Senate Approves Terror Surveillance Bill With Immunity

[red states rule]

This will not make the far left very happy.

I thought the messiah promised to filibuster the bill

He voted for the bill



Senate Sends Terror Surveillance Bill, Telecom Immunity Provision to Oval Office
Wednesday, July 09, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that will overhaul rules on terrorist surveillance while giving the Bush administration a win it had sought for months: legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped in its secret eavesdropping program.

The Senate approved the changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on a 69-28 vote.

The action sends the bill the president's desk. The House approved the measure last month.

President Bush said he will sign the bill "soon," and praised lawmakers for their work in bringing the bill to his desk.

"This legislation is critical to America's safety. It is long overdue. ... I will soon sign this bill into law," Bush told reporters gathered at the White House Rose Garden. Officials indicated afterward that the president could sign it as soon as Thursday or Friday.

"This ill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying, and what they are planning," Bush said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378402,00.html

and

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00168

[5stringJeff]

Yay... let's spy on Americans!!! Who needed the Fourth Amendment, anyway?

[red states rule]

Yay... let's spy on Americans!!! Who needed the Fourth Amendment, anyway?

The messiah screwed over his base with his base, and actually voted the right way.

Get ready for a blizzard in DC

[5stringJeff]

I don't care about Obama's vote. I care that Congress passed a bill that allows the government to spy on you without a warrant! :mad:

[red states rule]

I don't care about Obama's vote. I care that Congress passed a bill that allows the government to spy on you without a warrant! :mad:

If you are a terrorist Jeff, then worry about it

The government is not listening to your calls. Nobody is listening to your calls, or mine

[Yurt]

Yay... let's spy on Americans!!! Who needed the Fourth Amendment, anyway?

i have not read a full copy of the bill, what is it in the bill that leads you to believe it violates the 4th?

[DragonStryk72]

If you are a terrorist Jeff, then worry about it

The government is not listening to your calls. Nobody is listening to your calls, or mine

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. Thanks to my being a tabletop RPGer, I actually personally got investigated once, basically cause one of our gaming conversations got overheard by a neighbor, and they decided to call it in. When they saw the dice, game books, and empty pizza boxes, (Not to mention my buddy's, um..... abundant porn collection), they seem to have decided we are not precisely terrorist material. However, that doesn't change the unreasonable search (I'm sorry, searching without a warrant, on the basis of, "Hey man, I think it's them" is bullshit), and it doesn't change the constitutional rights violation.

Either all of our constitutional rights are worth protecting, RSR, or none of them are. Picking and choosing gets you nowhere, and shows an egregious disrespect for all that has been fought for. Remember, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, not Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

"I would rather attend the problems of too much liberty, rather than the problems of too little" -Benjamin Franklin

"He who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security, deserves neither liberty, nor security." -Benjamin Franklin

The other difficulty is that, frankly, it doesn't actually work. It's the same bs as when they make you take your shoes off at the airport, it doesn't increase security, it just agitates everyone, and generally pisses on doing something that might actually do something.

[DragonStryk72]

i have not read a full copy of the bill, what is it in the bill that leads you to believe it violates the 4th?

The Patriot Act, the FISA is being used to try and pull PA back. Warrantless wiretaps on phones (meaning needing absolutely no evidence to do it, or judge, or anything, just a "hey, set up surveillance". this of course, will not lead to any abuses, because nobody ever takes advantage of loopholes, that's why we have no lawyers.)

[PostmodernProphet]

i have not read a full copy of the bill, what is it in the bill that leads you to believe it violates the 4th?
what leads him to believe it is the fact that he hasn't read it either......

[5stringJeff]

If you are a terrorist Jeff, then worry about it

The government is not listening to your calls. Nobody is listening to your calls, or mine

That's absolute bullshit. The Constitution guarantees our right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A SPECIFIC search warrant is supposed to be issued to protect against government abuse. And guess what? This law eviscerates judicial oversight. Shame on Bush and shame on everyone who voted on this.

[mundame]

I'm okay with this. It's the best way to protect us from terrorists, IMO.

I'm no privacy advocate: I suddenly realized, privacy mainly protects criminals! Strong privacy laws are against the interests of women and children, because so much crime is male attacks on women and children, like that 12-year-old girl in Vermont: both her uncle AND her stepfather turned out to be getting after her!

I'm for universal DNA cataloging at birth, for everyone.

Boy, would THAT solve a lot of problems!

[Gaffer]

It's not about wire tapping in the US. It's about listening to calls made in other countries that are routed through the US hubs. Two people talking on cell phones in pakistan get their calls routed through the hub in the US, this bill allows the government to listen in on them and protects the company that owns the hub from lawsuits. It also allows listening in on specific people in the US, not arbitrarily listening to anyone they want.

It's a bill that's subject to change later on. obamanation might want this in place for when he takes office. You think a communist like him wouldn't want as many laws regulating the population in place as he can get before he gets power? If he can use it in the future, he's going to vote for it.

[mundame]

Two people talking on cell phones in pakistan get their calls routed through the hub in the US, this bill allows the government to listen in on them and protects the company that owns the hub from lawsuits.


I think it's fine. We have to do SOMETHING against all this asymmetric warfare leveled against us. High-tech phone tapping through OUR hubs is our version of asymmetric.

It's gotta be more decent than putting people in secret dungeons and torturing them ------ and it's probably gets better results, too.

At least we haven't had anymore attacks, so I say, carry on. Good job, NSA/FBI.

[Gaffer]

I think it's fine. We have to do SOMETHING against all this asymmetric warfare leveled against us. High-tech phone tapping through OUR hubs is our version of asymmetric.

It's gotta be more decent than putting people in secret dungeons and torturing them ------ and it's probably gets better results, too.

At least we haven't had anymore attacks, so I say, carry on. Good job, NSA/FBI.

I agree. The enemy is going to do what we least expect them to do. We need to do the same.

[red states rule]

That's absolute bullshit. The Constitution guarantees our right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." A SPECIFIC search warrant is supposed to be issued to protect against government abuse. And guess what? This law eviscerates judicial oversight. Shame on Bush and shame on everyone who voted on this.

Jeff, do you have any idea how many calls are made in America in a day? Or how many calls from outside the country comes into the country on any given day?

It is impossible for every call to be listened to

From what I have heard, calls are monitored by a computer, and only if key words are detected; and the call comes from a terrorist country; does a human being listen to the call

[5stringJeff]

I'm okay with this. It's the best way to protect us from terrorists, IMO.

I'm no privacy advocate: I suddenly realized, privacy mainly protects criminals! Strong privacy laws are against the interests of women and children, because so much crime is male attacks on women and children, like that 12-year-old girl in Vermont: both her uncle AND her stepfather turned out to be getting after her!

I'm for universal DNA cataloging at birth, for everyone.

Boy, would THAT solve a lot of problems!

This is an oft-used Ben Franklin quote, but it fits your post perfectly: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


It's not about wire tapping in the US. It's about listening to calls made in other countries that are routed through the US hubs. Two people talking on cell phones in pakistan get their calls routed through the hub in the US, this bill allows the government to listen in on them and protects the company that owns the hub from lawsuits. It also allows listening in on specific people in the US, not arbitrarily listening to anyone they want.

Fine. Let the FBI, CIA, whoever, get a search warrant, from a judge, to trace the calls. If the person is dangerous enough, they shouldn't have a problem getting a warrant. But the Fourth Amendment places the burden of proof on the government to prove that they need a warrant, not on the citizen to prove/maintain his innocence.


Jeff, do you have any idea how many calls are made in America in a day? Or how many calls from outside the country comes into the country on any given day?

It is impossible for every call to be listened to

From what I have heard, calls are monitored by a computer, and only if key words are detected; and the call comes from a terrorist country; does a human being listen to the call

It doesn't matter if it's a government computer or a government agent; if the government is listening in on your phone conversation without a warrant, it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[mundame]

I'm for universal DNA cataloging at birth, for everyone.

Boy, would THAT solve a lot of problems!




This is an oft-used Ben Franklin quote, but it fits your post perfectly: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."


A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY!!!!!!!! Universal DNA cataloging at birth would allow ALL serial killers in the country to be caught before they killed their second young college student, not after they kill 16 or 64. Child murderers would be caught. Even burglars would be caught as they leave body evidence behind as they rob us.

We would know who fathered every child --- and make him pay.

We would know if a woman fooled around with the milkman --- and let off the husband who suspected it.

Lost and kidnapped children could be identified. Wandering elderly could be identified.

We could find out who is selling drugs, who is transporting them.


It would cut crime to a fraction. It would be wonderful.

[5stringJeff]

And the state could plant DNA evidence at a crime scene. So could criminals who got access to your DNA - and if you think that can't happen, go look at all the times the government has lost computers with thousands of SSNs on the hard drive. The government could determine that people with particular genes must submit to certain health treatments "for the sake of public health," or that people with certain genes should not be allowed to breed (i.e. eugenics). The point is, the government has no right to your DNA.

[Gaffer]

Fine. Let the FBI, CIA, whoever, get a search warrant, from a judge, to trace the calls. If the person is dangerous enough, they shouldn't have a problem getting a warrant. But the Fourth Amendment places the burden of proof on the government to prove that they need a warrant, not on the citizen to prove/maintain his innocence.

Why should they have to bother with a warrant to wiretap people in another country just because it comes through a hub in this one?

If the person is dangerous enough the government should be able to tap his phone and worry about the warrant later which is what FISA is all about. You don't let a potential killer of thousands go free because you waited to get a search warrant, especially if he's not even a US citizen.

The monitoring is done with a computer that looks for key words. Not just words in English either. Then if something is recognized a human takes over. They don't have time to listen to casual conversations. If it's just two people talking they move on.

The 4th amendment is in no way threatened by this. It's a matter of logic and common sense. And if you think it was halted while congress talked about it, think again.

[bullypulpit]

If you are a terrorist Jeff, then worry about it

The government is not listening to your calls. Nobody is listening to your calls, or mine

In Germany, before WW II, I'm sure one could hear the sentiment "If you're not a Jew, don't worry about it..." voiced.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is nothing more than a blanket warrant allowing the government to conduct surveillance of American citizens absent a warrant or judicial oversight, effectively gutting the Fourth Amendment.

In an earlier time, you would be called a "Good German...", and you would be proud of it.

[bullypulpit]

It's not about wire tapping in the US. It's about listening to calls made in other countries that are routed through the US hubs. Two people talking on cell phones in pakistan get their calls routed through the hub in the US, this bill allows the government to listen in on them and protects the company that owns the hub from lawsuits. It also allows listening in on specific people in the US, not arbitrarily listening to anyone they want.

It's a bill that's subject to change later on. obamanation might want this in place for when he takes office. You think a communist like him wouldn't want as many laws regulating the population in place as he can get before he gets power? If he can use it in the future, he's going to vote for it.

Then, the bill should have addressed specifically the issue of foreign calls routed through US hubs, and nothing more...Instead, it allows blanket warrants absent ANY judicial oversight to protect the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. In addition, it granted the telecoms which co-operated with Bush's illegal domestic wire-tapping program immunity from civil law suits regarding their actions, absent which Bush said he'd veto the bill. Shows where his priorities really lie, and they're not with keeping Americans safe.

[red states rule]

In Germany, before WW II, I'm sure one could hear the sentiment "If you're not a Jew, don't worry about it..." voiced.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is nothing more than a blanket warrant allowing the government to conduct surveillance of American citizens absent a warrant or judicial oversight, effectively gutting the Fourth Amendment.

In an earlier time, you would be called a "Good German...", and you would be proud of it.

Since your messiah voted for the bill, is he now a "Good German"?

He lied to you when he said he would fillibuster it BP - or are you still backing the messiah since he is a liberal moonbat like you? Or do you understand he is trying to con the independents into thinking he is not as liberal as he really is?

By all means BP, keep screaming how trhe rights of terrorists need to be protected. You are showing why libs can;t be trusted with the nations security and defense