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.