|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Democrats and the New FISA Law: Embracing Big Brother
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Democrats and the New FISA Law: Embracing Big Brother
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The older was inadequate only by it's ignorance of the advance of technology. |
LIAR.
The latest (20007) incarnation had no such "weakness".
Yet another Stumpedwall point goes down in flames.
:shake: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
see post 93, stoney |
...also, illustrate my "talking-points" as opposed to the verbatim Bush Cabal mimicry you exhibit in your delusional outbursts in defense of this bill.
:giggle: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
...the Constitution is very clear on the matter. |
...yeah, that this one has over-stepped its powers.
:hw: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
so tell us again...what is it that you have a problem with? |
I have a problem with mixing the civil and the military. Taking a war time measure for the interception of enemy communications, the TSP, and making it a civil program for use outside of the very specific enemy that is targeted in the AUMF of Sept. 2001.
And, it is being done because the Dems are idiots. Their falsehood to their followers in regard to the TSP and FISA have forced them to do something. That something is the 2007 law that began this process and now when this final FISA bill is passed. The Dems should not have leaked the program and then lied about it. Misinformed the American people for political reasons. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
....well at least its not with something completely fucked up and crazy.
:crazy: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I have a problem with mixing the civil and the military. Taking a war time measure for the interception of enemy communications, the TSP, and making it a civil program for use outside of the very specific enemy that is targeted in the AUMF of Sept. 2001.
And, it is being done because the Dems are idiots. Their falsehood to their followers in regard to the TSP and FISA have forced them to do something. That something is the 2007 law that began this process and now when this final FISA bill is passed. The Dems should not have leaked the program and then lied about it. Misinformed the American people for political reasons. |
I think I see - you want no FISA at all. just unlimited capture of all calls that enter or leave the country. ha ha...no thanks |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I think I see - you want no FISA at all. just unlimited capture of all calls that enter or leave the country. ha ha...no thanks |
....limitless Imperial Powers for his beloved Fuhrer Dumbya!!!
 |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I think I see - you want no FISA at all. just unlimited capture of all calls that enter or leave the country. ha ha...no thanks |
No I want no FISA for the interception of enemy communications during a time of war. This issue should not be tied into FISA at all. It only is that way because the Dems made it that way.
FISA should be updated at times to reflect the change in technology. That has nothing to do with the military and interception of enemy communications during a time of war.
Two separate things.
The Dems brought these together. For political reasons.
If Congress had to openly deal with this issue at all, the TSP, they should have created something new and tied to the AUMF of Sept. 2001.
Look at the issue of Americans fighting for the enemy in this conflict. The President has the authority to capture American citizens and holding them as enemy combatants. The Hamdi decision settled that. So, a citizen of the U.S. can be denied rights in the U.S. Constitution. Captured and given a simple hearing and then held without criminal charges. As an enemy combatant.
That situation is completely outside of the civil laws of this country which are very clear on the rights of those Americans the Executive detains.
The TSP is the same way. Outside of the civilian. If the TSP would lead to a capture in the U.S. the government could not bring civil criminal charges. Unless perhaps Treason. Which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They would have to put that person through the military system as an enemy combatant.
If you believe that FISA trumps all things than you must also believe that FISA trumps the U.S. Constitution because clearly in Hamdi the rights of Americans fighting for the enemy are almost non-existent. Hard to believe they could capture someone and virtually remove all of his rights except for his rights under the laws of FISA. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
No I want no FISA for the interception of enemy communications during a time of war. This issue should not be tied into FISA at all. It only is that way because the Dems made it that way.
FISA should be updated at times to reflect the change in technology. That has nothing to do with the military and interception of enemy communications during a time of war.
Two separate things.
The Dems brought these together. For political reasons.
If Congress had to openly deal with this issue at all, the TSP, they should have created something new and tied to the AUMF of Sept. 2001.
Look at the issue of Americans fighting for the enemy in this conflict. The President has the authority to capture American citizens and holding them as enemy combatants. The Hamdi decision settled that. So, a citizen of the U.S. can be denied rights in the U.S. Constitution. Captured and given a simple hearing and then held without criminal charges. As an enemy combatant.
That situation is completely outside of the civil laws of this country which are very clear on the rights of those Americans the Executive detains.
The TSP is the same way. Outside of the civilian. If the TSP would lead to a capture in the U.S. the government could not bring civil criminal charges. Unless perhaps Treason. Which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They would have to put that person through the military system as an enemy combatant.
If you believe that FISA trumps all things than you must also believe that FISA trumps the U.S. Constitution because clearly in Hamdi the rights of Americans fighting for the enemy are almost non-existent. Hard to believe they could capture someone and virtually remove all of his rights except for his rights under the laws of FISA. |
sounds like you are just trying to justify exactly what I said in stumpy-speak. no thanks |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
sounds like you are just trying to justify exactly what I said in stumpy-speak. no thanks |
It would be impossible for the NSA to in any useful way collect all calls coming and leaving the U.S., which is probably millions every day. It would require an NSA that is staffed with half of all American citizens.
It is too bad you cannot understand what I am trying to get through to you.
Let me try this...
The case of Hamdi, an American citizen held without full Constitutional rights by the Executive. Lets say that case did not go to Court at all. Lets say like the TSP the Hamdi situation was leaked. A scandal that an American citizen is being held without charges as an enemy combatant stripped of his full Constitutional rights.
Instead of the Court Case Congress instead decides to change the laws of the nation so that this person, Hamdi, is brought back into the civil framework. They make a law that allows the Executive to hold anyone, for any reason. With very limited rights.
That is what has occurred with FISA and the TSP. Now, under the new FISA bill being readied and already passed the House... the TSP is incorporated into the civil law of FISA. Now it is not just the enemy that attacked on 9/11. Now it could be just about anybody for any reason. Now we are all Hamdi...
Happy Yet?
Understand Yet? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It would be impossible for the NSA to in any useful way collect all calls coming and leaving the U.S., which is probably millions every day. |
let's break this down. what sort of collecting of calls are you envisioning? what is your best case scenario? |
|
|
| mingmen |
| and the first thing I see after that is: what are you afraid of being leaked in the TSP? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
let's break this down. what sort of collecting of calls are you envisioning? what is your best case scenario? |
The TSP.
One side of the call outside the U.S. and that person being an enemy as defined in the AUMF of 2001. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
A scandal that an American citizen is being held without charges as an enemy combatant stripped of his full Constitutional rights. |
and why is that necessarily the case? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
and the first thing I see after that is: what are you afraid of being leaked in the TSP? |
The TSP has already been leaked. The whole program should never have been leaked at all. It was a secret military program used against the enemy. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The TSP.
One side of the call outside the U.S. and that person being an enemy as defined in the AUMF of 2001. |
no, describe to me how these calls are being collected. the mechanics of it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The TSP has already been leaked. The whole program should never have been leaked at all. It was a secret military program used against the enemy. |
and what is the problem with that? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
and what is the problem with that? |
The enemy should know as little as possible about what the U.S. military is using against them. The enemy studies us. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The enemy should know as little as possible about what the U.S. military is using against them. The enemy studies us. |
yeah, but so what? I want to know what the fuck is going on. what a bullshit justification. :ce:
no thanks
just tell me I have no civil rights even though the enemy is already operating with that assumption anyway. :crazy:
classic bedwetter |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
no, describe to me how these calls are being collected. the mechanics of it. |
The calls being intercepted are done so by NSA Agents who track the enemy wherever he may be. It is not untrained people doing this. It is career NSA Agents making the decision.
The exact mechanics of it have not been leaked that I know of.
I have heard that computers captured with the enemy have included information useful in finding other enemy and/or monitoring them. A cell phone from a captured enemy would be useful if it includes numbers within it of other enemy. Those numbers could then be monitored and then if they would call the U.S. still monitored. There should be No Need for a warrant to monitor that call. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
yeah, but so what? I want to know what the fuck is going on. what a bullshit justification. :ce:
no thanks
just tell me I have no civil rights even though the enemy is already operating with that assumption anyway. :crazy:
classic bedwetter |
The enemy assumes you have many rights. That has been their experience in past attacks on the U.S.. Ramsey Yousef is an example of those rights. Other cases are examples of those rights.
Now they know they are in a real Jihad...
:) |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The calls being intercepted are done so by NSA Agents who track the enemy wherever he may be. It is not untrained people doing this. It is career NSA Agents making the decision. |
you mean at that second of the transmission. or are you saving blocks of call data to go over them later? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The enemy assumes you have many rights. That has been their experience in past attacks on the U.S.. Ramsey Yousef is an example of those rights. Other cases are examples of those rights.
Now they know they are in a real Jihad...
:) |
whatever, stoney. I had forgotten how silly this aspect of your argument was. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I have heard that computers captured with the enemy have included information useful in finding other enemy and/or monitoring them. A cell phone from a captured enemy would be useful if it includes numbers within it of other enemy. Those numbers could then be monitored and then if they would call the U.S. still monitored. There should be No Need for a warrant to monitor that call. |
not only that, stoney...there is absolutely no impediment to obtaining a warrant for any of that either. debunked |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you mean at that second of the transmission. or are you saving blocks of call data to go over them later? |
Both. An immediate knowledge that a call is happening and a full record of the call. They would intercept and know what was said right away.
Collecting every call and then going back over every call to the U.S. or from the U.S. would be a useless program. It would be years before a person could know what each call was about.
The TSP would treat the enemy as the NSA would a foreign embassy in the U.S.. Any call to the embassy is intercepted. Without a warrant. Never was a warrant needed to tap the phones of the Soviet Embassy in Washington. FISA or no FISA.
A call made from a known enemy to the U.S. is intercepted. Very easy to understand considering the enemy attacks in the U.S.. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Both. An immediate knowledge that a call is happening and a full record of the call. They would intercept and know what was said right away.
Collecting every call and then going back over every call to the U.S. or from the U.S. would be a useless program. |
well, there you have it. my exact point. If you are not collecting every call and going back over it...you have all the time you need for a warrant.
thanks for playing...I actually thought you had more of a point than this |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
A call made from a known enemy to the U.S. is intercepted. Very easy to understand considering the enemy attacks in the U.S.. |
do you see the significance of the term "known enemy", stoney? :drool: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
do you see the significance of the term "known enemy", stoney? :drool: |
:jj:
:drool: stumpy
:drown: stumpy's debunked "points" |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
not only that, stoney...there is absolutely no impediment to obtaining a warrant for any of that either. debunked |
If that were the case then the Dems would have had no reason to change the FISA laws in this area. They have changed them. Now just about anyone can be intercepted for any reason.
There is no impediment to charge Hamdi with a criminal offense. Get a warrant. Right?
Another problem with requiring a warrant for the interception of enemy communications during a time of war is the possibility of the warrant being denied. The President would of course disobey that. A Constitutional crisis could occur much like what will happen when and if a Judge would ever order a captured enemy released. This latest Habeas debacle by the Court.
If I was commander in chief during a time of war and the Judiciary turned down a warrant for the interception of enemy communications coming into the U.S., after 3000 Americans had been killed by an attack from that enemy... I would laugh at that Judge. Maybe arrest him as an enemy combatant. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
well, there you have it. my exact point. If you are not collecting every call and going back over it...you have all the time you need for a warrant.
thanks for playing...I actually thought you had more of a point than this |
Hey if you are happy with the new FISA law then more power to you. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If that were the case then the Dems would have had no reason to change the FISA laws in this area. They have changed them. Now just about anyone can be intercepted for any reason. |
illustrate that concept |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Hey if you are happy with the new FISA law then more power to you. |
now we are back here. what is your problem with the new FISA law? specifically |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
illustrate that concept |
You illustrate it. You are trying to remain as stupid as possible.
Game Over. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
There is no impediment to charge Hamdi with a criminal offense. Get a warrant. Right? |
what? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
You illustrate it. You are trying to remain as stupid as possible.
Game Over. |
no, I mean point to the language that you are saying creats the situation you describe. how is everyone being tapped but at the same time you are not able to tap terrorists? I am really curious |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
no, I mean point to the language that you are saying creats the situation you describe. how is everyone being tapped but at the same time you are not able to tap terrorists? I am really curious |
Oh the enemy can be tapped. Just a lot of others also. Using the same standard. The FISA law as existed, protection wise on 9/11, is no longer with us.
Everyone is not being tapped. Why you continue to imagine the possibility of the usefulness of such a program, I do not know. Over a million calls a day being intercepted. What would the use in that be? How would that be managed in such a way as to prevent enemy attacks? How many people would be needed for such a task to make that in any way useful? You would be long dead of old age before anyone got around to the fact that you called Germany today. OOPPS wrong number.
If we were attacked yesterday maybe the headline 100 years from now would be they finally read the transcript of a phone call made by one of the terrorists. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Oh the enemy can be tapped. |
so your warrant concerns are of no relevance to how things are or will be? |
|
|
| mingmen |
| There is the Theory of the Moebius, a twist in the fabric of space, where time becomes a loop, from which there is no escape. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
so your warrant concerns are of no relevance to how things are or will be? |
My concern on the ability to intercept enemy communications is not really something to worry about, it has been done and will be done. I had no doubts the military would prosecute this war as they have done all other wars of global significance and where attacks have occurred within the U.S..
The major concern that I had, the mixing of FISA with a military program, and that causing a watering down of protections is a concern that is now fully seen in the latest FISA as the original article describes:
It may be June, but Christmas came early this year for Big Brother and the telecommunications giants. Unfortunately, it is average Americans who will pay--dearly--on three separate counts.
First, precious constitutional and other legal protections against warrantless domestic surveillance have been shattered. The federal government may now secretly and legally eavesdrop on virtually any American's e-mail, cell phone and landline communications--without first getting a court-ordered warrant. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
My concern on the ability to intercept enemy communications is not really something to worry about, it has been done and will be done. |
:drool:
oh, thanks for that chestnut |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
First, precious constitutional and other legal protections against warrantless domestic surveillance have been shattered. |
yes, there we go. where IS that? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Stumpy "Off Into the Sunset" Troll:
Punked Member
Off With His Panties In a Bunch... |
|
|
|
|
|
