This story is archived

Wartime power grabs require beautiful sunsets »

Posted by: STONERS 2 years, 4 months ago

Archived 116 0 drops

When it's OK to monitor certain phone calls, e-mails, faxes and text messages between foreigners and U.S. residents. Such surveillance can go on for a year. Left on the books long enough, this is not just an invitation to abuse, history suggests it is a guarantee.

Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »

Submitted By:

STONERS

Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 45

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
STONERS
Aug. 7, 2007, 12:34 p.m.
"In fact, the law itself is evidence of the tendency of those in power to overreach. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress amended, long ago provided means to monitor terrorists. It set up a secret court to grant warrants quickly â;; even retroactively â;; for legitimate surveillance, and that system has been widely viewed as effective. Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Bkumm
Aug. 7, 2007, 12:41 p.m.
I hate this. Why in the world did the Congress decide to give this President a pass on the FISA law? It just goes to show you, they don't care about ANYTHING but power and money and more power.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
david_nwpa
Aug. 7, 2007, 12:45 p.m.
"Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
I fail to see what is so urgent and essential that the police cannot take the time necessary to show cause as to why a warrant is needed. After all, these secret kangaroo courts will issue the warrant no matter what. At least give the American people the false belief that our liberties are not being stripped away. Bushco has no shame in letting the people know that "we don't need no stinkin' rights."
anioklyComment has been removed: Spammer
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Shadowolf
Aug. 7, 2007, 9:04 p.m.
"The only new thing under the sun is the History that you don't know."
President Harry S Truman
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Shadowolf
Aug. 7, 2007, 9:07 p.m.
This regimes conduct proves beyond shadow of doubt that they CANNOT be trusted. This just goes to prove that Congress no longer feels that they work for the American people.
And we were naive enough to expect otherwise???
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Locky12
Aug. 8, 2007, 12:05 a.m.
The dems run congress. Why don't they just de-fund the war? Because they want it to end, but they don't want the blame! But now they agree with the president on this FISA issue so we can set up quick wiretaps on those making phone calls to Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as known/potential extremists groups right here at home. BTW Email was NEVER confidential. It was always considered as sending a postcard.
Would the leftist loonies on this board please explain to me how YOU would keep us safe and fight a war on terror?
I don't see any ideas, I just see whining.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
lovelytxwoman
Aug. 8, 2007, 2:43 a.m.
A temporary war,I beg to differ with that assumption!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
HMMace
Aug. 8, 2007, 5:09 a.m.
Seems to me, we have some crooks worried about getting caught...Like a guy named Jefferson, or maybe a woman named Pelosi, or maybe a T. Kennedy, Kennedy is a little like O J Simpson, kills his girlfriend, and gets away with it..
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
GODIMMAD
Aug. 8, 2007, 10:28 a.m.
Good art...It does show something strange about how our govt works... You pat mine, Ill smack yours. Its not a party thing...its government. I like what the Gov. of AR, or what ever his is. "I have a picture on the wall. It changes every couple days. It has a picture of someone from AR on it. It helps remind me and my staff of who we work for." Even though I dont politicians, it gives me something that I could say, "I voted for him" with pride. Any other canidate can you do that??
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ryan601
Aug. 8, 2007, 11:51 a.m.
I like this letter from a reader to the NYTimes on this issue:
"I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
We could start with records of the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq; continue with the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney's energy conference; include phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys and ascertain who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support.
After all, these are matters of national security."
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
GHOSTWHOWALKS
Aug. 8, 2007, 11:51 a.m.
Another step closer to losing all that the Constitution guarantees. Don't guess they learned anything from the last time.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
MajJohn
Aug. 8, 2007, 12:08 p.m.
Go get them snipes!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeblowe
Aug. 8, 2007, 12:26 p.m.
Just a minor point: If your individual rights are taken away - for any reason - then there really IS NO United States to protect, is there?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ryan601
Aug. 8, 2007, 12:27 p.m.
"The constitution does say that the President may use executive powers to ensure (domestic tranquility)."
Yes, but within the limits of the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Constitution ALSO specifically says that the right to Habeus Corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It's hard to see how enemy combatants picked up in a foreign country, or on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, represent either a "rebellion" or an "invasion".
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
toph1973
Aug. 8, 2007, 5:43 p.m.
Still surprised your on here after a few days ago. I got an email that they were going to ban you for all of your profanity. I'll just have to search for some more so I can report you. Actually I did find more profanity. You've been reported again.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ryan601
Aug. 8, 2007, 1:14 p.m.
Oh, I agree completely that the Prez's first and primary responsibility is to protect the US, and that we should do all we can to prevent terrorists from attacking us. I just think that we can do that without stripping away our civil liberties or granting the President powers that are considered unconsitutional. Especially when one considers that their are other countries in the world that have been seriously fighting terrorists a lot longer than we have, and that have managed to do so successfully without suspending civil liberties or granting "executive powers".
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
joeblowe
Aug. 8, 2007, 3:02 p.m.
But one thing we aren't really clear on is: WHY do these terrorists want to attack us. I mean really - not the B.S. about how they hate our freedoms and the like. Is it simply because we aren't Muslim? Is it because we have military bases for no really good reason all over the middle east? Is it because we have a tendency to interfere in the internal politics of other countries? Let's face it honestly, we CANNOT possibly kill them all. Do you agree? Since we CANNOT possibly kill them all - shouldn't we see if just MAYBE there isn't some other, better way to solve this problem? I'm not saying we should all start bowing to Mecca, just thinking that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if we left them alone, they would leave us alone? If they really, really hate us because we (theoretically) support Israel -- that's easy too. Stop supporting Israel. I'm not really sure why Israel is any of our business anyway. It's not like they have a lot of oil or anything.