|
||
How Dare They Rip The Fourth Amendment?
Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.
That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.
That a majority on both sides of the aisle -- not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties -- intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.
We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus -- which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you -- recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy -- written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights -- with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.
That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.
How dare they?
Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.
They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.
Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:
"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.
This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.
If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:
"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."
That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years.
Somewhere across an ocean and a desert, hiding in his cave, a man of hate named Osama bin Laden is laughing up the sleeve of his dirty robe at the thought that he and a small handful of fellow fanatics could tie a great nation in knots -- knots of fear stoked by our own leaders.
We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us.
Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now it would seem that we have no one to fear but ourselves and our leaders.
The questions I pose are these:
How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?
How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?
This post was originally published by McClatchy Newspapers
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Joe Galloway,
Please take your thread back, it has been hi-jacked by scurrilous posts. Thank you.
HI HO HI HO It's Down The Roman Path We Go !!!
Wake up America !!
We are being DOOPED !!!!!!!
About some posters here, Michale32086 has been carrying this argument to every article. He, by his own admission, has no legal degree, no legal background so decide for yourself who you want to listen to for counsel and advice on this issue.
michael presents himself as a walking law library with out a degree, go figure!!! Anyone who thinks they can read a piece of legislation and have command of all the particulars is hopeless, deluded and/or deceitful. Every legal document, contract and legal agreement has inconsistencies, loopholds and un-explained clauses in it and takes serious study.
Any one know a house owner who lost every thing in Katrina and found out that their insurance did not cover the loss? Complicated Insurance contract! What of those who thought their pension was OK and then found they had nothing left after the new, adjusted pension plan was adopted? Retirement contract with loopholes! How about the house buyers burned by the mortgage company contracts with ARMs and other worthless contracts. Complicated legal contracts.
I, for one, am tired of the michaels of this world, the snake oil salesmen of the 21 century.
I have to offer you this. Since you don't have a legal degree either, your criticism of his overview is as unfounded as it can get.
Did you ever consider the guy may be right? Even if he is a snake oil salesman , how does htat change anything if he is right ??
Please, quit calling people names because you can't get the better of them in a debate. Next time come to a debate armed with the facts.
HE DID.
He has NO facts, he quotes from a legal piece of legislation that even the legislators don't understand.
Nice that you did give him up as 'a snake oil salesman'. That will clear up many questions for other readers!
Please don't feed the trolls! Michale is one of the well-known ones. He will drive you crazy if you pay any attention to him. Suggest you expend your efforts elsewhere; he will never mature enough intellectually to agree with you.
Don't I know this. He is on every thread with the same, lame 'have you read the bill', 'can you prove that', 'I have read the bill from front to back' and various other similar inane comments. Seems everyone is catching on to him, thanks for the heads up.
@rlarkin More proof..
``SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING
UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.--
``(1) In general.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to
enter an order approving the targeting of a United States
person reasonably believed to be located outside the United
States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the
acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the
acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored
electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such
acquisition is conducted within the United States.
``(2) Limitation.--If a United States person targeted under
this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the
United States during the effective period of an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such
United States person under this section shall cease unless the
targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to
be located outside the United States while an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the authority of the
Government to seek an order or authorization under, or
otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any
other title of this Act.
Proof of what?
"Have you read the original FISA law? SHOW ME what's wrong with it."
You didn't address this at all.
"HR 6304 actually WEAKENS the 4th Amendments Protections enjoyed by all Americans.
If you can prove me wrong on this, pleas do so. But, you will need proof in the form of sections and subsections of both HR6304, contrasted -NOT with the current Bush law that will expire- but with the real, original FISA law that was in effect when Bush came to power. "
You didn't address this either. I don't think you've read the FISA law. Further, I think that in your heart, you do realize that HR6304 serves no purpose but to protect those in power from embarrassment or possibly prison.
You reply to every post that's critical of this bill or the people behind it with demands of "proof", yet when it's provided, you don't see it, or you segue the argument on to another topic.
Glenn Greenwald and many other *eminently* qualified people have already provided you with proof long before you started making your comments but you qualify your demands with the insistance that no one quote from those sources.
I'm going to ask you directly: Are you employed by any political organization or telecommunications company?
"``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
``(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a
determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the
Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period
of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the
targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the
United States to acquire foreign intelligence information."
And therefore, if they don't know that a person is NOT valid under section 703, they can go after them under section 702 with NO oversight, and wrong a person WITHOUT a warrant!
@rlarkin Here is your PROOF:
``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
``(b) Limitations.--An acquisition authorized under subsection
(a)--
``(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the
time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose
of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
``(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
``(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
}}}How is it that knowledgeable people can't understand that the legislation,{{{{
Have you even tried to read HR 6304??
I am simply a lowly security and intelligence grunt (retired). I can read and understand HR 6304 just fine.. It's not written in mandarin. With a little perseverance, it's understandable to the layman.
Surely it's better to read something yourself and KNOW the facts, rather than be told what to think by those with an agenda, no??
Michale.....
I HAVE read the bill, and I see that it's not a good idea, AND that it violates the Constitution!
Please post the sections that you claim violate the US Constitution...
Michale.....
Have you read the original FISA law? SHOW ME what's wrong with it. PROVE to me that we need a new bill --WITH CITATIONS. You've been asking every detractor for these things while you only put up rhetoric.
Put up or Shut up.
Hey genius,
"(B) in section 302(c) (50 U.S.C. 1822(c)),
by inserting ‘‘(except when sitting en banc)’’
after ‘‘except that no judge’’."
Translate that why don't ya.
And here's a good one:
is terminated and no order is issued approving the phys2
ical search, no information obtained or evidence derived
3 from such physical search shall be received in evidence or
4 otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other pro5
ceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department,
6 office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or
7 other authority of the United States, a State, or political
8 subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any
9 United States person acquired from such physical search
10 shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other man11
ner by Federal officers or employees without the consent
12 of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney
13 General if the information indicates a threat of death or
14 serious bodily harm to any person.
So with a corrupted DOJ and a political attorney general that we have now, they can spy on Anybody Anywhere any citizenship, for 7 days plus the appeal time and keep and use all the information they get, if the attorney general says is necessary for "national security"
CONT
In closing, let me reiterate again, the facts...
HR 6304 (The New FISA measures) have ZERO Constitutional conflict.
HR 6304 does not apply to American citizens.
HR 6304 actually STRENGTHENS the 4th Amendment Protections enjoyed by all Americans
If anyone can prove me wrong on those facts, please do so.. But, you will need proof in the form of sections and subsections of HR 6304.. Saying I am wrong because the ACLU, Glenn Greenwald or your Aunt Bertha says so, does not constitute proof...
Michale.....
HR 6304 actually WEAKENS the 4th Amendments Protections enjoyed by all Americans.
If you can prove me wrong on this, pleas do so. But, you will need proof in the form of sections and subsections of both HR6304, contrasted -NOT with the current Bush law that will expire- but with the real, original FISA law that was in effect when Bush came to power.
Simply making legal what they're already doing, and providing immunity for doing it in the past, strengthens NOTHING.
The problem here, Michale, is that you NEVER close. You can't make the sale. We don't believe you have proved that the original FISA law needs ANY improving at all. All attempts at 'improvement seem designed to enhance the powers off the Gov't to spy without warrants on American citizens, et al OR, and perhaps, most importantly, cover the collective bipartisan asses of those who aided and abetted the formulation of this abominable policy.
With all due respect to Mr Galloway, there are so many things wrong in this commentary, it's hard to know where to begin.
Before I do, let me first reiterate the facts in this case.
HR 6304 (The New FISA measures) have ZERO Constitutional conflict.
HR 6304 does not apply to American citizens.
HR 6304 actually STRENGTHENS the 4th Amendment Protections enjoyed by all Americans.
Now, to business...
}}}That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution{{{
Telecom immunity from civil liability does not "gut" the US Constitution in any way, shape or form.
}}}}for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications{{{{
There are no violations of an American's right to privacy, because HR 6304 doesn't apply to Americans. Furthermore, when you leave the country or enter the country, your bags are meticulously searched. Even if this WERE true (which it is not) how is this different from all communications that leave the country being meticulously searched??
}}}}"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."{{{{
And what "essential" liberty have you given up?? Surely you don't consider the right to carry hair gel on an aircraft as an "essential" liberty, eh??
Further, almost 7 years without a terrorist attack on US proper is hardly "temporary", eh??
Michale.....
The BushCo spying started before 9/11.
BushCo ignored "bin Laden determined to attack within the USA" because they wanted their PNAC Perl Harbor , so they could Shock the country into submission.
9/11 was BushCo fault.
Your points are valid and thoughtful. Well said and well presented.
This revision allows "vacuuming" up all foreign -to-domestic and foreign-foreign communications.
Our ally Britain, also vacuums up all foreign -to-domestic and foreign-foreign communications.
We trade information with Britain.
Now both countries intelligence agencies end up with ALL communications of both countries.
These mass intelligence collections clearly violate the 4th Amendment:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
I don't see anything in your 4th Amendment quote that says "telecommunications".. Why is that??
Regardless of that, are you familiar with how the technology works??
Finally, let's establish some common ground...
Do you believe it is permissible and necessary for the US Government to monitor foreign communications to apprehend terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks?
Michale.....
First, since there WAS nothing like telecommunications in 1787........ Just like there weren't nukes, there weren't automatic weapons, there wasn't the internet..... etc...... The SCOTUS has decided that telecommunications qualify under the 4th Amendment. Therefore, they DO. Therefore, to wiretap without a warrant is against the Constitution!
Second, yes, I believe that it makes sense to monitor foreign communications, AS LONG AS THERE'S A WARRANT!!!!
"Finally, let's establish some common ground..."
Just stop already. Here you're again trying to change the subject away from the one that's a loser for you. You know very well that telephone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment, yet you pretend not to realize it. And don't you dare reply to me pretending you aren't aware of the case law that makes this so.
Same tactics all over this board. All rhetoric and no proof.
SHOW/PROVE/PROVIDE CITATIONS etc. why Greenwald et al are wrong and you are right.
4th amendment has nothing about miniature video cameras placing in your house.
Ya think you can figure out that's wrong on your own?
So which specific language in the Bill violates the Fourth Amendment?
[Crickets]
{chirp} {chirp} {chirp}
That's all you were hear.. I have been asking that same question since the House released HR6304..
And not once, not ever, not ONE SINGLE PERSON can point to a section and/or subsection that violates the US Constitution.. One poster tried to pass off Section 702 of HR 6304 that violates the US Constitution. But 702 doesn't apply to American Citizens, as it clearly states in the title..
``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
I think that is pretty clear. Don't you??
Michale.....
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO AMERICAN CITIZENS, SINCE IT CAN HAPPEN TO THEM ANYWAYS!!!! I'm tired of having to point out to you that the Constitution applies EVERYWHERE that the US has territory, AND that the ONLY protections that the bill has for the 4th Amendment are that they won't KNOWINGLY wiretap citizens!!!
So I go to court having tapped someone's phone, and they ask if I KNEW about it, and I know that they won't find evidence of perjury...... I'm gonna say, NO, I didn't KNOW!
Again, well presented. And clear.
How did "America" become such a snivelling, quaking bunch of feline pussies that has to have big gubmint take over their security? I mean, really!!
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", indeed.
""The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", indeed."
Ironic.. FDR said that...
I wonder if that was BEFORE or AFTER he incarcerated thousands and thousands of American citizens whose SOLE "crime" was their ancestry...
Hmmmmm????
Michale.....
Yes, we've admitted that FDR was wrong, when are you going to admit that the bushies are wrong on this issue???
Your question is one that should be answered.
Learned helplessness is part of the equation. The I am helpless unless the government fixes all of my problems people.
Your reasoning, dread, patriotism true to the meaning of the Constitution, are all well founded, even urgent. But the fact remains that the American public seems not to care in enough numbers to make your entreaties heard by the offices of government.
Over the last few decades, we have begun to take the rule of law and the comensurate rights for granted. As we have drifted into complacency, so have our elected representatives. No longer guided by judgement and reason, but by polls, they are acting on polls.
We have elected ourselves to govern ourselves and we are finding that we are lacking. We need to shape up. If we do, then maybe they will.
I am with you bro. Barack Obama is ready to toss out the fourth amendment like it was dirty toilet paper. He is a hypocrite and I will not vote for any Democrat that refuses to defend the constitution.
I cannot believe Obama has flip flopped on this. The question is simple. Does the FISA court do enough to protect our rights and give the government the means to listen in on the evil doers? Sen. Obama you have my vote I hope you care about my respect. Vote against this bill and lead the filibuster on the floor of the Sentate. Show us you are who we think you are.
Don
Lake Mary, FL
Given that all politicians have a finite amount of political capital to spend, that would be the folly of the fool.
To prevent some civil lawsuits! That's absurd.
"some civil lawsuits"
Try a complete and nationwide Class Action that would utterly gut the telecommunications industry and put us back to the tin can/string era..
Just think of the devastation to the infrastructure if EVERY SINGLE American could sue the Telecoms for millions..
And guess who would be the first to start whining when they couldn't call their Aunt Martha or they couldn't get their email.
You people are great when it comes to putting forth really "Grand" ideas... But you never, ever, NOT ONCE stop and think about the consequences..
This is simply one more example of such blatant and inherent shortsightedness...
Michale....
A fellow Floridian! :D
Don, I ask you to consider some possibilities.
That Obama knows more about the particulars of this situation than you do.
That Obama knows for a fact that these new FISA measures are needed for the safety and security of this country.
If you can acknowledge these possibilities than you would begin to understand why Obama is taking the position that he is..
Look at it this way. If you are right and Obama (and all the other Democrats are wrong) then Obama will be able to fix these measures as President.
However, if YOU are wrong and these measures ARE need and there is a devestating terrorist attack that killed hundreds of thousands as a result... How would YOU, personally, feel??
And what do you think the chances are that a Democrat would EVER be elected or even TRUSTED again??
You said that you respect Obama. Then you should respect his judgment, even if you don't agree with it..
Right??
Michale.....
Michale, you've NEVER answered this question for me. Why isn't it possible that bush is simply LYING to them??? Why isn't it possible that bush is simply LYING to YOU???
He lied more than 900 times in less than SIX MONTHS to get us to go to war with Iraq. This is in a report that the PENTAGON issued!!! Tell me the likelihood that he WON'T violate this, or ANY OTHER law!!!!
It's time to vote out all these politicians that sell out our individual freedoms. We need more people in government that respect the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and our privacy.
Which presidential candidate has expressed support for this bill?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
