Attached Link: STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP)

Yeah,..........well, the U.S. laws are just as, if not more invasive than that. Actually, the U.S. has had (since 1978 I believe), The FISA Act laws, from which the Patriot Act was derived. The FISA Act was signed into law by,..........wait for it,..............Jimmy Carter ! One of the most liberal Presidents we have ever had. Just food for thought.

Look out for more of the above coming to a government near you. We in the UK are the most survailed in europe with the most CCTV cameras per head watching our every move. The answer to the e-mail thing though must be to make them as unpleasant to read a possible for the watchers.

An insulting sig is probably the way to go.

Also, look out for the new catchall phrase " The innocent have nothing to fear" which translates as, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

I'd say something, but someone's watching. My new number is 6...;)

How about our telephone companies....  this administration asked them to let them listen in to our phone conversations and they bent over.....  All due to this Patriot act...  Now, the companies are being given immunity from criminal prosecution...

Bad news for this Republic in the USA.  I've been warning people of stuff like this for a long time... 
I only got ad hominem.

At least we are not going to be asked to give a DNA sample like the Brits might be doing for something as simple as a driving violation or littering.jeez .

Yeah but even if we (in the UK) are innocent, having been arrested and released without charge we are still fingerprinted and DNAd

Something about that just don't sit right with me.

Just think.....if someone from Sweden signsin on this thread then the Swedish gov. will soon be following all our cyber trails!! I can hardly wait.

Having lived through 9/11, I really didn’t want to go there with the FISA/Patriot Act issues because first, I feel the good outweighs the bad when it comes to the security of our country where millions of lives can be at stake and second, these implements are designed with terrorist, terrorism and foreign governments and their agents in mind and the average citizen hardly fits that description.

I don’t think that Quest’s Brycing activities or the way he brushes his teeth would come under the sights of the National Security Agency (NSA) and that he will be carted off under violation of FISA/Patriot Act.

On the other hand, if Quest brought attention unto himself for terrorist activity (bomb building, gun running, cavorting with known terrorists and the like), then I would say se la vi, farewell and goodbye

As far as the telephone companies and them allowing the government access with impunity, there again it falls under the guise of suspected individuals not just anyone at whim for no reason at all.

I’m not saying that these devices don’t need constant oversight and updating to further protect our citizen’s 4th amendment rights. The one thing that 9/11 taught us is that our national security system in place at that time was flawed. The Patriot Act is an effort towards the improvement of that system which must continually evolve and be refined to do its job and protect our citizen’s welfare and constitutional rights.

This AP article from Sweden does not imply that this eavesdropping is being selective about who their spying on and in that regard is a scary scenario.

“It gives Sweden's National Defense Radio Establishment, or FRA, the right to scan ALL international phone calls, e-mails and faxes without a court order as of January.” (italics provided by me)

Sweden's Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors said “data regarding individuals will be destroyed unless it is directly relevant to intelligence activities.”

As for the U.K. and all that CCTV activity on public streets, I find that to be most intrusive in a more personal nature and totally non-selective. I watched a television documentary on that particular British issue and they were saying that most Brits go along with it because it offered more police security. I’ve also read that those boroughs with the most CCTVs have the higher crime rates despite all those cameras so it doesn’t make sense to me.

Here in the U.S. they seem to be creeping in more and more in business areas, shopping malls and road intersections. But we also have some activism against them as well. Just the other day I was watching someone fighting a traffic ticket issued by CCTV and they wanted to march the camera into court to be questioned. And since the camera didn’t lend itself well for interrogation the lawyer was opting for a dismissal. I’m quite wary of this same situation happening here in the U.S. and really hope it doesn’t get any worst.

Yeah but what really bothers me is that Quest is speaking about himself in the third person ! Maybe he should be carted off for that alone. Hee, hee, hee.

LOL!

  Our 4th amendment has been infringed upon by these agencies...   When there was no need to do so....  There lies the danger...   when we give up a little of our freedom for a little security, we loose all of our freedoms and all of our securities...

and you can regard your self in the first person again Quest...  lol

Hi . Sweden here :a_grin: We here in Sweden have sent our government 6,6 million emails to protest against this new law . Today i have got some emails back from the government and they are only telling me a lot of "mumbojumbo" that's not the truth Sten Tolgfors is speaking a lot of "mumbojumbo" too .  Popped in here because i wanted to say "HELLO FRA , WAWES"

First, I try like hell to keep my political opinions away from R'osity, but I just can't help myself.  So please, salt shakers out everyone. If you want to debate me or talk about this stuff later, please, send me a sitemail and I'd be happy to discuss this civilly there. :c) 

<><><>

Bryster, excellent points.  I heard a story about just that thing by Walter E Williams who was subbing for Rush Limbaugh one day that addressed just your point of overzealous surveillance.  A woman was telling him that if he did nothing wrong, he had nothing to be afraid of.  To illustrate his point that the issue wasn't innocence or guilt, he asked to do a simple experiment.  She agreed, and he asked her to give him her purse for inspection.  Reluctantly, she gave it to him.  Carefully, he extracted every last item in the purse, and began to take notes down on it's contents.  She was very uncomfortable about this, especially when it was discovered she was on anti-depressant medication and he made note of the label.  After he was done, he put back every item, filed his notes and then asked her how she felt.  She admitted she felt violated.  He told her that she had nothing to fear if she was innocent.  That didn't help her sense of violation though.  And that, he said, was the whole point.  Regardless of innocence or guilt, they should not have the right to violate you in such a way... it's none of their damn business without cause of criminal activity.

<><><>

Sackrat, thanks for pointing out also that the FISA court was a Carter Admin creation.  The thing also a lot of people forget is that Carter created FISA as a way to stop our foreign intelligence from getting foreign intel.  Seems he had a problem with us actually knowing what was going on in foreign countries and protecting ourselves.  See also his executive order banning assassination of political targets too.  Assassinating Saddam, for instance could have probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Jamie Gorelick and the "Intel Wall" legislation only made things worse, essentially preventing the US intel community from being able to share information and stop "little" things like 9/11.  And the last thing we need is to start treating this like a law enforcement issue instead of the war they've been fighting against us since the 1970's.

Ultimately, I don't want an invasive government.  In fact I'd love to see a bajillion things that the government does ended and get them back to being small, cheap and generally out of everyone's lives.  I'm all for getting rid of FISA as well as the Patriot Act and just let the CIA do what it does best: find the enemies and neutralize them.  I don't think the telecoms should be viewed as criminals when they are providing essential information to defending our nation against dangerous people who wish us death or enslavement.  That makes them patriotic in my book.  When it comes to defending us against those who wish to destroy the USA and it's Constitution, I want them competent, vigorous and vigilant against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  And that's the key distinction.  But it's a fine line to walk that requires a constant vigilance by it's citizens as so it is not abused.

Two quotes, only one that I can attribute are:

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

and

"Those who desire security and safety over freedom deserve neither." Ben Franklin

And as a final point, the rights of Americans should never be conferred onto non-Americans, and ESPECIALLY enemies of America.

And as to the OP with the article, yes, this is very disturbing.  See my Walter E. Williams story in the previous post as to why.

I will say only one thing though, we are rapidly coming to a point where nations will have to start considering the concept of "Digital Borders" in an effort to cordon off areas of their own responsibility and protection as well as the extent of territory where their laws are enforceable.  I've already heard stories of where extremist Islamic nations have tried to enforce their laws over sites in foreign nations in matters of "decency" and "freedom of expression".

Just think if say Iran decided to enforce their laws on R'osity just because they can get it over there?

Well hay, Sweden is in the house! Welcome Sophies and I think this law is outrageous. Power to the people and I hope they get it overturned or at the very least changed to protect the people’s privacy rights.

Tom, this is why I didn’t want to go there…with the controversial FISA/Patriot Act. Perhaps you didn’t see what I wrote in the slightly lengthy post above. The parts where I said: “…I feel the good outweighs the bad when it comes to the security of our country”…”I’m not saying that these devices don’t need constant oversight and updating to further protect our citizen’s 4th amendment rights”…”The Patriot Act is an effort towards the improvement of that system which must continually evolve and be refined to do its job and protect our citizen’s welfare and constitutional rights”.

Since 9/11 this country hasn’t been attacked and that is in part because of this Act. Because it helped to plug a hole in our national security system which now allows for the transfer of data between law enforcement agencies vis a vis the FBI and CIA.

Most people have not read the legislation but regurgitate what the base political blogs feed them yet they can’t point to a privacy nor a freedom they have lost. They are quick to loosely quote out of context the words of Benjamin Franklin (e.g. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.") from the era of the revolutionary war and don’t realize that Benny wasn’t at the World Trade Center during the attack in a vastly different 21st century.

Well said mboncher, I totally agree. I will look for the Walter E. Williams story.

What part "...shall not be violated..." in the 4th amendment is difficult to understand?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
No warrants needed, so forget the last half of the amendment; that's already been tossed into the growing heap of discarded individual rights.

What constitutes 'unreasonable search and seizure"?
Right now, nothing does, and that's the problem. There doesn't need to be any suspicion whatsoever. So, there goes the rest of the amendment.

• PC (politically correct), that's 'Newspeak' in Orwell, has almost completely destroyed the 1st amendment. Also, most areas require permits to peaceably assemble for protests, and permits are frequently denied. Petition for redress of the government is a crime now in more than a few districts; it is referred to as 'paper terrorism'.
• The 2nd amendment is under continual attack, from every level of government; and from many private groups. 4 out of 9 supreme court judges just declared against that amendment. Dictators, criminals, and mass murders the world over agree, gun control works.
• Suspension of Posse Comitatus, under Patriot Act, seriously threatens the 3rd amendment. It also removes the main obstacle from the establishment of a military dictatorship. The 'war on drugs', that is Federal funding of CIA drug smugglers, eroded the Posse Comitatus Act; but The Patriot Acts kill it ourtright.
• 4th amendment, see top of post.
• The 5th and 8th amendments were just recently (temporarily) reinstated. Good news there. I expect they will be repealed again before too long.
• Most of the 6th amendment is already on the garbage heap.
• The 7th amendment hasn't been in effect for decades.
• The 9th amendment has been trampled over and over by 'executive orders'.
• The 10th amendment is dead. Feds are dictating to the States every day.

Soon, we will be back to two 'inalienable' rights: The right to pay taxes, and the right to die.
Oh wait, suicide is a crime...forgot about that.
So, you'll have the indisputable right to pay taxes. Wonderful. No politician will ever threaten that right, you can be sure about that.

The most serious danger, however, lies in the ability of one man (the president) to suspend the constitution and declare martial law at a whim, under the 2 Patriot Acts. Basically declare himself 'Dictator of America', as commander in chief of the armed forces.
Think, New Orleans after Katrina, at the national level.
A Michigan state senator recently moved for state wide martial law on the floor of the state senate as a means to 'put an end to civil protests' against state government corruption. The motion was denied; but it is clearly being mulled over over by various scumbag crooks,...I mean politicians.

New World Order (U.N. / globalism):
Eye in the Sky

Thank you Quest :-) dvlenk6 i don't like that picture,this is scary things going on worldwide :-(      "The Georgia Guidestones "

I don't like it either Sophies; but people have to recognize what is happening, and why.
I know about those guidestones too, and they are part of the same thing, and part of what is happening with the new world order also.
Georgia Guidestones

See Book of Revelations...
At least that is my opinion.

Quest the constitution is the only piece of evidence we got that we are a nation of free thinkers.. 
Everything and anything that can be done to prevent attacks can be achieved under our constitutional laws...  as they are...
No exceptions need apply...  

Let's not give away our civil freedoms and protection to fear and deceptions....  it is all I'm saying...

Want to protect our country from terrorist...fine..!   just don't take my rights away... 

without our rights... It won't be the mods or Coordinators at Renderosity to close these threads down, it will be home security...

one more,,,  
This FISA legislation gives enormous powers to the government: including the ability to read emails and text messages and listen to phone conversations of anyone communicating with their family members, friends, associates, reporters, ANYBODY who may be overseas -- all with zero court review.  Nobody should be supporting this legislation.

Indeed Quest, nasty stuff.

I only found out about this after questioning a member over at DAZ about why they don't like Sweden.  It shouldn't be allowed, it's taking away their citizens human rights to privacy.

Extreme stuff - the future looks bad.

I did get get off the topic being Sweden... oops!     but look at what effect this business of ours has had around the world...  Talk about a domino corporate effect....

Actually, today, another Rush sub, Jason Lewis, made an incredibly cogent point about FISA and the judicial involvement in spying.  As he pointed out, the president, by article 3 in the constitution has the authority to spy for national security reasons without warrants, congressional and/or judicial oversight under the separation of powers.  In all technicality, FISA is unconstitutional for it infers powers of the executive branch to the Judicial.

Now, that being said the caller that brought this issue to the front asked about Nixon and the rampant abuse of said warrantless wiretapping and spying.  Lewis pointed out that would be illegal as it would be violating the rights of citizens for political gain, and once exposed to the public, by the use of such information, they would quickly investigated, voted out of office or even brought up on charges and imprisoned.  Nixon is the classic example of this power gone awry and the responsible reaction by a vigilant and responsive public and legislature which then balanced this.

For those who may not no, Warren G. Harding's term in office was entitled a "Return to Normalcy".  That was due to the fact that during the WW1 years of Wilson's reign, he was an imperial president.  He had squads of men rounding up political enemies and those who were in opposition of the war.  His justice department rampantly misused and misapplied the Sedition Act of the era which gave us the first amendment limit of "shouting fire in a crowded theater".  Harding's administration released all political opponents held at that time by the Wilson administration as well as a relaxing of these intense security measures put in place during that time.

We will come to another "Return to Normalcy" as long as we continue to remain vigilant and ready to vote for those who also believe the government has gone to far or too long infringing our rights.  This can't come too soon in my opinion.

Okay, have to address the New World Order picture.  :c)  Remember that this image was created by the founding fathers, most of whom were or were associated with the Masons (I'm not going to get into conspiracy theories though).  They were founding a new type of world order in the form of the American government that was not a theocracy, nor in the same mould as previous monarchies or styles of privilege and class government.  Hence the phrase Novos Ordu Seculorum.  Bush 41 had co-opted that phrase as a representation of the new creeping globalism, hence it's modern connotation.

Darn it... I'm perpetuating this thread aren't I?  I'll shut up now. :c)

It's an interesting read, what happens in the US often happens in the UK afterwards and to some extent vice versa. For us CCTV is everywhere and the RIPA rules (surveillance for anti-terrorism and anti drugs) appear to have there strongest use in local councils accosting people for dumping rubbish, not picking up their dog poop and putting waste in the wrong recycling bins....

The ridiculous thing is that the connection between surveillance and improvements in security are completely unproved - London has the highest CCTV coverage in Europe and crime figures are no different to any other city.

Plain and simple crime is best combated by tuition of our children at an early age as to what is right and wrong and an appropriate deterrent mechanism to stop re-offending, hold parents responsible for their children's actions, create a network of respect for those in authority, but we appear to have lost these basics in a wash of CCTV and PC nonsense.

Add on top that decisions in the US can impact on my privacy in the UK is bad, so now viacom can invade my privacy by looking at what I've looked at on you tube - a disgusting invasion of my privacy, it is my belief that should have just cause to show I have done something wrong before being granted this intrusive behaviour (that said I don't know why they would want to trawl through all those extreme kayaking and blender tuts...)

The Swedish and US (and other) laws on this cover traffic coming into and out of the country(ies). The rules on internal traffic are unchanged. The US government has had the power to open and inspect every piece of (snail) mail, parcel and freight crossing its borders since its beginning back in the 1700s. The Constitution has never once been breached by the proper use of that power.

Given the incredible level of active Islamist conspiracy throughout the western world, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that governments should have the power to monitor modern communications traffic between domestic groups and foreign groups. And in more traditional security areas there is no doubt that Russia and especially China are highly aggressive with online spying and hacking.

There are obvious concerns about "mission creep" and just lousy government, surrounding these powers but that doesn't alter the fact that we are threatened by very real enemies that rightly should be monitored.

Something I have noted in the UK is that more often than not those who express concern about the erosion of their liberties by anti-terror legislation are the same ones who are quite happy to support state corporatism like the BBC. Here is an organisation that operates a legalised protection racket; that advertises that it roams the land electronically snooping on people in their own home; that advertises that it keeps and uses a database of every home in the country; that advertises that it prosecutes tens of thousands of citizens every year (listing their names and addresses); that collects purchase data from every shop that sells a television, that imprisons hundreds every year, etc, etc, etc.

Monitoring terrorists = evil state power

Enforced state television = ooooh, cuddly aunty beeb

You want Orwellian? Here is a real video from the BBC (TV Licensing is owned by the BBC):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ee_1210010683&p=1
This shit has been going on for decades but somehow the sandalistas bleating about freedom think it's fecking marvellous. Even more marvellous is that it's inevitably going to spread:
http://hardware.silicon.com/servers/0,39024647,39128359,00.htm

Meanwhile, back in Sweden, sandalista infested state schools want to control who eight year old kids can invite to their birthday party:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080629/koddities/oddity_party_snub

So, you gonna fight for your right to party or is there something good on TV tonight?

Quote - ... and just lousy government...

We've got lots and lots of that going around over here in the U.S. :mad:

Lousy government happens wherever and whenever you have government. Sometimes government is the best way of getting things done (i.e. the military) but always in the context that it is lousy but where the lousiness outweighs the bad points of the alternatives.

When you have a government strategy for dance:
http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/20151/burnham-steps-up-youth-dance-support-by
then you can be sure that you've gone too far in the lousy direction.

Yes, a whole government department squandering hundreds of millions of £££ of tax payers money on culture, media and sport. For feck's sakes.

Let's all be treeeees

Yeah.
Big Government is the enemy of the people.
It would be nice if the sheeple would wake up to that fact.

Just as an aside, one must realize that those who desire totalitarianism want to turn all citizens into criminals by creating so many laws you cannot help but violate them, even accidentally.  The purpose to this is that it gives them an excuse to act at their own leisure.  Of course, those who dream of a government involved in everything believe they will always be in control of it too.

Government cannot rule the honest, law abiding citizen.

If you think this FRA business is bad news, that's nothing to what will be coming if they're allowed to get away with it and continue to do it.  These things are stepping stones for govenments to get even more and more invasive as time progresses.  They know that one law being passed makes it much easier for them to pass more and more ridiculous laws in the future - no matter how invasive they are.

There are people who feel very passionate about their right to privacy, enough to protest about it.  I only hope the protesting is a success because they're the only people doing anything about this.  This law is a licence granting the law to do whatever they bloody well want to, and without any regard for human rights whatsoever.  Something that should not be allowed to happen under any circumstances.

I hope for all our sake that's it's killed off before it has a chance to mature into an even bigger monster.

This is ultimately the destruction of our 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure.  Government requires a reason of criminal activity to actually start investigating someone, the way I understand it.  In other nations that do not have such limitations on government that technically, I can see the creeping infofascism that has begun worldwide quickly take over their lives.  And unfortunately, with the current belief of the US Constitution as a "living breathing document", meaning mutating over time and able to slough off inconvenient rights, the 4th amendment is proving to be a very poor levee against the rising flood of corporate and government invasiveness and control.

Unfortunately, if history is a guide, people don't resist till after their rights have been taken and the government has become onerous.

"This is ultimately the destruction of our 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure."

*mboncher, you seem a rational voice in this. The Swedish statute seems similar to powers already used in the US since 2001 (powers regarded as controversial by some but recently supported by the Democratic nominee for president I believe). As I said previously, the powers do not change the rights of Americans communicating with Americans in America.

Do you believe differently? If so, why?

AFAIK, with the Patriot act, it is designed to be used to catch surveilliance up with the modern era.  This is basically to bug a person, not a location or individual phone or line of data.  In this modern age of mobile communication and multiple data access, you can't just watch one line or one cell, you have to monitor a person.

That being said, you need to have a reason to suspect someone warrants such attention.  And reasoning for this MUST be because they suspect criminal activity or that you are a threat to the security and wellbeing of the nation.  To just randomly do this for spurious, idle curiosity, commercial marketing or political reasons is illegal, or at least should be if it isn't.

The bad news is that the 4th amendment needs to be applied to private corporations and organizations that are NOT governmental.  You can't phish for data on how to market to someone without their permission should be applied to businesses as well as government.  This is where the real violation is going to come from.  The US government then has to just say, "We suspect XYZ of some of your customers, hand over your market spying records that you've been collecting."  This does a whole end run around the 4th amendment.

Ultimately, I've been thinking about how often science fiction universes don't take into context the instant communication and data integration in our lives.  Most technological advances are not cross-pollenated with other logical technologies for possible benefits.  Now how does this relate here?  We as a global society have to start taking a new look at privacy, the rights of government to collect and use data against us all for benign or malignant purposes.

The current activities against YouTube are going to be catastrophic to that site if upheld because, for example, a nice clean upright citizen does not want the world to know that when nobody's looking he's viewing hardcore BDSM or transgender fetish porn inbetween shopping on Ebay for collector plates and ordering books on gardening from Amazon.

That's the real fear.  Government getting the power of God to know everything you do in data at any second of your life, remembering all your actions, good, bad or kinky better than you do yourself... and then using it against you.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, as well as the courage to do something about it when you encounter the need to repair what someone has damaged, stolen or eroded of your rights as a human being let alone an American.

Again I blather on.  Can you tell I participate often in political blogs about constitutional issues and other stuff?  LOL

I just heard that the guy I called 'my son' Victor died a couple of months ago. He was I think 87 and he taught me what he knew about irrigation pumps. I am without words - what was worse was I wasn't informed of his passing until today, but I think if he taught me one other thing it would be that It is not government which makes our lives better but the people we interact with which we fulfill our lives that make life worth living. In the passing of friends we are all diminished  ... the times we are going through today sadden me to no end as I see a trend in this country's government  toward the very nationalism my father and his father before him fought against in the two great wars of the last century and my cousin Ralph who died with the First Marine Division at the battle of Chosin Reservoir in Korea shortly before I was born. It is only a matter of luck that I am even alive today to respond to this thread as I could well have died defending this land, as did Ralph and others in my family.

The U.S. Constitution has been like a good friend; I will morn it's passing as passionately as I will the passing of 'my son' Victor and will continue to hope that what we have all fought for will not in the long run, be in vain.    

Biker, I'm sorry for your loss.  I will say this, the American populace at large is waking up and realizing what has been done in their name, and are starting to get angry and motivated enough to take it back.  The question is how far will people go to fight for their rights to take their country back to what you talk about.  People being able to help people without government telling them how, when and where.  Glenn Beck said it best last week.  The sleeping giant of America has been woken up after too many pokes with the stick.  The giant has now grabbed the stick and is looking at what has been going on and is not happy.

Still not had an answer explaining how the US government inspecting communications crossing its borders, something it has always had the power to do within the constitution, offends the 4th amendment.

*"The bad news is that the 4th amendment needs to be applied to private corporations and organizations that are NOT governmental."

*Well, it can't be. The constitution is a set of limits on the government, not on the citizenry. That's the whole point of it. For the constitution to remain meaningful and worthy, it absolutely must remain entirely a description of the government and its limititations.

There's nothing to stop congress enacting data protection legislation and so no reason to completely subvert the intention of the constitution, as you suggest.

*" 'We suspect XYZ of some of your customers, hand over your market spying records that you've been collecting.' " 

• The IRS has been able to inspect all your financial records, including demanding them from your bank, for decades. Nought new.

*"...transgender fetish porn..."

*How did you know? Do you work for the government?

• Still not had an answer explaining how the US government inspecting communications crossing its borders, something it has always had the power to do within the constitution, offends the 4th amendment.

I guess I'm not quite sure what you're looking for regarding an answer on how it offends the 4th amendment then. :c)

• There's nothing to stop congress enacting data protection legislation and so no reason to completely subvert the intention of the constitution, as you suggest.

It is true that although the 4th amendment is only for the government, corporations have been evolving into quasi governmental organizations unto themselves.  The government could limit or regulate their data collection fairly easily since all they have to do is declare certain types of data collection by corporations on citizens illegal (the so-called right to privacy) and not even come close to the constitution.  So you're right there.  I was looking at the subject from a different angle.  The question would still come down to the political will to do so though.

• The IRS has been able to inspect all your financial records, including demanding them from your bank, for decades. Nought new*.*

Although true, it's still not watching every move you make on the internet, which is in extent now, a wiretap.

• How did you know? Do you work for the government?

I can neither confirm nor deny that statement. :cp  ;c)

Still not had an answer explaining how the US government inspecting communications crossing its borders, something it has always had the power to do within the constitution, offends the 4th amendment.

**
*According to the law...  the agency doing the listening has three days to tell a court Who they have been listening to, why and then get a warrant to keep it legal... *  **This administration feels it is too clumsy and retarded.,  it wants to do surveillance without court warrants...  No holds bar...  no ones business...

Now that' s unconstitutional cause getting a warrant is the process of keeping oversight ( an eye) on the those particular agencies...  without the warrants ( over sight)  how do we know if they are not listening right here at home as well as over seas..!  since no one is watching... !  

Is this what you wanted to know...

I’ve just got back from several days Independence Day hiatus. I’m pleasantly surprised to see that this thread has continued on its course without getting sandbagged. Being as most things being expunged here where from way before the onset of the Patriot Act, and for a short while there, through the rants and raves, I thought I would have to unearth my old aluminum foil head cap and get ready for a Dan Brown, Prozac moment with conspiracy theories flying every which way.

It’s understandable to get such gut churning reactions to such an explosive topic. And without getting poetic I’m happy to see some broader, more even tempered minds helping to level the keel. Yet the outcry is music to my ears. For it tells me that my fellow brethren have not grown mute with discontent and that with every switch of the whip there is still an utterance of despair.

What people need to understand is that all sides of the different branches of government, from the Supreme Court down to the common ombudsman, our checks and balances, will be watching this very closely. Each and every one of them deliberating on opposite sides wouldn’t want to allow an “all-seeing” omnipotence shadowing their every move.

For one thing, if you think you see mistresses now coming out of the woodwork as it where, with inappropriate use of these laws (perhaps even appropriate use), they’ll be falling from the sky. You would see Senators, Representatives, Judges and cabinet members running around with little feathered wisk brooms hiding their every track. No sir, they’ll have none of that! So they’ll watch and watch very vigilantly what transpires within these laws. Laws BTW that will be voted on by the same congressmen and senators that one day may have to stand before these laws.

As it is taught in many colleges and universities in this country, the Constitution is a breathing, living document in so much as it must evolve through the centuries to encompass the needs of all future generations of our society. We are henceforth motivated to understand what the intensions of our forefathers were.

Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (PATRIOT Act 342 pages) Passed in the House 357 to 66. In the Senate only Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin voted against it.

Because there was some controversy because the Bush administration had helped write the provisions some of the more controversial were due to “sunset” (expire December 31, 2005). The Congress was then forced to consider the measures written in 2001 four years later in 2005.

In March 2006, 14 of the 16 provisions were voted into permanence at 89-10 vote in the Senate and 280-138 vote in the House.

As alarming as some of these provisions may seem, so far, none of them will get Quest arrested under the Patriot Act.

Professor John C Yoo of University of California at Berkeley School of Law and former Deputy Attorney General under the George W. Bush administration who often writes aggressively in the Wall Street Journal:

“…the Patriot Act contains a series of evolutionary changes in law enforcement that improve upon, and expand, existing powers already exercised by the government…

…In a hearing last year on the Patriot Act, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California stated: “I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] and asked them for instances of actual abuse. They e-mailed back and said they had none.” Democratic senator Joe Biden of Delaware said at the same hearing that “the tide of criticism” being directed against the act “is both misinformed and overblown.”…

…It is true that our nation has a system of secret courts, which use secret evidence presented in closed, classified hearings before federal judges, to grant secret warrants. Critics are correct that these warrants can authorize the secret search and/or surveillance of suspected terrorists without notice to the target. But the Patriot Act did not create these practices. President Jimmy Carter and a Democratic Congress established them in 1978 in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)…

…FISA requires a standard of proof for a warrant that is generally lower than that required for a normal criminal warrant. The Fourth Amendment generally requires that the government show that probable cause of evidence involving criminal activity exists in order to receive a warrant. In the FISA context, the government need only show that the target is an agent of a foreign power, even if there is no evidence at the time that the target is breaking the law. If the target is a United States citizen or permanent resident alien, the standard is higher and approaches that of a normal warrant sought for criminal investigations…

…Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never conclusively ruled on the question, the lower courts have upheld a national security exception to the Fourth Amendment’s usual warrant standards. Nonetheless, the ability of the government to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance for national security purposes is fully consistent with the Court’s recent approach to the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment declares that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable [emphasis added] searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” According to the Supreme Court in Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, “[a]s the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is ‘reasonableness.’” A warrantless search can be constitutional, the Court has recently said, “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” The Court has found in the past that efforts to test for drug use by government officials constitutes a “special need”; it would be surprising if protecting the national security did not also qualify as such. A special need would seem to be present when the government seeks to protect the national security against international terrorists who direct operations within the United States…

…While the Patriot Act builds upon FISA, it creates no revolutionary change in the basic framework that has operated since 1978. Much of the controversy over the Patriot Act stems from confusion over its terms. As a focal point for the argument over civil liberties during wartime, the Patriot Act often receives blame for counterterrorism policies that do not, in fact, have anything to do with it. Detention of terrorists as enemy combatants without trial, for example, occurs under the president’s powers as commander-in-chief and Congress’s authorization to use military force against those responsible for the September 11 attacks; this power is not mentioned in the Patriot Act.

A close reading of the Patriot Act itself will show that its changes to law enforcement powers are relatively modest…”

Encarta

“According to the 2007 FISA report, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 2,370 application to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches in the United States in 2007, up from 2,176 applications approved in 2006. For the first time, the report includes information regarding the total number of requests made by the Department of Justice with National Security Letter authority for information concerning U.S. persons. in 2006, the government made approximately 12,583 NSL requests for information concerning 4,790 U.S. persons.”

EPIC

2007 FISA Report

Hummm, Quest wasn’t one of those. And to understand the numbers when we’re talking about 303 million people (people in U.S. as of July 2008), means that only a select few are targeted but if you think you may be one of those, then surely something is wrong...with you.

I’m all for it as long as we keep oversight on it. With me…no oversight…no law! The gates of hell will come down on this country otherwise.

On the face of it all, this hardly compares with the outright eavesdropping anti-privacy the new Swedish law seems to be offering its people. Which, BTW, was my initial purpose to point out in this thread without all the sidetracking, but quite a read nevertheless.

*"On the face of it all, this hardly compares with the outright eavesdropping anti-privacy the new Swedish law seems to be offering its people."

*Thing is, Quest, those opposed to the Bush administration's actions think they do compare. The warrantless NSA surveillance carried out subsequent to 9/11 operated outside of the FISA framework because the administration considered it had a "go" from Congress via the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists resolution. FISA has an "unless authorized by statute" provision and the administration considers AUMF authorisation enough. Others disagree. The only oversight for the NSA surveillance was a few congressmen being briefed on a privy council basis.

I'm OK with it because I consider the threat serious enough. I see the interception and inspection of electronic communications across the border as no different morally to the interception and inspection of physical items across the border. I do not regard either as a violation of the spirit of the constitution (which is not a suicide pact).

AUMF:
"[Be it resolved] [t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The administration's interpretation of this as permitting open-ended warrantless wiretapping is challenged by opponents who point out that FISA permits the president to perform warrantless wiretaps for a period of only fifteen days after a full declaration of war. The opponents regard AUMF as  being less than a full declaration of war and so therefore AUMF should not permit open-ended wiretaps. But (my opinion) legally AUMF is neither more nor less than a declaration of war, it is just different - and its provisions and permissions are different.

This is one for the Supreme Court to decide. They already regard AUMF as an activation of the president's war powers. They have given the administration a pass on one aspect of anti-terror action and a fail on another. We'll see, as the issue is bound to end up before them eventually.

As for the AUMF and in particular the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court decision, I think is a sham and a disgrace and the victims will once again be the American people as a result. The Supreme Court’s 5-3 decision was hardly a landslide decision by any stretch of the imagination and a far cry from the overwhelming vote by both the House and the Senate when in September 18, 2001 they gave their authorization in joint resolution:

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

The House of Representatives: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).

The Senate: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

 I see this as a shameful, petty exhibition of political power grab by the Judicial Branch to curtail the powers of both the Legislative and Executive Branches and place itself at the fore. And there is no doubt in my mind that we will suffer for this travesty as a nation.

We must see this for what it is. The tragedy of 9/11 has now shamelessly convoluted itself at the expense of the people into a political tug-of-war between the major parties. Those graving to be in control and those in control graving to stay in control and what remains is the 800lb. purple gorilla standing in the middle of the room…a circus show.

** **

Mark Levin is right.  The Supreme Court has usurped it's proper role and has become an oligarchy. 

Did you or your children have a Guthrie (heel prick) Test when you/they were born. If so your dna is already in somebody elses control. The company that does the testing owns the results and therefore can do what they like with them. And big mister government official can supena them any time he likes. And just to make things interesting the cards the blood is placed on are NEVER thrown away, incase somebody sues them for not diagnosing one of the target conditions.

The Senate today rejected three amendments that would have withheld immunity from telecomms that participated in the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.  Excerpt from Think Process.org:

Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill. It was defeated on a 32-66 vote. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain did not vote.

Specter proposed an amendment to require a district court judge to assess the legality of warrantless wiretapping before granting immunity. It failed on a 37-61 vote.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., proposed that immunity be delayed until after a yearlong government investigation into warrantless wiretapping is completed. His amendment failed on a vote of 42-56.

They don't even know what exactly they are giving immunity to...
Opponents to immunity argue that only in court will the full extent of the program be understood, and only a judge should decide whether the program broke the law.

The lawsuits allege that the White House and the companies violated U.S. law by going around the FISA court to start the wiretaps. The court was created 30 years ago to prevent the government from abusing its surveillance powers for political purposes, as was done in the Vietnam War and Watergate eras. The court is meant to approve all wiretaps placed inside the U.S. for intelligence-gathering purposes. The law has been interpreted to include international e-mail records stored on servers inside the U.S.

Sad day for the Constitution...  Sad day for all of us...

I think they should be commended on doing the job they were elected to do for the American people and that is to protect us from terrorist’s attacks. When a democratic congress votes in favor of the republican President’s venue only serves to highlight the inherent dangers in opposing such laws. More so since he’s a lame duck President at that. The overall bill passed 69-28 (go figure).

Chicago Tribune

They are talking about suspected terrorists here, not your everyday-run-of-the-mill Joe Blow and we must make that distinction for the sake of understanding what’s at stake here. We are dealing with a shrewd, despicable and vile enemy that would stop at nothing to rain in terror, total chaos and destruction on our society as it was so devastatingly demonstrated on 9/11 and who continue to warn us of impending doom. Have we so soon forgotten? Certainly our retention span is perhaps slightly longer than that of the proverbial goldfish? Or is it that we have been so peppered with that heinous massacre that we would like to dispel it from our thoughts altogether and put on our rose colored glasses and continue living as if nothing happened? Perhaps it was a supposed figment of our collective imagination?

We should be proud that our congress and executive office can come together for once, putting politics aside to render us the needed protection.

My last message on this OT is:

Ben Franklin:
"those who are willing to surrender precious liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither Liberty nor Security"..

There was nothing wrong with our previous laws...  except that they were there as safe guards designed to exposed possible wrong doings... 
Well, we just killed the guard dogs...

I guess if you don't see the harm in this vote.  If you don't think this safe guard, this security against the real danger that's always lurking about within our own house is of no importance...
My congratulations..

*"Sad day for the Constitution...  Sad day for all of us..."

Tom, what you're looking at is a setback for your partisan position. It's actually a great day for the constitution.

It is now absolutely clear that both the executive and the legislature desire immunity for the telecomms. The unelected judiciary now has to decide whether it is going to override both the elected parts of government. That is excellent for the constitution because it places the role of the judiciary under a powerful spotlight.

The telecomms are the primary legal target in the NSA wiretapping controversy because they are an easier target than government agencies. Government opponents hope to get at national security secrets by attacking the private telecomms. Amongst those bringing the lawsuits against the telecomms are the remnants of the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, an al-Qaeda terrorist fund raising front group that is sufficiently bad enough to be banned worldwide by the United Nations. Supporters of immunity know exactly what is going on.

The Islamist enemy has stated openly that it will exploit the freedoms of the West to destroy the West. It has established itself in the liberal centres of the West, both physically and ideologically. The NSA surveillance was primarily in coastal areas like California and Oregon where the enemy is based, and it's no surprise that the judges selected by the enemy and other government opponents to hear these cases are also primarily from these areas.

FISA was introduced as an understandable reaction to corrupt government such as conducted by Nixon. But it was introduced before the complexities of the Jihad and emplacement of Islamist fifth columnists across America. FISA needs adapting and updating to the modern threat. Today was one (retrospective) step in that direction.

BTW, although Barack Obama voted against immunity in the individual bills, he voted for cloture; thus demonstrating he'll happily take more than one position on anything in order to get elected. *Change!

*Meanwhile, the New York Times outed the CIA agent who interrogated (not using waterboarding) Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. This agent and his family are now targets of the enemy.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, relatives of British Islamist fifth columnist Shehzad Tanweer held a feast to celebrate the anniversary of the July 7th London bombings (remember those?) and the "martyrdom" of their Jihadist hero.

Meanwhile, across America and the West, as the events of 9/11 fade from the public consciousness, liberals and leftists clamour for the pretend days of September 10th when there was no enemy but Israel and United States government.

Meanwhile...

@ pfj:  since you addressed it to me I'll post just once more...

Quote: Tom, what you're looking at is a setback for your partisan position. It's actually a great day for the constitution.

I did not realized that the constitution of the United States of America was a partisan position...

and killing some of our rights is good for the principals it upholds....   I guess global warming is good for the environment,,,  Huummm..  Perhaps high gas prizes are good for the car....

Question... In simple terms..   How far is too far for you....  what constitutional rights would you say are not worth changing or bending even if it might be a security risk??

somehow I think you won't have an easy answer......  but....