Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, Ca.
    Posts
    137

    Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

    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

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisc411 View Post
    SNIP But, the court ruled, “this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.’

    “That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,” it said.
    Translation: The government is going to violate your rights anyway, so there is no point in using the guarantee of rights to try to stop it.

    [barf]
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-20-2010 at 03:06 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    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.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisc411 View Post
    But, the court ruled, “this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.’

    “That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required,” it said.
    By this immensely idiotic logic, we can just toss the bill of rights out the door since it doesn't prevent our rights from being trampled by government officials who don't act in good faith. In fact, why have laws at all since they don't prevent people from violating them. Clearly the judge(s) are traitorous baboons.

  5. #5
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    By this immensely idiotic logic, we can just toss the bill of rights out the door since it doesn't prevent our rights from being trampled by government officials who don't act in good faith. In fact, why have laws at all since they don't prevent people from violating them. Clearly the judge(s) are traitorous baboons.
    Why stop there? Why even bother with a Constitution?! Last I checked they required acting in good faith also.

  6. #6
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664
    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.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  7. #7
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    Someone traded some of my freedom for some security, and they didn't even ask me.
    Yeah.

    Sadly, what else is new?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    I guess it's time for encrypted VOIP for calls now..?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by daddy4count View Post
    I guess it's time for encrypted VOIP for calls now..?
    Probably wont help. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it just made you that much more of a target for the CIA.
    Last edited by Jack House; 08-23-2010 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Probably wont help. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it just made you that much more of a target for the CIA.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisc411 View Post
    American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.
    I would love to know the criteria for that one... "suspected of"

    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.

  12. #12
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    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!!

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    SNIP But there MUST be a warrant if U.S. legal residents are involved within the country!!
    Heh, heh, heh. Time to throw the courts' own abuse back in their face, no? What was the court decision that authorized US agents arresting foreigners overseas because even overseas was within US jurisdiction (according to this case I cannot recall).

    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.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Heh, heh, heh. Time to throw the courts' own abuse back in their face, no? What was the court decision that authorized US agents arresting foreigners overseas because even overseas was within US jurisdiction (according to this case I cannot recall).

    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.
    Can you locate the case?

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Can you locate the case?
    Possibly. I know the name of the author of the book I read it in. I just have to remember which book by that author. Then figure out which chapter, and hope he cited the case by name. I'll have a look tomorrow or the next.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-24-2010 at 08:17 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong, but this applies to communications that originate OUTSIDE of America.

    This ruling does not apply to communications inside of America between American citizens.
    Then there is always a one word explaination as to why they "accidentally" picked up a conversation between 2 U.S. citizens.

    OOPS!!! But then we have this recording where they say ........

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,415
    lol...

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Personal responsibility is a facade created by religious people in particular...
    On "Personal Responsibility just after the previous, in the same exact thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Religion uses is as a tool, they did not create it.
    The wheels on the bus go round and round...round and round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    You think that I am ill-equipped...hit me with your best shot Einstein, I am calling you out.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise...

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Can you locate the case?
    Possibly. I know the name of the author of the book I read it in. I just have to remember which book by that author. Then figure out which chapter, and hope he cited the case by name. I'll have a look tomorrow or the next.
    I sorta found it. The case (not the opinion) was maybe in 2004. Ramzi Yousef--the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing.

    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).

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I sorta found it. The case (not the opinion) was maybe in 2004. Ramzi Yousef--the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing.

    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).
    I really would rather read the decision, and not one man's interpretation of it.

  20. #20
    McX
    Guest
    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.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I really would rather read the decision, and not one man's interpretation of it.
    Me, too. But, I only have the barest idea where to start looking, and no idea whether I would even find it if I did.

    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.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Me, too. But, I only have the barest idea where to start looking, and no idea whether I would even find it if I did.
    Your Google-fu is weak.

    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; 08-27-2010 at 12:42 AM.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    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.

Posting Permissions

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