Bush is holding a news conference today to pressure Congress to pass an intelligence bill that'll make it easier for the government to spy on its citizens suspected of being involved in "terrorism". In other words, he wants the government to be able to listen to your phone conversations and read your emails whenever they feel like it, without having to go through legal channels and obtain a warrant for doing so. And this isn't a new thing, this is a renewal of a temporary bill that has expired which had already given them this legal immunity.
Fascism is spreading through this country in the name of homeland security and all the people do is roll over and accept it thinking it's somehow related to protecting us from "terrorism". We've got to stop accepting these breaches of our civil liberties and let them know we won't stand for it. I'm sorry, I thought this was America and the Fourth Amendment afforded us a bit of privacy from Big Brother.
Fascism is spreading through this country in the name of homeland security and all the people do is roll over and accept it thinking it's somehow related to protecting us from "terrorism". We've got to stop accepting these breaches of our civil liberties and let them know we won't stand for it. I'm sorry, I thought this was America and the Fourth Amendment afforded us a bit of privacy from Big Brother.
Excerpt from a famous recorded interview of Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials by Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
6 comments:
I apologize but I will comment on this, Dude you know better than to really believe all this liberal propaganda stuff you read/hear. You have much more common sense than this. I like to believe it prompts a response and you are playing the socialist foil to our Right views.
I think the vast majority of what's said by both sides, Liberal and Conservative, is nothing more than propaganda meant to distract the populace. I don't trust much of anything that I see or hear anywhere in the media, especially if it has anything to do with politics or politicians. I'm not blindly making a statement based on that.
This is just how I see it: If any US government agency, from the local police to the FBI, sees a need to tap into communications made a citizen of this country, then they must prove probable cause and get a warrant beforehand. Using scare tactics and the threat of terrorism to bypass that process is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I'm sorry, but the fourth amendment portion of your post is completely wrong. The law in question "continues to require a court order to conduct electronic surveillance or physical search when targeting persons located in the United States." Also "the bill clarified confusion in current law by allowing the National Security Agency to collect purely foreign communications in the future without a warrant." As you know, foreigners do not have fourth amendment rights. If one of the parties located outside of the US is indeed a US citizen, the foreign national the US citizen is speaking to has to be a subject of an intelligence probe, as determined and reviewed by Senate oversight and intelligence officials in order for the surveillance to take place.
Of course, it is easy to buy into the fear mongering and scare tactics of the left when they try to frighten the American people into believing that Big Brother Bush is listening to your phone call with Aunt Helen.
But if Aunt Helen is in Afghanistan and is speaking of future operations, then perhaps you should be worried. Otherwise, you can safely assume that nobody is listening to your conversation about your attempt at making apple pie.
George W. Bush, February 13, 2008: "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison. To carry out their plans, they must communicate with each other, they must recruit operatives, and they must share information.
"It is time for Congress to ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. It is time for Congress to pass a law that provides a long-term foundation to protect our country. And they must do so immediately...The lives of countless Americans depend on our ability to monitor these communications. Our intelligence professionals must be able to find out who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they're planning. "
It's easy to fall for the fear mongering and scare tactics of the Right's propaganda too. Especially when we're constantly inundated with rhetoric like the above. FISA already gave the government all the tools it needed to surveil for "terrorist" communication that crosses our borders. We don't need the amendment of the Protect America Act of 2007 added to it.
You still didn't address the initial problems with your fourth amendment argument. Please tell me why we don't need additional tools to fight terrorism, as FISA alone did wonders in stopping the multitude of bombings that claimed American lives before the Protect America Act.
Since the act, there have been how many bombings of innocent Americans?
The Fourth Amendment states that any search and/or seizure cannot be done without a warrant "supported by Oath or affirmation" and that warrant must describe the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.
The Protect America Act of 2007 allows for the long-term and widespread surveillance of international communication without obtaining a warrant. It does not stipulate how it obtains the info, what info it collects, or for what purpose it will use the info at all.
It bypasses the Fourth Amendment first by allowing the government to conduct warrantless surveillance and second by allowing it to collect any and all information it wants without stipulating what or why it's surveilling to begin with.
FISA allows for surveillance to begin without a warrant as long as one is obtained within 72 hours. So if we think something's happening and we can't delay, listen in and then talk to the FISA Court within 3 days. In the 30 years FISA has been on the books, 5 applications for warrants were rejected and almost 23,000 were approved. The intelligence community looks to be using FISA rather well.
Post a Comment