Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill

[carpro]

I see. Why do the tele-comms need immunity ?

They really shouldn't need it, but in our litigious society, there is no choice.

The first ones to sue will be the guilty.

 

[poncho]

ok, fair enough, no I do not have any proof that only those with terrorist connections were spied on.

Then you're taking the word of people like General Hayden.

The truth is that many suspected connections were probably checked out and discarded. But that is what investigators do, they investigate. That is another reason why investigations need to be kept confidential, to protect the innocent. yea and it probably needed to and will need to again.

And you got this from General Hayden too?

but the law does not give immunity to criminal offenses, only civil ones. There is no immunity granted from any law, only from civil lawsuits filed by individuals who feel their civil rights were violated.

Is that all? Is there something wrong with protecting your civil rights? Keep in mind this is still the USA. And the government of the USA was formed to protect civil liberties (rights) not to protect tel coms or the state from possible investigation and/or punishment or expensive lawsuits filed by citizens.

It gives the telecoms the same protection the government has when they are operating for the government. You can't sue the government for listening in on your calls now. This law changes nothing, it only extends protection to those companies cooperating with our government so they will not be sued for helping.

In other words corporatism. Government and business combined. And you're okay with it?

it all comes down to what you consider reasonable search and seizure.

No the rules on that are pretty clear it all comes down to what the law considers a reasonable search and seizure.

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.

The Fourth Amendment specifies that any warrant must be judicially sanctioned for a search or an arrest, in order for such a warrant to be considered reasonable. Warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.

SOURCE...

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Domestic warrantless searches are no no's.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Then you're taking the word of people like General Hayden.

Yea I guess so, I have no problem taking Gneral Hayden's word. I am guessing you do.

Is that all? Is there something wrong with protecting your civil rights? Keep in mind this is still the USA. And the government of the USA was formed to protect civil liberties (rights) not to protect tel coms or the state from possible investigation and/or punishment or expensive lawsuits filed by citizens.

Can't the government protect companies as well as individuals? That does not mean combining government and business but extending the same protection to companies that we give individuals. How is this bad? I don't think our founders had in mind the civil lawsuits of today. Of course the real solution is comprehensive litigation reform. IMHO, civil monetary judgements should be eliminated.

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.

. . .


Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Domestic warrantless searches are no no's.

Does not seem cut and dried to me. First off, multiple international communications with known terrorists would fit my definition of probable cause. Second, we are not talking about your person, house, or papers, we are talking about electronic signals bouncing through the air or over wires, air and wires that do not belong to you. Once you send an email or pick up a phone you are brodcasting over public space and I don't feel a warrent should be needed for that. I would say plain sight rules should apply. They don't have to come into your house or office to do this, that should require a warrent.

 

[poncho]

Yea I guess so, I have no problem taking Gneral Hayden's word. I am guessing you do.

I get it "trust us we're the government" is good enough for you.

Can't the government protect companies as well as individuals?

Of course it can but is that what our government was meant to do? Is it right for the government to ask or more than likely coerce corporations to do it's bidding. I say coerce because that is what government does. It coerces and intimidates it doesn't ask.

That does not mean combining government and business but extending the same protection to companies that we give individuals.

On the other hand it also means that the state is using corporations to do what it isn't allowed to do. Search and seizure without probable cause.

How is this bad?

Depends on how important liberty really is to you I guess.

I don't think our founders had in mind the civil lawsuits of today.

They certainly believed in the redress of grievances.

Of course the real solution is comprehensive litigation reform. IMHO, civil monetary judgements should be eliminated.

Treating the symptoms in other words. Holding government and corporations accountable will put the country in grave danger. Isn't that what the state's argument really boils down too?

Does not seem cut and dried to me.

Does to me.

First off, multiple international communications with known terrorists would fit my definition of probable cause.

Fine. If you have probable cause then get a warrant don't ask business to do something you aren't allowed to do instead.

Second, we are not talking about your person, house, or papers, we are talking about electronic signals bouncing through the air or over wires, air and wires that do not belong to you.

Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155

SOURCE...

Once you send an email or pick up a phone you are brodcasting over public space and I don't feel a warrent should be needed for that. I would say plain sight rules should apply.

See above.

They don't have to come into your house or office to do this, that should require a warrent.

The state even tried to get around that with the "sneak and peek" provision in the mis named USA PATRIOT Act(s).

And you still take it's word?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

All they had to do was to go the FISA court AFTER the eavesdropping began. Clinton didn't seem to have any problem dealing with FISA.........

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I get it "trust us we're the government" is good enough for you.

yea, to be perfectly honest, it is.

Treating the symptoms in other words. Holding government and corporations accountable will put the country in grave danger. Isn't that what the state's argument really boils down too?

No that is not my point. Relating to civil litigation I believe that people should be accountable and if they break the law they should go to jail. What should not happen is some individual citizen win a multi million dollar lawsuit because of it. Medical malpractice is the easiest case to use as an example. Some doctor messes up and you are maimed for life or even die. That is bad. He should be investigated, and if he was negligent, if his training was not up to standard or if he did something he should not have then he should loose his medical license and go to jail. What should not happen is you our your surviving family win the lottery. The same principle applies here. If these corporations broke the law then lets arrest the CEO's and send them to jail. What we don't need is a pack of 1000 trial lawyers who think they can win millions of dollars in civil penalties. And that is exactly what this law does, it protects against civil suits while preserving the rule of law.

And you still take it's word?

yea, without hesitation.

 

[LadyEagle]

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

[monk]

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

Why are these threads moderated like this?

 

[LadyEagle]

Because the News forum is supposed to have a 3-page limit. Sometimes it goes over the limit because a moderator doesn't catch it. Please see the posting rules (sticky) at the top of this forum. Thanks & welcome to the board.

This thread is now closed. LE