NSA Surveillance Program

This is a discussion on NSA Surveillance Program within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by packinnova And exactly who keeps them in check? Just so. And the acknowledgment of that simple reality is about as patriotic and ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53

Thread: NSA Surveillance Program

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,227
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    And exactly who keeps them in check?
    Just so.

    And the acknowledgment of that simple reality is about as patriotic and pro crime fighting as it gets. Foreign AND domestic, remember. Foreign AND domestic.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Right, but what defines enemy communications?
    Enemy communications is when Americans (or anyone else) call or receive calls from known terrorists. Do you think that privacy trumps conspiracy to engage in war against the United States?

    Seems to me they're listening to whatever they want of US communications and then deciding whether or not they're enemies?
    Do you have evidence for your accusation? Does it seem to you because Katie Couric told you on the nightly news?

    And exactly who keeps them in check?
    And who keeps the checkers in check?

    Isn't it interesting that a predominantly democratic Congress with a leftist/liberal leaning leadership passed this legislation? Kind of makes you think it is in the best interest of the United States...which it is.

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Enemy communications is when Americans (or anyone else) call or receive calls from known terrorists. Do you think that privacy trumps conspiracy to engage in war against the United States?

    Sure hope that terrorists don't know how to use smoke signals

    I'm trying to ease some of this debate up
    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  5. #34
    Member Array Banzai Jimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    61
    My fingers are crossed that it passes.

    Because of the bad choices in the past, there's so many checks and balances in place to ensure that noone is spying on undeserving people that I don't have any worries of misuse/abuse of the privileges to try to better defend this country.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,227
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you think that privacy trumps conspiracy to engage in war against the United States?
    Unwarranted spying trumps it all, seemingly. That's the problem.

    Appropriate oversight via third-party review (aka warrants) and the curbing of the worst abuses can coexist with fighting the crimes and war against the people. Making the claim hardly makes one less interested in the fight. It merely makes one demanding that the fight be honorable, without leaving a bloody trail of dishonorable actions against upstanding citizens in its wake.

    Isn't it interesting that a predominantly democratic Congress with a leftist/liberal leaning leadership passed this legislation? Kind of makes you think it is in the best interest of the United States...which it is.
    It's an election year. No politician or would-be politician wants to have the voters' eyes off the ball in a nasty fight as to lack of patriotism at a time when each gang is fighting to retain (or regain) footing at the reins of power. The last thing politicos need is to have debates over the warrantless nature of it all bleed all over the news for the next 5mos.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  7. #36
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you have evidence for your accusation? Does it seem to you because Katie Couric told you on the nightly news?
    Uncalled for. I apologize.

  8. #37
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Unwarranted spying trumps it all, seemingly. That's the problem.
    Unwarrant? Good choice of words. It is warranted though someimes without a warrant.

    Appropriate oversight via third-party review (aka warrants) and the curbing of the worst abuses can coexist with fighting the crimes and war against the people.
    The real problem here is the third party review, i.e. the courts. The courts have no reasonable cause to allow or disallow listening to terrorist concerstations. The have no expertise at all in the process. They insert themselves in the rocess not to protect anyone, but rather to further their own plotical abitions and power.

    Making the claim hardly makes one less interested in the fight. It merely makes one demanding that the fight be honorable, without leaving a bloody trail of dishonorable actions against upstanding citizens in its wake.
    Making an irresponsible claim in the name of some trampled right is of no use to nyone.

    It's an election year. No politician or would-be politician wants to have the voters' eyes off the ball in a nasty fight as to lack of patriotism at a time when each gang is fighting to retain (or regain) footing at the reins of power. The last thing politicos need is to have debates over the warrantless nature of it all bleed all over the news for the next 5mos.
    The Court has already embarrassed themselves with allowing the captured enemy rights that even US citizens do not enjoy. The Court determined that you must give up your property if someone will pay higher taxes. The Court has inserted itself in areas in which it is not wanted, has no Constitutional authority, and has no expertise. The Court is not a check n governmental power, it is usurping the power of the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the power/rights of the people.

    The Court is a cruel joke that is making our country more susceptible to attack. Court oversight?

  9. #38
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,751
    Maybe I am just sort of numb to this after working fifteen years where every phone call or radio transmission was recorded. It doesn't really bother me that much. One thing I have noticed over the years though is a persons "expectation of privacy" is sometimes greatly different from what the courts say it should be. Anyone logging on to this forum at their office should know that if you are using the employers equipment, they can read everything you look at ( including e-mail) and everything you send. One of the big things when cell phones were first becoming popular that folks didn't know was that (at that time, might be different now) since the cell phone was a radio and the airwaves were "public property" conversations on them were in the public domain.
    Some states have "two party" consent for audio recordings, others don't.
    IIRC if we were both in Maryland I needed your consent to record our phone conversation. If I called you from Virginia I didn't. I could not just stick a microphone under the counter at Dunkin Donuts to record you without your permission in Maryland, but if I added a camera and was shooting video (without your knowledge) I could use that same microphone for my audio feed and everything is fine.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #39
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    43,834
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    So if you WERE NOT carrying WMD's lets say...internally where they don't belong(how exactly can one word that without getting kicked), then you wouldn't mind if they had "in-processing" stations set up at every other street corner just like a jail-house and randomly selecting folks walking by for "internal probing" to search for said WMD's that may or may not exist up there in the chance that you just might be a terrorist trying to blow yourself up in a crowded place?

    Same old tired argument..."I don't have anything to hide so they can search all day long".
    My comment was only directed at the monitoring of phone conversations on a military base.

    Having to 'show your papers' on every corner is something different. I understand that the loss of liberty is a downhill slope...I stop at the phone taps...I'm sure 'they' have been doing that for years anyway.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,227
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    They [courts] insert themselves in the rocess ...
    The Constitution inserts them into the process. It's certainly not due to any vaunted and wonderful expertise that the third-party role provides which the originating function (in this case, the surveillance group) otherwise has. That's not the point. It's for purposes of third-party consideration. If a case of potential abuse of a person's rights cannot be justified simply to another party, the oversight party, then by golly it shouldn't be done. Certainly, "experts" in the surveillance business can "dumb it down" sufficiently in order to explain it clearly to a third-party oversight group, yet still maintain the skill of execution when it does get the nod.

    Making an irresponsible claim in the name of some trampled right is of no use to nyone.
    "Irresponsible" claim? To demand that the Constitution's requirement for third-party (judicial) warranting be executed? Jeez. Have we fallen so far that this simple requirement is considered an irresponsible act?

    Of trampled rights, ask the trampled. If you've ever been in those shoes, consider how differently it felt than heckling from the cheap seats. Nobody else may care, the tramplers most specifically, but surely the trampled care deeply about having to bend over most energetically by an abusive authority without limits or control. In short, that's the function of the warrants system, ideally, to force the airing of such attempts in the hopes that it'll help ensure some transparency, some honorable consideration in the acts, thus avoiding absolute power corruption.

    The Court has already embarrassed themselves with allowing the captured enemy rights that even US citizens do not enjoy.
    They're also humans, having been doled out the normal and customary dose of stupidity along with the rest of everyone else, at birth.

    The point is, ruling from the bench is NOT the issue when it comes to being a simple third-party oversight mechanism to help (not guarantee, but help) ensure that an otherwise secretive and easy-to-abuse authority group (the surveillance or law enforcement community) is thinking through the process and can explain it in simple enough terms that another can see the justification.

    ie, Mom might not understand the need to go hiking up that mountain, for no apparent cause, but certainly she can understand and appreciate the need in the event of someone being trapped on that mountain. Doesn't mean she must have expertise at climbing or searching that mountain, but it does mean that her ability to give the approval for the climb is sufficiently easy once the urgency/need is explained. In my view, the requirement for the oversight function of legally demanding warrants prior to executing these sorts of powers is much like that. It holds the potential to help curb abuse.

    The Court determined that you must give up your property if someone will pay higher taxes. The Court has inserted itself in areas in which it is not wanted, has no Constitutional authority, and has no expertise.
    Yes, abuses have occurred, and many of those at the hands of judges themselves. Ain't nothin' for certain in this life.

    The Court is not a check n governmental power, it is usurping the power of the Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the power/rights of the people.
    Yes, there too. Altering laws from the bench is a bad element of bad people making dishonorable decisions about the course of things. Doesn't mean the function and role of the judiciary is useless or vicious. It just means that a series of judges more interested in usurpation of power have let their whims supercede their judgment.

    The Court is a cruel joke that is making our country more susceptible to attack.
    In some cases, I'll grant all of that. That dishonorable people in the surveillance crowd are not gettin' "love" from the judiciary in an honorable fashion doesn't mean that the simple, low-level oversight function provided by the warranting process cannot work. It just means that abusive and dishonorable humans can occupy any role.

    Am laughing (and crying) along with you, here. It's ugly and its farcical, at times. Yet, if allowed to be done in absolute secrecy, such absolute power will corrupt absolutely ... sure as sunshine. At minimum, it's a hope and guard against that. Doesn't mean it'll work everytime, no. But without even attempting it, due to past farcical and dishonorable handling by power-mongering and/or stupid judges, means we'll get what we get faster than any other method.

    Which brings us to Congress. Unsurprisingly, the entire lot of dishonorable types occupying those "rented" seats have also usurped much of the power in money brokering and ignored their oversight role completely. THEY should be monitoring and helping to manage things, helping to demand the process works smoothly as well. Where are they? Fiddling while it burns, unsurprisingly.

    Still, without even attempting the Constitutional role of required warrants before searches/seizures, then we simply might as well flush the whole thing down the toilet and start over anyway. Me, I'd prefer to flush the chaff and keep the wheat, if possible. At least, it's worth trying.

    In the end, if none of this makes sense, let's dumb it down still further. You're targeted, without warrants. Without justification, either. Claims are made. Claims that are hard to refute. You get arrested and hauled off to some hidden place, to be tortured, rolled and coated, being spit out the backside completely changed. It need not be Guantanamo or a "rendition" facility. It may only be "downtown" to explain yourself. Either way, it's "men in gray" doing the hauling, and you've got little recourse. It was all a farce, they got it wrong, 'cause you weren't planning anything. At that moment: wouldn't a warrant process have been preferable? That's the hope. It's as simple as that.

    Recall Franklin's words about trading liberty for temporary safety and deserving neither. Not even wanting to attempt guards and protections ... well, I can't say what such folks should deserve as reward. But, if it's not even attempted then you get what you get. We're seeing a lot of that now, sad and infuriating as it is. Such is life in a corrupted society. In many ways, it would be simpler to blow it all down the drain and start over, ugly as that would be.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,196
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Uncalled for. I apologize.
    No worries. We all tend to cut it a bit close on these kind of threads. I think some of mine may have come across a bit ...harsh. No offense intended. Just trying to get the point across. Besides...it's good to have a lively argument every now and then .
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #42
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Nixon was villified beyond comprehension. His actions pale in comparison to the illegal activities of selling classified information to the Chinese, for example. Besides his wage/price controls, which are the mantra of liberals, he was an excellent President. He had the unfortunate problem of a democratic Congress and public opinion of the hippy generation that forced him to lose the Vietnam War, which subsequently caused the death of over a million innocent people.
    +1 Nixon was the unfortunate recipient of the times and fell into the hands of two reporters out to make a name for themselves. LBJ had 10 times as much stuff to be charged with but the press ignored it. I often ask what was Nixon actually found guilty of or what was he actually charged with. Very few can answer that question. Much like those who say that Clinton was almost impeached for having sex in the White House.

  14. #43
    Member Array AgentX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    476
    Clinton was impeached.

  15. #44
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 35,670'
    Posts
    11,617

    Post

    WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK:

    The best news about yesterday's White House-Democrat deal on overseas eavesdropping is that the ACLU and the anti-antiterror Internet mob are apoplectic. This can only be good for U.S. national security. Too bad the compromise also comes at the cost of a further erosion of Presidential war powers.

    The deal would extend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover eavesdropping on terrorist communications overseas. A six-month extension the Protect America Act expired earlier this year and surveillance authorization on al Qaeda targets will start to expire in August. The new deal assuming it isn't defeated by liberals on the House floor would last for six years. It is thus a gift to the next President, who won't have to spend capital battling those who think that letting our spooks read al Qaeda's email inevitably means that Dick Cheney is bugging your bedroom.

    On the bright side, the deal gives crucial immunity to the telecom companies that in good faith assisted this surveillance after 9/11. A reality of this Internet era is that the feds need these private companies to monitor terrorists; our spies can't merely bug the phones of Russian spies like they could during the Cold War. The left understands this and has hit the companies with some 40 lawsuits in an attempt to shut down the surveillance by the backdoor, without a political debate that voters might understand.

    The telecom (and other) companies have thus made it clear that they can't afford to cooperate any longer without immunity. And so the deal will let the companies escape the lawsuits, for past and future cooperation, if they present to a federal judge a certification from the Attorney General that they are helping at federal request. The eavesdropping orders that expire in August can thus be renewed, so our security services won't have to "go dark" over the global antiterror battlefield.

    The steep price of this authority is that from now on all of these overseas eavesdropping orders will require advance approval by a special FISA court of rotating judges. This will apply even to emails or calls that emanate in, say, Peshawar and never leave Pakistan except that by the accident of our Internet age they may happen to move through American switching networks.

    The deal does carve out an exception to this judicial preapproval for "exigent circumstances" involving urgent threats, but the FISA judges would still have to approve after the fact. No other nation in the world, to our knowledge, requires such deference to judges when tracking foreign enemies abroad.

    This judicial review is supposedly to check abuses by the executive. But it also imposes a judge in the middle of the wartime chain of command. A judge, moreover, who may have no special intelligence expertise and no understanding of the enemy threat. For this reason, these judges will in practice tend to rubber stamp executive requests.

    But the precedent of judicial intrusion is still dismaying because it will be used as a baseline to limit future Presidential discretion. As for potential abuses, at least an Attorney General and President are accountable to voters if they use this authority to spy on their political opponents. On the other hand, if a willful judge denies a surveillance request and Americans are killed as a result, he is accountable to no one. Recall the "wall" of separation between intelligence and law enforcement that developed in the 1990s under domestic FISA and which the 9/11 Commission so criticized. No one paid any political price for that.

    The bill also empowers the Justice Department's Inspector General to investigate the post-9/11 origins of this overseas surveillance. Congress could always do this on its own, but that would mean taking political responsibility. Far better to empower a bureaucrat and IGs are creatures of Congress in the executive branch to issue some supposedly "independent" criticism.

    We can appreciate why President Bush believes he must make these concessions. In the fight against a furtive enemy, intelligence and interrogation are the best weapons we have. While we wish Mr. Bush were willing to force an election-year showdown with Democrats, he's accountable for any intelligence damage in the interim. Meanwhile, if Democrats control the entire government next year, any new FISA limits would be far worse.

    Still, these compromises may hurt future Presidents. To adapt the left's favorite conspiracy theory, we doubt this would be happening if Dick Cheney were still President.
    As expected, this is a fairly conservative opinion, but found many salient points worth considering.......
    Richard

    NRA Life Member

    "But if they don't exist, how can a man see them?"

    "You may think I'm pompous, but actually I'm pedantic... let me explain the difference."

    "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything."

  16. #45
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    No other nation in the world, to our knowledge, requires such deference to judges when tracking foreign enemies abroad.

    This judicial review is supposedly to check abuses by the executive. But it also imposes a judge in the middle of the wartime chain of command. A judge, moreover, who may have no special intelligence expertise and no understanding of the enemy threat. For this reason, these judges will in practice tend to rubber stamp executive requests.

    But the precedent of judicial intrusion is still dismaying because it will be used as a baseline to limit future Presidential discretion. As for potential abuses, at least an Attorney General and President are accountable to voters if they use this authority to spy on their political opponents. On the other hand, if a willful judge denies a surveillance request and Americans are killed as a result, he is accountable to no one.
    I think this guy has been reading my posts! This is the crux of the isssue. Inserting judges in areas in which they have no expertise is lunacy and endangers Americans.

    One point that the author missed was that many (all!) of these intelligence operations are classified. We must limit classified information to those who have an appropriate clearance AND a need to know. People not involved should have no access to classified information. That only promotes leaks, such as when the traitorous NY Times divulged the program that tracked enemy finances.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Network Surveillance Camera- my setup
    By nutz4utwo in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2010, 08:36 AM
  2. Looking to buy a surveillance camera
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 11:37 AM
  3. Living in a Surveillance Society: Coming HERE Soon?
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2006, 11:47 AM
  4. You are under surveillance :)
    By P95Carry in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 4th, 2006, 09:55 PM
  5. Home surveillance
    By Otis in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 26th, 2005, 11:36 PM

Search tags for this page

warrant and unwarrant of surveillancce in enemy of the state movie

Click on a term to search for related topics.