections during times of crisis don't you? Perhaps he won't use it, but since we don't know who is coming next how can you say that this person WON'T.

We know terrorists change out cell-phones on a daily if not hourly basis. So, how are we able to know when so and so has been contacted by a known terrorist? If we have even the slightest hint that an American is in contact with a terrorist, we need to be able to tap that American's conversations, no matter who he calls. He's lost his right to privacy by associating himself with an international fugitive.

We never lose our rights because they are inalienable. Didn't you pay attention in Social Studies? They are not given by the government, but by GOD and protected (supposedly) by God.

The law of the land, our constitution, requires protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect the privacy that we were given by GOD.

Again, if the government can't abide by the law of the land then it is a tyrannt no different from the land we left or the ones we fought in WW2. Just because it's "Less invasive to the average person" than Mao, or Hitler or the Taliban does not make it any better if it's above the law.

I have no problem with waiting 15 minutes to get a floating wiretap on the American, he is going nowhere anyway. But, the idea of taking even 15 minutes to receive authorization to listen to a recorded terrorist conversation may be too long. He could've activated that cell 15 minutes ago and now they are out of contact and executing their plot.

We have the standing right to record the conversation of Osama, he's not a citisen for one and he's the enemy for another. Nobody is asking for that, they are asking to tap the phones of US citisens without a warrant, which is different than listening to that call between him and Osama. And because of this it's OK to permit the government to no longer follow it's own laws?

Frankly I think that this whole thing is going to cause another civil war, and I'll be on the side fighting for our constitution.