Wiretapping Ruling
 

NYT article

Just curious about whether you think security or privacy should prevail in this matter. What are your feelings about a government wiretapping with no warrant?

I don't think either should "prevail", this is another case of the executive branch run rampant & ignoring the other two branches...& a president still convinced that he is the monarch & the rest of us should start liking it...

I have to say I was not paying very close attention to the infringement of my rights until it came to Pixies and other such sites but now it seems that I get really heated up when I think about all the things I am dealing with in the name of "security".

Why does it all feel so far left when it's coming from the far right? Is the continuem circular and not linear as I had always imagined.

"THAT" couldn't happen to us, in this day and age, is the linear continuum of history. :rolleyes:

Shit!!! The old man got ME in a spelling error. It must be judgement day :D

:rofl: I just copied. Microsoft spell-check got both of us. lol

Have the locusts descended? :boohoo:

The only "security" provided by the blatantly illegal wiretapping is the security of the current administration against possible impeachment & prosecution for such illegal activities (as well as others) , after King george II is removed from office.

The real problem with this ruling is that there is no way that this adminstration will in any way be prevented from said illegal activities in the future. Just forced to conceal them better behind outrageous claims of "national security", "antiterrorism", and "defending democracy".

The Russians had a saying " I love my country ; But I fear my Government"

I think it is funny that a private citizen with a radio scanner can listen to any converstation he can pick up but for the government to do it is illegal. The do not tape any wires. The pick up open air transmitions that are open to anyone with the right equipment. JMHO

P.S. No one really listens to the transmitions. They are taped and a computer scans it for "hits". If the computer finds a "hit" then it will be checked by a human, other wise it is automaticly wiped after a set amount of time.

I guess I'm not aware of any attempt by the government to "wire tap" private, American citizen conversations ... only to tape/listen in on calls from or to overseas destinations where there is a likely terrorist connection. If that is true (and I have no way of knowing), more power to them. Last thing I want to see is a half dozen planes from London blowing up or a major bridge, tunnel or rail link blown up.

I really have no reason right now to think that they are doing anything that would give me reason to worry about the wire taps, and, until I learn otherwise, I don't think I'd be too worried. That's just my humble opinion.

Considering the already do monitor calls here i'm sure....i have no probs with it at all i've got nothing to hide...but i must say i have stopped calling my car the old bomb *LOL* i can just see the special forces storming my door *LOL*

LOL Good move ^^^

Gentlefolk,

Let us not make the mistake of assuming that all Federal wiretaps require warrants. That is false. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is unambiguous: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year...". This legislation was passed in 1978, and revised over the years by the Legislature (Congress) for use by the Executive (Administration) and has repeatedly passed the constitutional test by the Judiciary.

Good electronic intelligence (in this instance wiretapping), can be, as the Justice Department lawyers correctly pointed out, very important to covert operations such as combating terrorist organizations. Securing useful information about the plans of enemy operations increases the likelihood of a successful defense. The utility of information from warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens by the Federal government must be very high indeed to avoid running up against the Constitution.

The case seems straightforward. The F.I.S.A. empowers the Executive to wiretap if the “Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that . . . there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party”

What the judge took exception to is that this legislation was used to justify an eavesdropping program which included U.S. citizens during a period when the U.S. was not at war.

For those who, like me, are most comfortable with the democratic model of government, a program of surveillance which includes U.S. citizens should involve more than just the executive branch. It is good to learn that the Federal Judiciary agrees.

The NSA has been intercepting all outgoing calls from this country since at least the 60's. Maybe Bush is just the first president dumb enough to admit that they do this.

Very true Sharni.

Yes’m.

Other than perhaps the Vatican, Monaco, and Liechtenstein, I can think of few nations which should naturally be excluded from that list.

Can you?

I've heard more than a few people take the side of 'Well, if you don't have anything to hide there's no problem.'

I think it's a bad stance to take. They (those conducting the wiretaps) may just decide to change what they'll looking for. Right now it's a question of 'terrorist activities', but what if the target becomes lewd and lascivious behavior?

Also, (in my understanding), wiretaps of this sort can be put in place without a warrant, but the warrant is to be obtained after the fact to allow for situations where time is a factor. To not do so is illegal.

Nope...i dont believe anyone should be excluded...1 in all in is my stance

Certainly catching criminals and terrorists is a good thing. Should we allow them to enter our homes or have access to our computers whenever they want also... without a warrant?

And it does seem unlikely that they would target lewdness, but that's merely an example that would hit close to home for many of us and we should not forget the change in what is legally allowed on websites in the US concerning sexuality. That was something I doubted would be targeted, and yet it happened.

Are "limit" and "righteous zealot" compatible terms or oxymorons? :confused:

I have no prob with them entering my home or having access to my puter (which i'm sure they probably do)

I don't have Big Brother is watching syndrome *L* they can watch me all they like...i'm a pretty boring person

As for the law on pornography...the only things that are targeted here and in the US are illegal activities...and that is how it should be

The problem for me is that here they are deciding that some things that I see as perfectly normal, are obscene and making/enforcing laws to protect us from these, now deemed to be illegal activities, such as touching my vagina in a picture on the web. I think if they want to look on my computer to see if I made and distributed said picture they should have to have a warrant. I think currently they do and I want to make sure this administration understands that.

Aqua,

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I get the impression that you think that U.S. law enforcement officials can search our homes and computers without a warrant.

I believe that is very much the exception rather than the rule. U.S. law enforcement agencies are limited by the first and forth amendments to the constitution which protect the U.S. citizen’s freedom of speech and their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Taylor ruled the intercept program unconstitutional as it allowed monitoring of U.S. citizens' phone calls abroad without a warrant.

I am not suggesting that wiretaps and searches cannot take place, only that a court must issue a warrant before they can legally occur. The FBI has the authority to place wiretaps. Prior to doing so, they must obtain a warrant from a Federal judge after showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The FBI can also get wiretap warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with fewer restrictions, but only if gathering foreign intelligence is the "significant purpose" for the warrant.

The Patriot Act made it easier for the FBI to get a warrant, and now allows nearly any search to be made in secret.

So yes, we have lost some our traditional civil liberties, but in the absence of a warrant, a wiretap / search / intercept of a U.S. citizen’s communication remains unconstitutional. Regrettable but true. I try to keep in mind the context within which these losses occurred, and that we here in the States still retain far more civil liberties than in many other countries. Small solace, I’ll admit, but the enemy has demonstrated an ability to take advantage of all available opportunities.

"Can", as in "have the ability to"? (The actual definition of "can") Yes, they can.
"Can", as in "is it legal for them to do so"? No, they can't.
"Can" as in, "do they do it anyway"? Yes, they do. If one believes otherwise, one is delusional. But:



So, in your particular case, you're not delusional: but I majorly disagree with the rarity of these incidents. I believe it's done routinely.



But only in some cases. And the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded in the name of fighting "terrorism".

You must remember that this is coming from an administration that:
1. Has directly lied about the origins of said terrorism.
2. Manipulated intelligence information, both for the purposes of starting a foreign war, and for domestic political purposes.
3. Directly lied about and fabricated said intelligence information.
4. Has allegedly set up secret prisons to hold indefinitely, without charges, and without notification of the the International Red Cross, the families of those incarcerated, or any watchdog group, people arbitrarily designated as "illegal combatants".
5. Has introduced legislation to secretly designate US citizens as "terrorists" or "illegal combatants", hold them indefinitely, without charge, and deny them access to legal representation and deny them access to the "evidence" against them if and when the powers-that-be do decide to conduct a "trial".
6. Is directing the NSA, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies to conduct wholesale interception and recording of US citizens communications, hoping to somehow catch terrorists by keying in on certain arbitrarily-designated "key" words or phrases.

Given all this, warrantless, illegal wiretaps are somehow limited or the exception?

No way.

There is one aspect that everyone seems to have missed.

It's alright to eavesdrop on foreigners like me, with no thought for my right to privacy.

The concept that Americans are superior to the point that they have global rights not open to folks like me is a little worrying.

amen. Wrong is wrong, no matter who is wrong. For me justifications are just excuses.

What she said.

gekkogecko,

Your post above opens with an assessment of what U.S. law enforcement officials can and can’t do.

OK. With serious reservations about the assertion that if one disagrees with you one is delusional, I can accept that.

You follow this with a determination that I am not delusional.

Good. We agree about that.

We begin to part ways with the next assertion. Working on the assumption that “the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded”, would you please list the cases where searches and wiretaps have been executed on U.S. citizens without first securing a warrant from a Federal judge? You need not limit this list to only those instances were the justification is “fighting terrorism” unless you wish to. This would seem to be the kind of list that the ACLU would be aware of, but if there are alternative reputable (no fruitcake bloggers please) sources for this information, feel free to use them instead – or in addition to – any other list supporting your claim.

I have been wrong frequently enough in the past to know that I may be wrong about this, but I have the suspicion that – and let me repeat this to ensure that we are singing from the same score here - the list of the cases where searches and wiretaps have been executed on U.S. citizens without first securing a warrant from a Federal judge will be a rather short one - certainly in comparison to the size of the list of the searches which had been first blessed at the Federal bench. Further, when you have this list you may wish to check how many of these searches and wiretaps – or any evidence gathered from them - were subsequently ruled as admissible for a prosecution.

A list of six claimed unsavory attributes of the current administration follows.

OK. Your claims may be debated, and may be in a subsequent post, but let us take them as presented.

You conclude that because the current administration is (supposedly) guilty of the six listed attributes and behaviors, it follows then that federal prosecutors in Boise Idaho, Boston Massachusetts, Seattle, Washington, and throughout these United States are executing unconstitutional searches and seizures on American citizens.

Forgive me for asking, but why would a federal prosecutor in, say, Sacramento, California feel comfortable organizing an activity which she knows in advance will be thrown out of court, and at the same time receive a legal lashing from a Federal judge? Are we to believe that she would do so because an administration which she may not have voted for “manipulated intelligence information”, or “lied about and fabricated said intelligence information”?

I hope you’ll not take it too amiss if I say that I find this line of reasoning – particularly when wholly unsupported (although hopefully that is only a temporary situation) by any evidence, to be a trifle strained.

Every administration since JFK has used the NSA in this fashion, so what should we do with past Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush I and Clinton for doing the exact same thing???????

You can do whatever you want with the first 3. I'll handle Billy.

Gentlefolk,

Not only is it not wrong for a country to engage in intelligence gathering, not only is it necessary and normal, but it is a correct and proper activity of a democratic government. Intelligence gathering and espionage (obtaining secret or confidential information about a country, organization, or society without permission), by providing a national government with additional information on which to act, increases the security of the citizens.

There is no issue of Americans being superior, equal to, or inferior to citizens of any other country. The United States gathers intelligence – spies on if you prefer – the UK, which does the same to France, which does the same to Morocco, which gathers intelligence on Egypt which spies on Malaysia, whose agents attempt to find out what Australia is doing, which has a surveillance program on Indonesia, etc, etc, etc.

Here is a link to a list of over 70 countries with intelligence gathering agencies. Note the names of the first five entries in the list.

Who among us would have prohibited U.S. intelligence organizations from gathering information which could have prevented 9/11? Who among us would have prohibited British intelligence organizations from gathering the information which did prevent the bombings of the U.S. bound flights from the U.K.?

Without a doubt, the world would be a more dangerous place were it not for the intelligence gathering organs of the various sovereign nations uncovering the plans that each has for the other and in so doing preventing the more malicious plans.

this was on our news service today :-
Who’s listening in on the telephone? The latest figures on federal telephone bugging warrants show that 8969 have been issued in the three years to June 2005, with 2889 being granted in 2004-05. With some warrants covering more than 10 different telephone services and being in force for an average of more than seven weeks, that’s a lot of calls being monitored. And with 11 law enforcement agencies able to apply for interception warrants and a further five agencies able to access intercepted material, there’s also a lot of people listening.

The Aussie government listens to conversations from the USA, is that right? Every country has there own agency for listening to foriegn nations. I will say that is illiegal in the USA to listen to freindly nations communication. So we get Japan to listen to Taiwan and Taiwan to listen to the Aussies and so on. That is just the way the world works.

There was a interview shown here of a man who worked in an American owned facility here on Australian soil....and 'the voice changed blacked out man' (for fear of reprisals) informed the Aussies that that facility was a monitoring facility....it monitored all calls for keywords and sent all info collected back to the US...
"blacked out guy' also stated that most info was not passed onto Aussie officials....now that part, if true, i don't agree with......we are Allies afterall

But essentually i would say that everyone listens to everyone...