Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Extending the Warrantless Wiretapping Act
wiedzmin writes "The U.S. House of Representatives voted 301-118 today, in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act until December 31st, 2017, effectively reauthorizing the broad electronic eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program."
"that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program"
Sorry for the tangent, but I have a question. Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators? In other words, should the people involved in warrantless wiretapping before our hideously evil overlords legalized this rape of our rights be culpable for their crimes?
Also, someone do us the favor of linking to a list of the despicable scum in the House who voted in favor of further rape today.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.
Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya?
And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?
And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.
Your life is worth nothing if you are not free.
If you are not free, you are merely a commodity. A resource to be used in the furtherance of your controller's desires.
Controversial legislation will attempt to lull some opponents by having a "Sunset" provision where the law will expire or require some sort of a reauthorization. The thought is "Okay we need it for right now but it is far too terrible to make permanent." When that time comes they always pass or are made permanent. Proponents argue "We've already spent all this money to implement it, no sense in squandering it now", "It is just so useful and important it is absurd to abandon it", or "Termination of the program would cause the layoffs of thousands of government & contract workers (in my jurisdiction)." PATRIOT Act did this too. Not to mention taxes and tolls as well. Government just cannot resist getting bigger. And yes, as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter which political party is in power when they pass. As soon as another party takes over for a term they really start to love these new powers and suddenly their criticism vanishes along with their promises to repeal.
How do you think these dicks fund themselves? They hook up the Founding Fathers to some dynamos and sell the electricity.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
He's going to sign it...but he didn't mean to.
He's going to fight for our civil rights next year. He promises. Honest.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
So 111/191 Dems in the House, presumbly all who might be described as actually liberal or left-leaning (Including my own, Peter de Fazio), vote against this seditious legislation.
Liberal and civil rights supporter Ron Wyden has put a hold on the corresponding act in the Senate, as he has on multiple such acts in the past.
Meanwhile, the Republicans (both in Congress and in the media) make emotional appeals to fear to explain why we must give up our rights in order to be safe and preserve our "Freedom," and ever since 9/11 have openly and vehemently accused anyone who questions the nascent police state of being unpatriotic, unamerican and traitors.
But you're right, clearly both sides are equally as bad. But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?
It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.
If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.
Read it and weep:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
Understand where you're coming from, but let's not forget that a major part of the support of Mr Hope & Change was from people who understood his position to be against warrantless wiretapping, and this bill wouldn't be on any agenda if Obama had actually been the person with that position.
We're best off voting for a third party at this election for President (Congress is more of a local matter and can't be generalized like that.) No matter who wins, we will get this crap anyway. At the very least, though, votes for a third party for President are votes that analysts will recognize as votes that could have been for a major party, had either one shown any principle whatsoever.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569.. Might not be there long
They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.
I really like America and I really hate to say this ---
America is no longer the land of the free
It has become the land of the free to be wiretapped, without warrant, without due process, without any valid reason
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack. But considering the freedoms and rights to privacy that we've sacrificed in the process, I'd choose to live my life in pre-9/11 vulnerability, than a reality where everything I say and do is being recorded and monitored. I feel like "terrorism" has still won.
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
don't parrot back to me what you think *should* be. we're probably in agreement on what *should* be. but answer me, what current gov, that has any core routers of its own, is *not* tapping and scanning and capturing and thresholding and triggering (all in hardware, these days)?
anyone who can buy or get their hands on top-end router and switch gear can install it and tap all they like. its not too expensive (for govs) and its very tempting to any human being with that much power.
the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.
so go ahead, name me a country that is wired (has some internet ability for its citizens), or is even voice-connected, and is not checking on its population using tech means?
deal with the fact that this is a human problem, not a US or UK or aussie or whatever problem.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
---
Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."
Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But the --"
Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."
Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."
Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"
Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."
Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "
Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'" ( h/t Dale)
-- Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January.
----
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
" Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment."
"It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself."
--- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 1981-2005 (resigned)
*"Cogito Ergo Liberalis"*
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
Nice try, buckwheat, but you ain't fooling nobody.
I am not talking about other countries. I am talking about the United States of America - The Land Of The Free
Where "Liberty to All" is thing that supposed to differentiate the United States of America from the rest
This is also the country where "Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death" has been taught in history lessons, to all students
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
How is your question remotely relevant? You appare to be making the same kind of argument that Newt Gingrich did when he said we shouldn't permit the building of the "911 mosque" until Saudia Arabia permits christian churchs in their country.
In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.
the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.
That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..
When information is power, privacy is freedom.