Senate Passes Expanded Warrantless Search Bill

JaJae · 08-04-2007, 09:55 AM

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

The Senate in all their wisdom caved in to GOP pressure and passed a bill that allows the US government to spy on US citizens communicating with people overseas.

What part of the constitution does this NOT violate? It's getting to the point now where all this PATRIOT ACT and domestic spying stuff is going too far. Enough is enough already.

WickedLou9 · 08-04-2007, 10:22 AM

ugh. Hopefully the house will refuse to pass it, they are a bit more fiesty. The program is patently illegal and there is no sound justification for it.. unless of course you believe that the government interest in conducting such searches outweighs the infringement on individual rights. I don't think it does but i'm sure some people do.

Something I found in researching my paper

As the Supreme Court has emphasized repeatedly, “[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Knights, 534 U.S. at 118-19 (quotation marks omitted); see also Earls, 536 U.S. at 829. The Supreme Court has found a search reasonable when, under the totality of the circumstances, the importance of the governmental interests outweighs the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests. See Knights, 534 U.S. at 118-22. [1]

[1]http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonnsalegalauthorities.pdf Page 39

This is a pretty big IF, but it's their best arguement. The other parts of thier justification are nonsense, IE that the Auhtorization to use military force allows the president to circumvent FISA which is a ridiculous proposition.
They really rest alot of thier case on the fact that they are conducting foreign intelligence, which is also not entirely true.
We need to mandate compliance with FISA. If I am not mistaken, FISA already allows for retroactive wiretaps.
The one problem I see here is that FISA specifcaly leaves room open for future statues, so if congress does authorize the program, challenging it will be next to impossible.

It is prohibited by FISA to “engage . . . in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1)

....except as authorized by statute. .....If congress authorizes it, FISA permits it and it's lawful.

So I am REALLY hoping that the House gets fiesty and refuses to pass it.

WickedLou9 · 08-04-2007, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). Indeed, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to see that this is true.

Benjamin Franklin: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

kinggovernor · 08-04-2007, 11:03 AM

glad to see that our government can get back to protecting us

WickedLou9 · 08-04-2007, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

glad to see that our government can get back to protecting us

kinggovernor · 08-04-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

we need this bill to keep America safe and that is why it passed with such an overwhelming vote.

Scrum · 08-04-2007, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we need this bill to keep America safe and that is why it passed with such an overwhelming vote.

Really? What does this bill allow them to do that FISA doesn't? Not need a piece of paper and allow oversight? Why on earth would they need to get rid of those things unless they were going to abuse their new powers?

kinggovernor · 08-04-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Really? What does this bill allow them to do that FISA doesn't? Not need a piece of paper and allow oversight? Why on earth would they need to get rid of those things unless they were going to abuse their new powers?

for the same reason President Bush approved the old plan, there is a backlog if FISA is followed. It is a timing issue

JaJae · 08-04-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Why on earth would they need to get rid of those things

Faster responses. By the time you get authority to monitor a call, the call is probably over.

Scrum · 08-04-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Faster responses. By the time you get authority to monitor a call, the call is probably over.

Umm, you can get warrants after the fact. You don't have to wait, you just need oversight.

WickedLou9 · 08-04-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

we need this bill to keep America safe and that is why it passed with such an overwhelming vote.

That's a false assumption. We can keep America safe, which I agree is an important goal, without infringing on our constitutionaly protected rights.

If there is a backlog in FISA, we don't need to circumvent FISA, they just need more employees. hire more people, get rid of the backlog, keep america safe, don't violate our rights.

Thorgrim · 08-04-2007, 12:37 PM

it failed in the House...so...no bill yet, sorry

Rouger2 · 08-04-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

it failed in the House...so...no bill yet, sorry

There should be no wire taps without court approval and public over sight by our reps. These people who are running on fear and don't believe in the American system are dangerous.

RMNIXON · 08-04-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

The Senate in all their wisdom caved in to GOP pressure and passed a bill that allows the US government to spy on US citizens communicating with people overseas.

What part of the constitution does this NOT violate? It's getting to the point now where all this PATRIOT ACT and domestic spying stuff is going too far. Enough is enough already.

Why should a communication that leaves the United States be protected?

By what authority?

I mean if we need to intercept with subs in international water we should do that. How can you extend privacy right all over the planet when the law resides in the United States?

motivez · 08-04-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

By what authority?

By FISA's authority.

motivez · 08-04-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

glad to see that our government can get back to protecting us

Yeah, abandoning the principles the nation was founded on is a great idea

RMNIXON · 08-04-2007, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

By FISA's authority.

FISA is in the Constitution?

motivez · 08-04-2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

FISA is in the Constitution?

RMNIXON · 08-04-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, abandoning the principles the nation was founded on is a great idea

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?