• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

C

Chrisc411

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
137
Location
Lemon Grove, Ca.
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/washington/16fisa.html
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Chrisc411 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Chrisc411 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
bigtoe416 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.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why even bother with a Constitution?! Last I checked they required acting in good faith also.
 
wewd

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
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.
 
C

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
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.
 
S

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Jack House said:
Probably wont help. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it just made you that much more of a target for the CIA.
Click to expand...


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.
 
D

daddy4count

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
513
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
Chrisc411 said:
American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AZkopper

AZkopper

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2008
Messages
675
Location
Prescott, Arizona, USA
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!!
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
AZkopper said:
SNIP But there MUST be a warrant if U.S. legal residents are involved within the country!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Citizen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you locate the case?
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
eye95 said:
Can you locate the case?
Click to expand...

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:
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Ca Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ........
 
S

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
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.
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Citizen said:
eye95 said:
Can you locate the case?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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 [strike]agents[/strike] 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).
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Citizen said:
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 [strike]agents[/strike] 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).
Click to expand...

I really would rather read the decision, and not one man's interpretation of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top