Fisa Amendments Act

[Gunter45]

I'm surprised people didn't jump on this sooner.

Here's a link to the Senate version and the House version.

One of the big issues that made it was the provision that retroactively legalized the phone companies illegally giving their records to the NSA.

Frankly, this just strikes me as a serious "fuck you" to the American people. All of the lawsuits that are currently in progressed must now be dropped. Not only does this strain the 4th Amendment, to say the least, it's an affront to the US court system. I'm glad there are lawyers who were working on those cases who are going to fight it.

As for how this relates to the presidential race, McCain, who would be expected to vote on something like this abstained because he was campaigning. It is accepted knowledge that he would have voted yes on it, however.

Obama voted yes on it, despite vocalizing his opinions against it earlier, even saying that he would filibuster it, if he had to. I cannot understand what is so drastically different about this version of the bill now that wouldn't merit a "no" vote or even a refusal to vote on it. He basically voted on the same thing that was proposed, still including the retroactive immunity to telecom providors, which he had promised to filibuster.

What gets me is that Hillary Clinton voted no on this. Hillary fucking Clinton votes no on expanding the power of the executive and Obama votes yes. That's a frightening notion.

[Memorize]

I don't mind the government tracking where calls are going and protecting the companies.

So long as they obtain a warrant... which sadly, Congress allows the Government to issue itself warrants.

[Gunter45]

Protecting companies from doing something illegal?

The only reason the government is letting this slide is because they, themselves, told the phone companies to do it. So it's no big deal if companies do something illegal, so long as the government tells them to, right?

[CIX]

Obama votes for the Patriot Act, votes for the new FISA bill, and wants to expand Bush's failed faith based programs. Total change!

[slowerthenb4]

post facto warrants... what a joke. i believe it went into affect today, and already several major lawsuits have been filed by the ACLU.

Its a scary premise isnt it.

[Memorize]

At 7/11/08 05:33 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Protecting companies from doing something illegal?

The powers of the President have always been extended (far more in most cases) during war time.

I don't have a problem with shielding the phone companies. The problem I have is with the government having the ability to write itself warrants.

Government: "Hey..."
Some guy: "You'll need a warrant."

*Takes out pen and paper, hands it to the guy"

Government: "Here you go"

[robattle]

At 7/11/08 05:47 PM, CIX wrote: Obama votes for the Patriot Act, votes for the new FISA bill, and wants to expand Bush's failed faith based programs. Total change!

What will happen when this black dude gets the white house?

[Gunter45]

At 7/11/08 06:35 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't have a problem with shielding the phone companies. The problem I have is with the government having the ability to write itself warrants.

You don't have a problem with the government having the right to declare something legal AFTER it's already been committed and the damages rendered? Isn't it even worse that the only reason why these companies are getting immunity from deliberately mistreating their customers is because the government told them to?

It's not okay to jump the gun on something before it's been made legal. The government being able to do things before it makes them legal and get away with it, in my mind, sets a dangerous precedent.

Government: "Hey..."
Some guy: "You'll need a warrant."

*Takes out pen and paper, hands it to the guy"

Government: "Here you go"

Oh, but there's oversight! The Attorney General is going to be monitoring the guy in charge of wiretapping closely. Which makes sense, because the guy in charge of that is the Attorney General. Nice to see that the government is finally cutting down on some of the bureaucracy and red tape, huh?

[Memorize]

At 7/11/08 08:11 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/11/08 06:35 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't have a problem with shielding the phone companies. The problem I have is with the government having the ability to write itself warrants.

You don't have a problem with the government having the right to declare something legal AFTER it's already been committed and the damages rendered? Isn't it even worse that the only reason why these companies are getting immunity from deliberately mistreating their customers is because the government told them to?

Couldn't we make that case as well even if they obtained a warrant from an actual Judge rather than writing it for themselves?

Just saying.

I mean, we can obtain warrants to tap phone conversations. I don't see the difference in this, during wartime, except that the government can issue itself warrants (which is the problem).

Then you have to ask: How many people is this actually affecting? Especially Americans. When it's already been reported that only affected a mere 100 Americans.

It's not okay to jump the gun on something before it's been made legal. The government being able to do things before it makes them legal and get away with it, in my mind, sets a dangerous precedent.

Yeah, but it's not unheard of.

As far as i'm concerned, i'm just glad we're getting better. We're not suspending Freedom of Speech or Expression as we did the two World Wars, or censoring the media.

Oh, but there's oversight! The Attorney General is going to be monitoring the guy in charge of wiretapping closely. Which makes sense, because the guy in charge of that is the Attorney General. Nice to see that the government is finally cutting down on some of the bureaucracy and red tape, huh?

Not when they can do that.

I know it's wrong to do something that would be considered 'illegal' before making it 'legal'. But protecting phone companies is pretty minor in this case.

[Gunter45]

At 7/11/08 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Couldn't we make that case as well even if they obtained a warrant from an actual Judge rather than writing it for themselves?

It's illegal to tap a phone before you get a warrant. What's more, a good lawyer could probably even get the case thrown out on a mistrial for that.

Not when they can do that.

It was sarcasm. I was just expressing the ridiculousness of making the person in charge of wiretapping and the person overseeing the legality of it the same person.

[Memorize]

At 7/11/08 08:29 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/11/08 08:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Couldn't we make that case as well even if they obtained a warrant from an actual Judge rather than writing it for themselves?

It's illegal to tap a phone before you get a warrant. What's more, a good lawyer could probably even get the case thrown out on a mistrial for that.

I know, i'm just saying in the history of things, it's really not that huge.

And if it really does work doing what it's supposed to do, then yes, i'm going to complain about it, but i'm not going to get worked up though.

Not when they can do that.

It was sarcasm. I was just expressing the ridiculousness of making the person in charge of wiretapping and the person overseeing the legality of it the same person.

And I was emphasizing it!

[adrshepard]

I'm worried that all my international phone calls to my Middle Eastern friend Mohamed Jihad are going to be monitored. We only talk about peaceful topics, like Islam, but I know the computer is going to pick up a keyword, then some analyst will read the transcript. He will invariably find out that I have genital warts, so he will call me and demand 100,000 dollars or else he reveals my disease to my blind girlfriend, who thinks the bumps are nothing more than a mild case of folliculitis. It's 1984 come to life, I tells ya!

Grow some balls, people. FISA itself requires judicial authority, and to be monitored by the government, your phone calls have to be:
1. Incoming from a foreign country.
2. Dialed by a suspected terrorist or terrorist sympathizer.
3. Contain key phrases or terms that trigger an alert on a supercomputer, which sends a copy of the message or speech to an intelligence analyst.

I doubt any of you make phone calls to Canada, let alone Syria or Saudi Arabia, or that you know more than one or two Muslims, if any at all. And even in the outrageously improbable circumstance that whatever you say is going to be read by the government, it's not going to take them long to figure out that you're nothing more than a punk kid whose biggest concern is trying to get laid and not trying to organize an attack from an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell.

You want something to get upset about? How about all the talk of "we can't afford to fight any war for more than a couple years" while we dump hundreds of billions of dollars annually into keeping old, retired, economically useless citizens alive.

[adrshepard]

Edit: "to be monitored by the government without a warrant"

[Gunter45]

If it was really that cut and dry, they really should get a *gasp* fucking warrant.

We all know how the system is supposed to be carried out. That's not the problem. If the government didn't need to be kept in check at all times then there wouldn't be need for ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights, not just that silly 4th Amendment nonsense.

The reason we have the bill of rights is to make sure that the citizens of the United States are not considered potential criminals. There's a reason why we don't have to let the government into our homes, into our cars, into our calls, into our conversations, etc. It's because we own the government. The government is here to serve the citizenry, not to suspect every single one of us. Cutting out the process of getting a court order to monitor the citizenry is completely against the whole point of requiring warrants in the first place.

The oversight in the government is handled by the exact same people doing the wiretapping. Not a different bureau, not a different branch, the same goddamn department. Yeah, there's a whole lot of accountability.

And all this bullshit about the Government needing every advantage possible to find the terrorists is ridiculous. Yes, 9/11 sucked. It sucked hard, I watched it happening while I was in my History class. It was absolutely unreal. It was also the first instance of international terrorism in our nation's history. Not only that, but it is a matter of public knowledge that we had piles of evidence that could have warned us.

The problem isn't a lack of information. We have one of the most extensive intelligence networks in the world. The problem is one of analysis. Our intelligence blunders aren't the result of not knowing what we're doing, it's having the wrong information. Even if wiretapping our citizens without a warrant wasn't a complete disregard for the Constitution, how is inundating the CIA with even MORE information they can't process going to help anything?

[aninjaman]

At 7/11/08 05:47 PM, CIX wrote: Obama votes for the Patriot Act, votes for the new FISA bill, and wants to expand Bush's failed faith based programs. Total change!

Even as an Obama supporter this is bullshit to me. Obama like most Democrats caves every time they are told they are soft on terror and the soft on terror slander will lose Obama the uneducated blue-collar vote that was wooed by Hillary Clinton's position of obliterating Iran.
This is an Keith Olbermann clip that says my views. If Obama opposed the bill he would be soft on terror but he didnt and like Senate Democrats he called it a compramise. Since Obama didnt oppose the bill the GOP is scrambling to label him a flip-flopper. Its all politics as usual and the American public is realizing with every one of Obama's changes that he is a politician as usual just like McCain's flip-flops. Hold on because the real shit-flinging of the election has barely begun.

[adrshepard]

First of all, there's no such thing as "wrong" information. All information is neutral, and the intelligence agencies take nothing at face value, using their best judgment to assess a piece of data's accuracy and reliability. Secondly, it doesn't make any sense at all to purposely limit relevant information just because it requires more work. If anything, communication between a terrorist sympathizer and a citizen of the U.S. would appear to be near the top of the priority list of what should be analyzed.

Third, the effort to detect terrorists is not easy or straightforward. Determining who is or is not a terrorist or a sympathizer is not an exact science, and analysts look for relationships between known terrorists and other suspects. However, because a terrorist spends a large amount a time with a person or gives them money through the internet is not cause enough for a warrant. These activities do not in themselves reasonably prove the person is a terrorist, and so FISA is useless in that scenario.

What the warrantless interception program does is examine the communications of this suspect that are incoming to the US. That way, the analysts have a much better idea who they are dealing with.

Its constitutionality is beyond our reach. None of us are legal experts and there is enough wording in the Constitution (not to mention previous precedents) to seemingly justify anything given the right circumstances. Look at "NSA warrantless surveillance controversy" on wikipedia if you don't believe me.

You can decry the possibility of abuse as loud as you want, but you're going to be forced into standing behind some arbitrary standard. History shows that simply being a judge is no guarantee against corruption, and while you may say the number of people involved limits accountability, I wonder if you know how large or small that number actually is? At what point can you say there is enough oversight to meet your approval?

But it's a moot point. The fact that the public even knows about this program suggests that it was leaked by some "conscientious" tightwad who happened to be involved. The government is full of them. Combine that with a ravenous media, it won't be long until all but the most universally-agreed to be sensitive information will be leaked or made public.