|
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
|
| salafibrigades |
The Democrats and the New FISA Law: Embracing Big Brother
CANDACE COHN
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
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.
New federal legislation gives the government and phone companies sweeping new domestic surveillance powers. It allows for mass, untargeted, warrantless eavesdropping against ordinary American citizens and political activists. It sets back hard-fought free speech, civil rights and privacy protections that were won by popular pressure following the Vietnam War and Watergate era.
The second price that Americans will pay is by those who have been illegally monitored since 9/11. They will lose billions of dollars from dozens of anti-spying lawsuits pending against the likes of Sprint, AT&T and Verizon. These suits, covering the last seven years, will now be dismissed in a huge giveaway of immunity to the telecommunications lobby and big campaign donors.
The lawsuits arose from the government's secret eavesdropping on American citizens, carried out since September 11 by Verizon, AT&T and others at the behest of the Bush administration, without court-ordered warrants--which until now had been legally required.
Third, Americans will be unable to discover the extent and details of the government's post-9/11 domestic spying operation, which barely came to light three years ago. That domestic eavesdropping campaign will now continue and expand further--with legal sanction--in the dark recesses of total secrecy. The new bill is a huge and blatant cover-up.
DEMOCRATS HAD claimed to be against the bill for months, but--as they did with the earlier USA PATRIOT Act--easily and completely capitulated. The new legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 19; its imminent approval by the Senate is a foregone conclusion.
Reversing himself along with so many of his colleagues, Barack Obama gave fresh evidence of what can be expected of him if he wins the presidency.
In February--when he was running against Hillary Clinton--Obama said he "was proud" to stand against this bill's predecessor and its blanket immunity for the telecommunications companies' violations of individuals' civil rights. Four months later, no longer needing to position himself to the left of his former Democratic rival, Obama has revealed his real stance. He has announced he will vote in favor of the state powers and immunity for crimes and violations he so recently denounced.
At a time when Democrats are most ascendant--when Republicans, the war and bogus post-9/11 "national security" scams for gutting constitutional rights have been most discredited--Obama and "bipartisan" Democrats are giving the completely weakened Bush administration exactly what it wants. Why? There can be only one reason. It is what they want, too.
The new bill guts the post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was created in 1978 to require warrants from secret courts for domestic government spying in national security matters. These were created to curb blatant government domestic wiretap abuse, revealed by the Senate's Church Committee and others.
The Church Committee, convened in the 1970s to investigate government claims against domestic "terrorists," instead revealed a massive, secret official campaign of spying, sabotage, thug tactics, "dirty tricks" and criminal activity by the government against ordinary Americans. The secret surveillance and criminal sabotage were carried out especially against many thousands of movement activists--antiwar, civil rights, antiracist, left-wing and many other dissenters.
The political opponents the government systematically "terrorized" covered a broad range: the Black Panthers, antiwar organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, journalists, Native American groups, socialist organizations, peace vigil groups, Martin Luther King, Jr. Even congressional opponents were targeted.
The eavesdropping, disruption schemes, blackmail, assaults, assassinations and other crimes were carried out by the CIA, FBI and many other government agencies, through programs like the infamous COINTELPRO (COunterINtelligence PROgram).
Mass popular opposition won victories that curbed government thuggery and spying against the American people and political activists. But longtime official efforts to rehabilitate such programs have used 9/11 as a cover for supposedly "temporary" measures against ostensible "terrorists" (most notably via the Patriot Act).
Those efforts have now succeeded in getting exactly what was wanted all along--permanent "legal" license to listen in on any American's communications at will, without meaningful "interference" or supervision from the courts, without the ability of ordinary folks to find out or challenge what the government is doing, and without recourse to legal remedies for what was previously known as breaking the law.
The demolition of civil liberties and human rights introduced at Guantánamo is coming home. |
|
|
| NoName |
| Obama is wrong for voting on this bill but they needed to do something because the bill expired 6 months ago and the Bush Administration has had carpe blanche with our "Right to Privacy." but Obama should have been a little more Feingold and a little less Ashcroft. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
| the FBI has been doing warrantless wiretaps for decades. now all of the sudden it's a big story? |
|
|
| NoName |
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
the FBI has been doing warrantless wiretaps for decades. now all of the sudden it's a big story? |
and the irony is that you don't have any problem with it. You would make a great North Korean. |
|
|
| fastfingersfunk |
Quote: Originally posted by NoName
and the irony is that you don't have any problem with it. You would make a great North Korean. |
the irony is that once again you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to what i think about it. you would make a great frenchman. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
| There is absolutely no reason not to go through a FISA court first. None. Who is going to oversee that these wiretaps are not abused if they do not have to be approved? It's pathetic. |
|
|
| ZumayaFastball |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
There is absolutely no reason not to go through a FISA court first. None. Who is going to oversee that these wiretaps are not abused if they do not have to be approved? It's pathetic. |
why do we need oversight? we can trust bush and his cronies..they have done "one heck of a job" so far earning our trust... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
There is absolutely no reason not to go through a FISA court first. None. Who is going to oversee that these wiretaps are not abused if they do not have to be approved? It's pathetic. |
They don't even need to go through a FISA court first. They have up to 72 hrs AFTER THE FACT to notify.
Fascism and over-sight don't mix. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
They don't even need to go through a FISA court first. They have up to 72 hrs AFTER THE FACT to notify.
Fascism and over-sight don't mix. |
Another thing that does not mix is your words and facts. They go in the opposite direction.
That is not how FISA operated. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Another thing that does not mix is your words and facts. They go in the opposite direction.
That is not how FISA operated. |
A summary of key provisions follows.
The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:
1. there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
2. the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
3. the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
4. a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
5. minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.
This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...urveillance_Act
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
A summary of key provisions follows.
The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:
1. there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
2. the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
3. the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
4. a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
5. minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.
This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...urveillance_Act
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
:fish:
Protect America Act of 2007
On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party (or both parties) to the communication are located overseas. He asked that Congress pass the legislation before its August 2007 recess. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA (S. 1927) in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227–183. The Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-55, S. 1927) was then signed into law by George W. Bush on 2007-08-05.[36]
Under the Protect America Act of 2007, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.
The Act provides procedures for the government to "certify" the legality of an acquisition program, for the government to issue directives to providers to provide data or assistance under a particular program, and for the government and recipient of a directive to seek from the FISA Court, respectively, an order to compel provider compliance or relief from an unlawful directive. Providers receive costs and full immunity from civil suits for compliance with any directives issued pursuant to the Act.
A summary of key provisions follows.
The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:
1. there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
2. the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
3. the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
4. a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
5. minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.
This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.
*FLUSH*
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
You told me the other day that you read the FISA law. What gives? The 72 hours provision was there before. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by ZumayaFastball
why do we need oversight? we can trust bush and his cronies..they have done "one heck of a job" so far earning our trust... |
Wanna see something really scary. From 1979 to 2007, only 9 out of the 25,000 FISA warrants requested had been denied. Kinda gives you an idea as to how accomodating the FISA courts are when granting this warrants.
All nine rejections that did not meet the criteria for a wire tap came during the Bush administration. Now that protection is getting yanked.
http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
You told me the other day that you read the FISA law. What gives? The 72 hours provision was there before. |
I have been over the old FISA law many times. The new law I have not as it has just become law.
What Fb is posting is not the newest in FISA. It is the interim patch job that was done.
Under the old FISA law the Attorney General would have to notify the Court before the 72 hours even began. Not for a warrant, but to notify. Then he had 3 days to get in to Court.
The brand new law, just passed... Here is a quote:
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...05----000-.html |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What Fb is posting is not the newest in FISA. |
:lol::crazy::lol:
Classic. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
You posted the patch put in place last year |
:crazy::lol::crazy::lol:
Psychotic break in 4...3...2...1... |
|
|
| bruce9432 |
| If your not charged with a crime then there was no unreasonable search or seizure, it's that simple. What are the damages if someone listens in and nothing happens. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:crazy::lol::crazy::lol:
Psychotic break in 4...3...2...1... |
Help me out here man. I KNOW that the 72 hour rule was already in place and is not new to this new FISA bill. WTF is everyone talking about!? Was it not part of the original bill in 1978? Again, with time to get the warrant after the fact and so few instances of sed warrant being denied, why do we need the new law? I am not even talking about the massive warrantless monitoring of Americans calling patterns that is getting the phone companies in trouble. Why get rid of the warrants!!!??? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
Help me out here man. I KNOW that the 72 hour rule was already in place and is not new to this new FISA bill. WTF is everyone talking about!? Was it not part of the original bill in 1978? |
Don't worry, it isn't you.
Stumpy is bat-shit crazy and a proven self-exposed DEBUNKED liar.
Pay him no mind. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
Help me out here man. I KNOW that the 72 hour rule was already in place and is not new to this new FISA bill. WTF is everyone talking about!? Was it not part of the original bill in 1978? Again, with time to get the warrant after the fact and so few instances of sed warrant being denied, why do we need the new law? I am not even talking about the massive warrantless monitoring of Americans calling patterns that is getting the phone companies in trouble. Why get rid of the warrants!!!??? |
The 72 hour emergency provision is unworkable during times of war. The Dems did not like that fact. So, they took a Military program used during a time of war and made it into a normal civil law. That is one change. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stumpedwall
The 72 hour emergency provision is unworkable during times of war. |
:lol:
What a good little idiot-puppet.
:drool: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:lol:
What a good little idiot-puppet.
:drool: |
Perhaps you can explain how it would work during times of war? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
Perhaps you can explain how it would work during times of war? |
"times of war"
:lol::crazy::lol:
What a brainwashed borg larvae....
:burst: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Another thing that does not mix is your words and facts. They go in the opposite direction.
That is not how FISA operated. |
Stoopy ------> :ass2mouth <------ Reality |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
"times of war"
:lol::crazy::lol:
What a brainwashed borg larvae....
:burst: |
OK just explain how the 72 hour period could be used to stop terror, like 9/11. I don't want to upset you with the word "terror", like the "war" thing. Call it terror or whatever makes you feel good.
A terrorist that Nancy Pelosi agrees is a terrorist or freedom fighter or whatever you call them, she agrees and Obama agrees and even Durbin believes... is a terrorist, known... calls the U.S. on his cell phone... what happens? Explain. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
:lol:
Schizoid embolism inbouuuuuunnnddd!!!!
Stopdropandrollmothafuckaaasss!!!
:rofl: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:lol:
Schizoid embolism inbouuuuuunnnddd!!!!
Stopdropandrollmothafuckaaasss!!!
:rofl: |
You do not know and cannot defend your position. That is all you had to say. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
A terrorist that Nancy Pelosi agrees is a terrorist or freedom fighter or whatever you call them, she agrees and Obama agrees and even Durbin believes... is a terrorist, known... calls the U.S. on his cell phone... what happens? Explain. |
They deem they have cause to intercept, and do so.
I don't get it. The 72 hr "rule" does nothing to prevent this. That is the entire point of my argument.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
They deem they have cause to intercept, and do so.
:rolleyes: |
They can't use the 72 hour Emergency provision. How would that work?
Mohmad in Pakistan, the known terrorist, picks his cell phone up and calls a cell phone located in the U.S.. What happens next?
Under the 72 hour provision in the FISA law that phone call does not get intercepted. The NSA hangs up the phone. Under the original FISA that was in place on 9/11, be it 48 hours or 72... they don't intercept the call, can't do it. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The 72 hour emergency provision is unworkable during times of war. |
 |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
They can't use the 72 hour Emergency provision. How would that work?
Mohmad in Pakistan, the known terrorist, picks his cell phone up and calls a cell phone located in the U.S.. What happens next?
Under the 72 hour provision in the FISA law that phone call does not get intercepted. The NSA hangs up the phone. Under the original FISA that was in place on 9/11, be it 48 hours or 72... they don't intercept the call, can't do it. |
It is apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.
:hw:
Carry on, Crackpot!!!
:drool: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
They deem they have cause to intercept, and do so.
I don't get it. The 72 hr "rule" does nothing to prevent this. That is the entire point of my argument.
:rolleyes: |
You do realize that we are at war, right?
Would you have wanted the army to have gotten a warrant before they listened in on Japanese communications?
Think about it, if you can. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
You do realize that we are at war, right?
Would you have wanted the army to have gotten a warrant before they listened in on Japanese communications?
Think about it, if you can. |
look at the word in bold |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
look at the word in bold |
....deliver not the killing blow....mercy!!!
:mb: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
You do realize that we are at war, right?
Would you have wanted the army to have gotten a warrant before they listened in on Japanese communications?
Think about it, if you can. |
Revel in your ignorance. I know I am!
:rdf: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
It is apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.
:hw:
Carry on, Crackpot!!!
:drool: |
I'll just do as usual and take that as you... without an argument.
The only person under the FISA law that could authorize the 72 hour period was the Attorney General of the U.S.. Then he had to notify the Court that he was doing so and THEN the 72 hour period could begin. Long after the call had taken place. There is no way the NSA could intercept, they could not authorize it. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
look at the word in bold |
And?
Let me sketch out a hypothetical for you - we already have a FISA approved tap on a phone of a terrorist in Iraq. He calls someone in the United States and says "Call me back in half an hour with the details of your jihad against the infidel." So we have half an hour to tap the other guy (in the US) - you want those who work to keep us safe to be waiting for a FISA warrant, hoping they can get it before that call is made? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
And?
Let me sketch out a hypothetical for you - we already have a FISA approved tap on a phone of a terrorist in Iraq. He calls someone in the United States and says "Call me back in half an hour with the details of your jihad against the infidel." So we have half an hour to tap the other guy (in the US) - you want those who work to keep us safe to be waiting for a FISA warrant, hoping they can get it before that call is made? |
they are not waiting for any warrant. they have 72 hours to obtain it. what am I missing here? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
they are not waiting for any warrant. they have 72 hours to obtain it. what am I missing here? |
My last post. That is what you are missing. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
My last post. That is what you are missing. |
so you think that they are applying for a warrant that gives them a 72 hour window to gather information? after it is approved? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
so you think that they are applying for a warrant that gives them a 72 hour window to gather information? after it is approved? |
And you'd rather they wait for 72 hours while the terrorists pass along vital information? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I'll just do as usual and take that as you... without an argument.
The only person under the FISA law that could authorize the 72 hour period was the Attorney General of the U.S.. Then he had to notify the Court that he was doing so and THEN the 72 hour period could begin. Long after the call had taken place. There is no way the NSA could intercept, they could not authorize it. |
:rolleyes:
The telecoms are the ones doing the "intercepting". Let's be real.
This is not the game of seconds you are pretending it to be in your deluded, brainwashed mind.
FISA worked perfectly fine before we had an out of control Imperial Executive on an insane power-trip/grab.
Turn off Rush for a day or two.
:crazy: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
And you'd rather they wait for 72 hours while the terrorists pass along vital information? |
I don't think you get it. That is not what the law does :burst: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
And?
Let me sketch out a hypothetical for you - we already have a FISA approved tap on a phone of a terrorist in Iraq. He calls someone in the United States and says "Call me back in half an hour with the details of your jihad against the infidel." So we have half an hour to tap the other guy (in the US) - you want those who work to keep us safe to be waiting for a FISA warrant, hoping they can get it before that call is made? |
:jj:
....tell me more VaCunt....I don't quite have it yet....but I feel my understanding growing.
:munch: |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
You do realize that we are at war, right?
Would you have wanted the army to have gotten a warrant before they listened in on Japanese communications?
Think about it, if you can. |
I thought the whole point of the provision is that when you have to act immediately, you can do so, and then you have 3 days to show that your actions are justified. Its very existence is to ensure that legal hurdles to not impede the need to act immediately. What the fuck!!!?? Again, what am I missing!!??? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
My last post. That is what you are missing. |
What you are missing is the point. It is the ACCOUNTABILITY that is the issue.
Nothing is preventing vital intercepts. Calm down.
Procedures and protocols have long been in place. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
I thought the whole point of the provision is that when you have to act immediately, you can do so, and then you have 3 days to show that your actions are justified. Its very existence is to ensure that legal hurdles to not impede the need to act immediately. What the fuck!!!?? Again, what am I missing!!??? |
:crazy: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
so you think that they are applying for a warrant that gives them a 72 hour window to gather information? after it is approved? |
The NSA cannot authorize, therefore the NSA cannot intercept. Cannot begin the 72 hour period. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
I thought the whole point of the provision is that when you have to act immediately, you can do so, and then you have 3 days to show that your actions are justified. Its very existence is to ensure that legal hurdles to not impede the need to act immediately. What the fuck!!!?? Again, what am I missing!!??? |
The incredible ignorance and willful stupidity of our resident reich-wingers like VacateTheTurd.
It is mind-boggling.
:yes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
| how can someone understand that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated but not have a clue about fisa? wtf? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The NSA cannot authorize, therefore the NSA cannot intercept. Cannot begin the 72 hour period. |
I think you should post the text of that provision |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
:rolleyes:
The telecoms are the ones doing the "intercepting". Let's be real.
This is not the game of seconds you are pretending it to be in your deluded, brainwashed mind.
FISA worked perfectly fine before we had an out of control Imperial Executive on an insane power-trip/grab.
Turn off Rush for a day or two.
:crazy: |
You are an idiot. Lets be clear on that.
Even your Dem Congress understands the inability of the original FISA Law to work. They just could not accept that during a time of war the military must be able to intercept enemy communications coming into or out of the U.S., without a warrant or it being in a civil law.
They now have a law that allows the interception of just about anybody, war or not, enemy or not, military or not. That is your "new" accountability. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I think you should post the text of that provision |
I already did...Here |
|
|
| mingmen |
 |
|
|
| mingmen |
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
seems pretty clear to me that you are mistaken, stoney |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Turd_Cutter
I thought the whole point of the provision is that when you have to act immediately, you can do so, and then you have 3 days to show that your actions are justified. Its very existence is to ensure that legal hurdles to not impede the need to act immediately. What the fuck!!!?? Again, what am I missing!!??? |
When the TSP was leaked by the Dems, they came out with the talking point of the 72 hour provision. It was meant to make people believe that the TSP was not necessary. Of course it was based on a fantasy, the 72 hour provision cannot work. Is not set up to work quickly in a time of attacks or war. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
When the TSP was leaked by the Dems, they came out with the talking point of the 72 hour provision. It was meant to make people believe that the TSP was not necessary. Of course it was based on a fantasy, the 72 hour provision cannot work. Is not set up to work quickly in a time of attacks or war. |
:jj: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
seems pretty clear to me that you are mistaken, stoney |
How am I wrong?
It's the Attorney General right?
What part am I wrong? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
How am I wrong?
It's the Attorney General right?
What part am I wrong? |
they have 72 hours to receive a warrant after the capture of communications. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
they have 72 hours to receive a warrant after the capture of communications. |
And, that is not in dispute.
The problem is by the time you get Authorization to "capture" the communications... there is nothing to capture. It's over... you missed the call.
The Attorney General Authorizes the beginning of the 72 hour period after he calls a Judge. How does one capture a call that is over with? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The only person under the FISA law that could authorize the 72 hour period was the Attorney General of the U.S. |
LIAR.
The DNI could as well.
Judge on call 24 hrs.
We have cellphones now.
You support this only because if gives cover to the telecoms and because it further erodes the balance of powers.
:hitler::ps: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
And, that is not in dispute.
The problem is by the time you get Authorization to "capture" the communications... there is nothing to capture. It's over... you missed the call. |
you can get authorization as soon as you know you need to capture. they probably even have speed dial
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The Attorney General Authorizes the beginning of the 72 hour period after he calls a Judge. |
looks like all you need is the AG's permission
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
How does one capture a call that is over with? |
we are not talking about a call that is over with |
|
|
| mingmen |
| 72 hours to notify the judge :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
you can get authorization as soon as you know you need to capture. they probably even have speed dial
looks like all you need is the AG's permission
we are not talking about a call that is over with |
That is not how it works, speed dial. The NSA has lawyers that create legal work and that goes to the attorney general for approval.
Lets go with your speed dial thing.
Even with Speed dial you cannot capture the call till you have authorization. You quickly call the Attorney General... talk to him, then he has to inform a Judge, and then he can speed dial you back.
You still don't get the capture. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is not how it works, speed dial. The NSA has lawyers that create legal work and that goes to the attorney general for approval.
Lets go with your speed dial thing.
Even with Speed dial you cannot capture the call till you have authorization. You quickly call the Attorney General... talk to him, then he has to inform a Judge, and then he can speed dial you back.
You still don't get the capture. |
I see the method of your madness and no thank you. you want to capture all calls and have them forever. have fun with that one, fascist
if we are talking about an active investigation then they are prepared and know what they are looking for and when. do you think they are just scanning all signals and just happen to hear "derka derka jihad"? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
And, that is not in dispute.
The problem is by the time you get Authorization to "capture" the communications... there is nothing to capture. It's over... you missed the call.
The Attorney General Authorizes the beginning of the 72 hour period after he calls a Judge. How does one capture a call that is over with? |
1. The telecoms are doing the 'capturing'. They record stuff.
2. The people who's calls we are monitoring or waiting for have renewing warrants. (If we don't know/suspect they are terrorists, we aren't listening to them.)
3. The President could implement surveillance on a suspect meeting the criteria, WITHOUT a warrant, for up to a year, with proper retroactive certification:
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information
4. Both the AG and the DNI could authorize surveillance for a year too:
The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States"
5. "24" is just a sucky TV show.
:hw: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
LIAR.
The DNI could as well.
Judge on call 24 hrs.
We have cellphones now.
You support this only because if gives cover to the telecoms and because it further erodes the balance of powers.
:hitler::ps: |
The DNI did not exist in 2001. |
|
|
| Turd_Cutter |
| Sorry, but did you see the last attorney general? Am I at fault for wanting a line of defense between what he thinks is reasonable and my rights? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The DNI did not exist in 2001. |
:bc:
goodnite, stumpy |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I see the method of your madness and no thank you. you want to capture all calls and have them forever. have fun with that one, fascist
if we are talking about an active investigation then they are prepared and know what they are looking for and when. do you think they are just scanning all signals and just happen to hear "derka derka jihad"? |
I do not want to capture all calls, moron.
I just want the military to intercept enemy communications. Like what we were talking about before you saw the failure in your argument and broke down.
The military can intercept any enemy communications except to the U.S.? Why does that make sense to you? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
:bc:
goodnite, stumpy |
Who was it? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I do not want to capture all calls, moron.
I just want the military to intercept enemy communications. Like what we were talking about before you saw the failure in your argument and broke down.
The military can intercept any enemy communications except to the U.S.? Why does that make sense to you? |
they have plenty of capability to capture calls. thanks anyway |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The DNI did not exist in 2001. |
We are talking about the need/lack thereof of this current Bill.
:crazy:
The one that is giving retroactive immunity to the telcos, and giving the Imperial Executive everything it wants. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
they have plenty of capability to capture calls. thanks anyway |
Yes they do, the NSA and the TSP... or not the TSP anymore. The "Democrat friendly TSP".
They have been intercepting since 9/11. |
|
|
| blicknasty |
| Interpret this post |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Yes they do, the NSA and the TSP... or not the TSP anymore. The "Democrat friendly TSP".
They have been intercepting since 9/11. |
Actually they were intercepting before 9/11 - going back to Clinton.
And it's only the far-left blogs and the people here like Fdubya and mingmen who fail to see the logic in being able to intercept calls made by terrorists and having the leeway to get a court order after the fact because in today's world you can't wait around for a judge to issue a warrant. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Actually they were intercepting before 9/11 - going back to Clinton.
And it's only the far-left blogs and the people here like Fdubya and mingmen who fail to see the logic in being able to intercept calls made by terrorists and having the leeway to get a court order after the fact because in today's world you can't wait around for a judge to issue a warrant. |
Just because FISA exists that does not mean during a time of war that FISA must be used at all times. I disagree that intercepting enemy communications requires any warrant whatsoever. Because a warrant presumes a permission is received. I don't think for a minute that a Judge could turn down the Commander in Chief intercepting enemy communications during a time of war. It is absurd. The Commander in Chief would have to disobey if the Judge said "no" to a warrant that was requested to intercept enemy communications. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
We are talking about the need/lack thereof of this current Bill.
:crazy:
The one that is giving retroactive immunity to the telcos, and giving the Imperial Executive everything it wants. |
I do not think that the current bill is needed in it's current form. Technology changes and FISA should be amended to reflect those changes.
I think the Executive had what it wanted already, the TSP. I think the Dems got what they wanted. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Actually they were intercepting before 9/11 - going back to Clinton.
And it's only the far-left blogs and the people here like Fdubya and mingmen who fail to see the logic in being able to intercept calls made by terrorists and having the leeway to get a court order after the fact because in today's world you can't wait around for a judge to issue a warrant. |
:jj:
still thinking that anyone is waiting for a warrant :dunce: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I do not think that the current bill is needed in it's current form. |
Congrats, you just made my case again. Funny how you'd still go an entire thread defending it though. And spinning how inadequate the older incarnations of it were.
:crazy::rolleyes::drool:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
And it's only the far-left blogs and the people here like Fdubya and mingmen who fail to see the logic in being able to intercept calls made by terrorists and having the leeway to get a court order after the fact because in today's world you can't wait around for a judge to issue a warrant. |
Self-exposure like this only comes around once or twice a week.
Classic.
:bigclap: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Just because FISA exists that does not mean during a time of war that FISA must be used at all times. I disagree that intercepting enemy communications requires any warrant whatsoever. Because a warrant presumes a permission is received. I don't think for a minute that a Judge could turn down the Commander in Chief intercepting enemy communications during a time of war. It is absurd. The Commander in Chief would have to disobey if the Judge said "no" to a warrant that was requested to intercept enemy communications. |
Yes, we know. You hate the separation of powers. You wish Cheney were King of America.
 |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
 |
|
|
| MLBoros72s |
| Fucking spineless piece of shit Democrats. I hate them sometimes as much as the lowly vile Republicans--atleast they don't pretend to stand for something. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Congrats, you just made my case again. Funny how you'd still go an entire thread defending it though. And spinning how inadequate the older incarnations of it were.
:crazy::rolleyes::drool:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
The older was inadequate only by it's ignorance of the advance of technology.
FISA should not be changed to make it a war time capable law because then it will "creep" as these things always do.
Under the TSP you had a controlled program. Even some members of Congress knew about it. NSA lawyers kept track of what they did and some members of Congress could see what was happening.
I understand your opinion on this. It is based on the talking-points the Dems have fed you for political purposes.
I ask once more that you think for yourself and have a certain level of self respect. As of know your mind is useless, filled with the trash the Dems feed you. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonedwall
I understand your opinion on this. It is based on the talking-points the Dems have fed you for political purposes. |
Check the title of the thread. The only one spewing talking-points is you, as you continue to carry water for the Unitary Executive.
:rolleyes:
:opps::opps:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is the new law, not the old FISA law. |
so tell us again...what is it that you have a problem with? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
 |
|
|
| | |
