Various FISA threads

[Lazarus]

You know, Kevin Bacon might not be a terrorist, but he may have crossed paths with one.

" Significant purpose " and " target " leaves much leeway.

Viola Lee may not be a target, nor may I. But I will admit that I do engage in some illegal behavior from time to time. Since Independence Day is coming up, I will give that scenario.

I go overboard on pyrotechnics - I buy the class B/1.3G. Those are considered illegal for the average Lazarus to possess.

What were to happen if another of Kevin Bacons' acquaintances mentioned that Mr. Lazarus put on a Hell of a good fireworks display?

" Minimization " guidelines should preclude the authorities from acting on this information - except that those guidelines are established by those entrusted not to circumvent existing law for expediency. And we all know just how well that worked.

Should a warrant be required before action can be taken against me ? Should the evidence gathered under these FISA regulations be admissible in a traditional courtroom ?
Or, most likely, would the authorities act upon this information without any specific warrant ; and then assert at trial that because I was not the " target " of the controlling FISA warrant, which was issued to " significantly " surveil suspected terrorists, and the minimization standards were met - that I was lawfully arrested and my residence was lawfully searched - all without the need for any warrants.
And discovery is off-limits to me because all of that information is classified.

Sounds good to me. There is no way that this POS bill could be a detriment to the average citizen; if you're not a " terrorist ", you've nothing to worry about. (/ insert sarcasm smilie here )

[Bourne]

Originally Posted by malrenalds

Bourne Grim you two have shown nothing but contempt for the foundations of this nation, and the liberty for witch it was created. And quite frankly are what is wrong with this country.

How utterly absurd and arrogant of you. And try using spell check once in awhile. It's WHICH, not WITCH.

[Bourne]

Originally Posted by ViolaLee

Dude, if they are data mining, that means all of our calls are being monitored. Remember, Bush didn't use FISA for very long time. That's ILLEGAL wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant.

So what? If it assists in obtaining intelligence regarding potential terrorist activities then I'm all for it.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Bourne

So what? If it assists in obtaining intelligence regarding potential terrorist activities then I'm all for it.

Violating the constitution of the United States is a gargantuan SO WHAT? I will reiterate my position that if there is a terrorist and a legitimate need to have surveillance on his/her call, warrants sould still be given. They even have a provision that if it is surveillance they need NOW ASAP, they can go ahead and do it and then request warrant within 3 days. Getting warrants from the FISA Court DOES NOT SLOW DOWN SURVEILLANCE. And this removes all rationale to not have a warrant. So my next question would have to be WHAT IS BUSH TRYING TO HIDE?

What if Bush wanted to do a gargantuan Watergate and tap all Democratic offices for an unfair election advantage? WHO IS THE TO STOP HIM?

[malrenalds]

Originally Posted by Bourne

How utterly absurd and arrogant of you. And try using spell check once in awhile. It's WHICH, not WITCH.

Why would spell check fix that? It was the wrong word not misspelled. And my poor word choice aside, the point still stands.

[Bourne]

Originally Posted by malrenalds

Why would spell check fix that? It was the wrong word not misspelled. And my poor word choice aside, the point still stands.

Point? What point? You haven't made a point. Just the same tired evil government and evil those who support the government nonsense.

[Bourne]

Originally Posted by Michael

Violating the constitution of the United States is a gargantuan SO WHAT? I will reiterate my position that if there is a terrorist and a legitimate need to have surveillance on his/her call, warrants sould still be given. They even have a provision that if it is surveillance they need NOW ASAP, they can go ahead and do it and then request warrant within 3 days. Getting warrants from the FISA Court DOES NOT SLOW DOWN SURVEILLANCE. And this removes all rationale to not have a warrant. So my next question would have to be WHAT IS BUSH TRYING TO HIDE?

What if Bush wanted to do a gargantuan Watergate and tap all Democratic offices for an unfair election advantage? WHO IS THE TO STOP HIM?

Ah, the "what if" factor. The old standby reasoning of the left. If you can't demonstrate that some action is wrong then play the "what if" card.

[malrenalds]

Bourne, Grim you two have shown nothing but contempt for the foundations of this nation, and the liberty for which it was created. And quite frankly are what is wrong with this country.

This was pretty much my point.

But to clarify for the slow kids in the class.

Liberty is the strongest founding principal in this nation.

Not economic power, Christianity, military might or security. I know this is a disappointment to whats left of the looser group that gave us GWB.

And to give Immunity to those who would help destroy that liberty is out of the question. They broke the law!!

Where is your Crime and punishment mantra now? Does it not matter when they are republican golf buddies?

We don't have to sell out individual liberty to have a safe society. You and the rest of the kool-aide drinkers need to learn that.

And the fact that you bought that crap hook line and sinker, Is what is wrong with this country.

Is that clear enough for you or should I make a pop up book for you "Me and my friend the fracking bill of rights".

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by Bourne

So what? If it assists in obtaining intelligence regarding potential terrorist activities then I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by Michael

What if Bush wanted to do a gargantuan Watergate and tap all Democratic offices for an unfair election advantage? WHO IS THE TO STOP HIM?

Originally Posted by Bourne

Ah, the "what if" factor. The old standby reasoning of the left. If you can't demonstrate that some action is wrong then play the "what if" card.

Someone who uses the " if " scenario has no business criticizing ( and less credibility than ) one who uses the " what if " scenario.

Especially when BushCo hides any proof of either scenario behind the same wall of secrecy.

[Lazarus]

Amendment update -

Votes scheduled on 8 July.
3 amendments.
1) strike immunity.( simple majority )
2) voids immunity if telcos actions were uncontitutional ( 4th Amendment )
( 60 vote threshold )
3) stays court cases against telcos for 90 days pending IG report on surveillance activities. ( 60 vote threshold )




All are set up to fail. Unless...... Independence Day causes reflection.