With all of the legal back and forth, I think that this is likely still an important issue, especially in light of how it affects our freedoms. I recently came across a decision by a US District Court Judge on Bush Wiretapping which rules that the wiretapping is illegal, and must stop. But as far as I am aware of, it has not. Has this decision been appealed to the US supreme court? Is there any doubt any more that this wiretapping program is illegal?
Oh, they're likely to hear me. I'm applying for security clearances in the near future. But since all I am doing is researching government activities, and asking opinions about publically publicized data, and since I am advocating using only legal methods to accomplish whatever you want to accomplish, I doubt this will reflect negatively upon me. Now then. What is this about FBI wiretapping?
Here is an interesting article on the LEGALITY of the NSA's wiretapping (its not Pres. Bush's since it has been around long before him....however, the liberal left and the media seem to always forget that..) http://hprsite.squarespace.com/bushs-wiretapping-pro-032006/
Another interesting question on the subject is why some of the senators and representatives protesting this action didn't protest a similar presidential attitude when Clinton was president, if they were around then?
Okay... anyway... here's my current understanding of the matter. FISA was an attempt at a comprimise between the need to preseve the rights of the american citizens, and the need of the government to be able to secure us. It has been ruled constitutional both in that it protects US citizens enough, and that it serves the needs of the government to protect us enough. This was in two different cases. Before FISA was enacted, any and all surveilance involving a US citizen in any way required a pre-existing warrant in order for it to be legal. FISA created a specific set of courts to make the warrent seeking more expidited, and allowed 48 hours to retroactively seek a warrant so that if an agency was monitoring a specific person, and they happened to contact a US citizen, the agency could then seek a warrent in order to continue survailence of such calls, and to make the calls they already surveiled and recorded legal. However in my current understanding, the president has decided that the NSA does not have to follow this law, and thus the NSA has not been following the FISA guidelines.
it all goes back to when wiretapping was originally enacted in 1978....back then a president's signature was even needed....now that technology has allowed us to keep a tighter leash on the govt...people want answers...amazing though how it existed for almost 30 years before even being an issue.
Well I'm not sure quite how much went on before. But all I can say is that I can only make an issue of the president or one of the agencies he has command of breaking the law if I can find out about it. And at this point, that's what I believe has been going on.
So how has he been breaking a law that has existed for almost 30 years, a law that clinton used more freely than bush, but was never called on it? Let me ask this: If a democrat was in office, would it be that big of a deal?
I'm trying to find the crazy bastard that said it is fine if all his phone calls are all monitored and his movements are monitored and it wouldn't bother him. I'll have to dig it up it was from about 2 weeks ago. Prime suspect is d16man but I don't think it was him, I think it was one of the other members of the crazy gang.
You know, at a time of war like this, little inconveniences like this are fine. It's better that we should be safe and sacrifice only a little privacy; I mean, there's nothing to worry about if you're not a suspected terrorist....
"And will get neither" Look, I recognize that there is a need for national security, but the president has NO authority what-so-ever to perform wiretapping in the first place under his inherent presidential authority, save in his duty to enforce and uphold whatever laws congress passes. Therefore if congress passes a law which says how wiretapping must be done, the president is beholden to follow that law by his oath of office and constitutional responsibilities. Before FISA any wiretapping of any US citizen or national was illegal without first acquiring a warrant in a long drawn out process. FISA already -is- the compromise for wartime and facing terrorist threats. FISA created a specific court who's proceedings could temporarily be secret to go to the warrants for, thus allowing secret wiretapping, and allowing for faster warrant acquisition. And what's more, in emergency circumstances, you can wiretap, then apply for a warrant up to 48 hours afterwards. It also provides for a period of warrantless wiretapping. I'm still researching exactly how long that period is. Some sources say 15 days, others say 90, others say a year, it may be different lengths based on different circumstances. In two separate cases, FISA has been ruled constitutional by the Judiciary branch. In one case, that it does not compromise the rights of the American public any further. In another, it was ruled that it was constitutional because it does not unnecessarily constrain the ability of the executive branch to safeguard our nation. However the presidential wiretapping program has gone on for over 5 years without seeking a warrant. And as for the argument that it only hurts you if you are a suspected terrorist... news paper journalists, lawyers, scholars, and a whole host of others have had their research and buisness damaged by this act, and the fear of their sources that they may be monitored above and beyond what is normally provided for by law. Some sources have become entirely unavailable to them, and others they can only talk to by taking long, costly, international trips. Thus this presidential act violates FISA, the first amendment, and the fourth amendment, as ruled by a US district judge. However the presidential administration hasn't seen fit to appeal to the supreme court, or to stop, as per court order. Rather, they just continue, saying that "presidential authority lets the president do whatever he deems necessary in order to protect the country." Wrong. If that was the case, he'd be a dictator, not a president. d16man, you bring up an interesting point. Yes, I'll acknowledge that the media didn't make a big deal about it. But even if they had a while back, I wouldn't have made a big deal about it... because I wasn't as politically aware back then. I kept my head down, just trying to graduate from high school and college. Now I'm out, in the workplace, have recovered from college, and am starting my research for the coming election 2 years early because I've woken up, I've MADE time to make politics a concern, and damn if I'm not going to be a well informed American when it comes time to go to the polls. If there was a democrat doing the same thing right now, and I found out about it, I'd be raising the same amount of fuss.
The best statement EVER was in Alex Jones' TERRORSTORM documentary when he is in the UK interviewing peeps and this woman says: I think people should give up their liberty for freedom And as stupid as that statement is I'm embarrased to say she was British.
WOOOOOW. The closest I can make of that is her thinking Liberty -> Liberties -> Privileges, and Freedom -> Freedoms -> Rights. And rights are definitely superior to privileges. But they cannot be bought. They are endowed. The protection of them can be bought, but unfortunately the price is unceasing vigilance over our governments, and blood spilled to protect it from foreign governments.
Stupid statement. I agree. But I suspect that Alex had to interview a lot of people to get a stupid comment in order to fit his agenda. If you want to affect the politics on a local and perhaps also on a global level, the first step is to stop believing in inside-jobs and Illuminati. Otherwise, people aren't going to take you seriously.