The following is a NSA intercept, in progress as word got to the agency that a Carterista lawgiver/warlord-in-black decided that such intercepts were no longer necessary only a few days after such intercepts were instrumental in stopping the planned bombing of a bunch of UK-to-US airliners. It was handed to me already translated from the original Arabic:
UAMV #1 – Unidentified Arabic Male Voice #1, originating somewhere in South Asia
UAMV #2 – Unidentified Arabic Male Voice #2, originating somewhere in the United States
UAMV #1 – Hello, al-Zawahiri residence, Ayman speaking
UAMV #2 – It’s so good to hear your voice again, dear leader. I have good news to…
UAMV #1 – Achmed von Muhammad, how many times did I tell you to not call me at home? Don’t you know that the American NSA is trying to find you operatives and me?
UAMV #2 – But that’s just the thing. There’s this Carter-appointed lawgiver-in-black, Allah praise the Peanut Farmer, that just stopped the NSA from trying to find us. Thanks to the indidel wench Anna Diggs Taylor, they can’t trace any more phone calls that have an American component without a FISA warrant, and with our allies on the FISA court blocking the attempts at warrants that actually target us, we’re in the clear.
UAMV #1 – Allah be praised. May he give me Taylor as one of my virgins in Paradise. She probably can’t handle the action, but there will be 71 more for me to break in. We’ll have to start routing all our communications through the Great Satan. The infidel Karl Marx was right; the West will give us all the tools we need to destroy them.
UAMV #2 – May Allah clone Taylor so all my 72 virgins are her after I do my part in Operation Final Jihad. Now, let’s get down to business. Most of our preparations for Operation Final Jihad are ready. Did you want to review the methods, targets, and precise timing one more time?
UAMV #1 – Certainly, now that the American pigs can’t trace…
(Transcript ends abruptly as the team monitoring this call get the word they can’t continue)
NSA Technician – What the hell? We were just about to get the goods on stopping a major attack on us
NSA Lawyer – I know, but you heard the judge. We can’t do this anymore. Make sure you erase the tape as well, because we can’t use anything from it thanks to the lack of a warrant.
NSA Technician – Damn it.
When did the United States become a nation of cowards, eager to give away rights bought for them with the blood of patriots?
I would rather take my chances with terrorists than to cancel the Constitution, but there are people in this country who are such spineless cowards that if someone says, “I’ll protect you from the boogieman as long as you give up your rights,” they will sign them away in a heartbeat.
It doesn’t seem to matter that the person reassuring them is a former military deserter who got a warning that Al Qaeda was going to strike our country, and went on vacation, then read to a second grade class when the event he had been warned about happened.
I am a patriot, but apprently a lot of people think that is no longer fashionable.
First things first, I thank you for your service.
Until yesterday, the protections of the US Constitution did not extend to foreign nationals actively waging war against the US operating on foreign soil and not in the custody of an American official (one side of the foreign-surveillance equation). Also, until yesterday, the standard of allowable surveillance was whichever side had the lesser legal requirements.
I have a question for you; if you communicated with someone that was the target of a warrant, and you found out that the government was monitoring those communications, would you object because only the other party was the subject of that warrant? If you’re consistent with your screed, you would. In your world, virtually every criminal investigation would instantly become stalled in endless runs to the court to expand the warrant to cover every single possible combination of communicants.
Until yesterday, the protections of the US Constitution did not extend to foreign nationals actively waging war against the US operating on foreign soil and not in the custody of an American official (one side of the foreign-surveillance equation).
No do they today. You must be talking about a different ruling, or using a hyperbolic talking point. This ruling applied only to conversations in which one of the conversants was an American citizen speaking from a phone in the United States. The party outside the country has no Fourth Amendment rights, but the American citizen does.
Also, until yesterday, the standard of allowable surveillance was whichever side had the lesser legal requirements.
Wrong, and you just failed eighth grade civics. The standard of allowable surveillance is determined by the Fourth Amendment. It is called “probable cause.”
if you communicated with someone that was the target of a warrant, and you found out that the government was monitoring those communications, would you object because only the other party was the subject of that warrant?
I would object to any conversation by ANY American that was intercepted without a warrant issued on the basis of probable cause.
The Constitution and all that. ‘Cause I’m one of those damned patriots who believes it should be defended against all enemies DOMESTIC and foreign.
If you’re consistent with your screed, you would.
Unclear, but as I pointed out, I have a SINGLE interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, and I apply it to all hypotheticals. You want to listen in on a phone call? No problem, it’s done all the time, and I approve as long as you get a search warrant.
Keeps me consistent with, um, the Constitution.
In your world, virtually every criminal investigation would instantly become stalled in endless runs to the court to expand the warrant to cover every single possible combination of communicants.
Incorrect. I do not know how you became so misinformed, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the warrant to be issued retroactively, up to 72 hours after the intercept.
The kicker is that you had to have probable cause before the intercept to make it. It’s the same standard that has been applied to criminal investigations since 1787 and the country seems to have survived.
I do not know how a judge is supposed to rule in the case of such arrogance that the defendants ADMITTED violating the law. If you were a judge, and a defendant bragged about violating federal law, wouldn’t you have to rule against him just to maintain self-respect?
You didn’t address the patriotism v. cowardice aspect of giving up a right bought for you with the blood of patriots because you are scared of some foreign thug hiding in a cave. If Osama hates us for our freedom, then the last damn thing I’m going to do for him is give some of it up.
Do you consider some amendments more important than others? When they come for your guns, will you surrender the Second Amendment as easily as you gave up the Fourth? What if it’s “for your own safety?” Don’t you want to be “safe?”