Comments on: The last NSA intercept

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:41:39 +0000

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?”

By: steveegg

steveegg — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:12:27 +0000

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.

By: Repack Rider

Repack Rider — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:04:58 +0000

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.