WASHINGTON — In a rare public ruling, a secret federal appeals court has said telecommunications companies must cooperate with the government to intercept international phone calls and e-mail of American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.
The ruling came in a case involving an unidentified company’s challenge to 2007 legislation that expanded the president’s legal power to conduct wiretapping without warrants for intelligence purposes.
Fair use excerpt ... Read More at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/wa...on/16fisa.html
Someone traded some of my freedom for some security, and they didn't even ask me.
A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.
The Constitution has no ability to enforce itself. It's just a piece of paper with nice ideas written on it. Those who are supposed to obey it have no obligation or incentive to actually do so, so they generally do not, unless it benefits them in some way. They can make us obey their rules through violence, coercion, imprisonment, and theft of our property. But since they have the monopoly on force, there is no one to make them follow any sort of rules, be it the written law which supposedly applies to everyone equally (the great fallacy of blind justice), or the Constitution itself. It is, as the great 19th century political philosopher Lysander Spooner put it, the Constitution of No Authority.
I guess it's time for encrypted VOIP for calls now..?
The Feds have a device called a Narus STA 6400. Go to Narus's site, and note how it is extremely vague.
It can piece together traffic with up to (purportedly) 1024-bit encryption in real time, as a function of hardware processing.
It has it's own little room in AT&T Data Centers.
According to some, just owning a firearm and advocating 2A rights could imply that I'm a terrorist...
I have no problem with Federal wire taps... as long as they got a Federal judge to sign off on the warrant. At least that way there is some kind of check and balance, not leaving it up to the LEA to decide who gets oppressed.
To quote Dr. Seuss: I do not like this, Sam I Am....
As was said above, I have no problem with WARRANTS to wiretap specific subjects for specified times within the U.S.
I even have no problem with a "reverse warrant" (my term), where they say "Person X, overseas, is a known member of terrorist group Y. Any calls or emails sent to him from the U.S. will be intercepted and read/listened to".
But there MUST be a warrant if U.S. legal residents are involved within the country!!
Well, if the courts feel US jurisdiction includes all seas and nations, then warrants would should be required for communications to and from anywhere in the world.
Did anybody even bother to check out the information I posted?
The thing is real, and is constantly monitoring enormous amounts of data, then collating and transmitting reports in real time, back to the NSA.
According to the book, American government agents kidnappers went to Pakistan, seized Yousef, and turned him over to the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis then gave him back to the kidnappers without hearings or extradition due process.
Once back in the US, the judge in the federal district court ruled that essentially the US had universal jurisdiction, that Pakistan was effectively part of the US, without explaining his rationale. Just making the declaration.
The 2nd Circuit upheld the ruling. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
Since this might have just been side motions, I have no idea how to find the actual document, except maybe dig up all the 2nd Circuit rulings from that time period. Or, maybe search "Ramzi Yousef" and "universal jurisdiction" (if there is even such a legal term).
hmmmm. sounds to me like 'homeland' is going to be all over this. i'd better start planning to hang my machines on a regular basis, and look for errant black boxes.
One thing, though. Above, I over-characterized it as though it was a decision more broadly effective than I should have. From reading again the book reference, I got the idea it was a ruling on a motion. As opposed to a decision that would give broad, far-reaching powers to all the fed LE agents. Not that lacking such a decision prevented the kidnapping in Pakistan in the first place--meaning, it seems the fed agents are not stopped from doing it anyway without a formal decision.
The trial transcript can be found HERE as a PDF. Unless I am missing something (I didn't read the whole thing by any means) what y'all are looking for starts at the bottom of page 20 under the heading Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Defendants Yousef and Murad
I know you like people to find the links themselves, eye, but I thought this discussion was too interesting to wait on that and Citizen wasn't going fast enough for me.
Last edited by Brimstone Baritone; 08-26-2010 at 11:42 PM.
Well, it seems that US jurisdiction does not apply overseas, except in very few specific instances. And, based on the courts examination of that jurisdiction, it seems that the rights of the defendants, when that jurisdiction extends to them, are protected by the courts.
I just don't see how this case applies to this discussion.