NSA keeping track of every phone call Americans make

[Caprice]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It does says "unreasonable searches and seizures." That implies to me that "reasonable" ones are allowed. Now who is going to define the word reasonable for us?

Personally, I don't consider telephone conversations, which are simply electrons on wires, to be protected under this particular amendment. Maybe it should be, I'm undecided on that...

 

[eyrei]

Can you give your partisan Bush grundel sucking bullfeathers a rest for two minutes and do three things for me please.

1) Look at the law.

2) Look at what has been done.

3) Without considering "who done it," judge objectively on whether or not it was lawful.

That's all I ask, as well as not talking so often. It is truly unbecoming.

Thanks.

Moderator Action: 3 days. Profanity and flaming. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: Anyone else want a ban? Now kindly discuss this rather important topic in an intelligent and civilized manner. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[IglooDame]

It does says "unreasonable searches and seizures." That implies to me that "reasonable" ones are allowed. Now who is going to define the word reasonable for us?

Personally, I don't consider telephone conversations, which are simply electrons on wires, to be protected under this particular amendment. Maybe it should be, I'm undecided on that...

General Hayden tried to do exactly what you're talking about - saying that there are "reasonable" searches, setting aside the warrant requirement.

In my opinion, the rest of the amendment points us to the definition of reasonable, that is, searches accompanied by warrants issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. SCOTUS has laid out other "reasonable" searches and I think (but welcome correction) that in all cases they're related to actual arresting circumstances or are for the immediate physical safety of police officers.

 

[Caprice]

In my opinion, the rest of the amendment points us to the definition of reasonable, that is, searches accompanied by warrants issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Just curious: How does one explain, without assuming that some searchs are reasonable, the ability of law enforcement to search a vehicle based solely on probable cause?

 

[IglooDame]

Just curious: How does one explain, without assuming that some searchs are reasonable, the ability of law enforcement to search a vehicle based solely on probable cause?

Excellent question. I'd think that it is necessary because the warrant requirement is too clumsy given the ability of the vehicle's owner to drive into another jurisdiction or in some other way avoid a warranted search later on (assuming the vehicle isn't impounded).

If an officer shows up at your front door and smells marijuana, he's got probable cause to enter your house too (I think), so it isn't strictly related to vehicles.

 

[Kayak]

Excellent question. I'd think that it is necessary because the warrant requirement is too clumsy given the ability of the vehicle's owner to drive into another jurisdiction or in some other way avoid a warranted search later on (assuming the vehicle isn't impounded).

If an officer shows up at your front door and smells marijuana, he's got probable cause to enter your house too (I think), so it isn't strictly related to vehicles.

Or if he sees or hears something illegal going on inside. Your point on the SCOTUS laing out resonable searches covers this well, I think.

 

[Caprice]

I'd think that it is necessary because the warrant requirement is too clumsy given the ability of the vehicle's owner to drive into another jurisdiction or in some other way avoid a warranted search later on

This is precisely my point. If correcting terrorism requires similar measures because of it's ever-changing nature, ability to change jurisdictions, etc. would you consider it any more reasonable? Personally, I look at many of our counterterrorism elements (particularly those involving electronic surveilence) the same as I do searching a vehicle during a traffic stop. It has to happen now or you lose your chance.

If an officer shows up at your front door and smells marijuana, he's got probable cause to enter your house too (I think), so it isn't strictly related to vehicles.

This wouldn't shock me, although I'll admit I've not heard of such a thing.

Your point on the SCOTUS laing out resonable searches covers this well, I think.

What the heck is the SCOTUS and why can't we just write it out instead of using bogus acronyms?

 

[malclave]

What the heck is the SCOTUS and why can't we just write it out instead of using bogus acronyms?

"Supreme Court Of The United States"

 

[malclave]

Is there any new information available? It seems to be largely a re-release of 5-month old news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/p...e83&ex=1293080400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Honestly, it seems to me to be an attempt by USA Today to stage a preemptive strike against Hayden's confirmation hearing.

Of course, maybe USA Today is just behind the times, and next week we'll see an article about the importance of Y2K preparedness.

 

[CruddyLeper]

It's not true. Domestic US phone calls are not monitored from ConUS.

They're monitored from GCHQ Cheltenham, UK, via Menwith Hill.

Essentially you bug us, we bug you. Gets around all that domestic privacy crap.

 

[cgannon64]

I'm not prone to doing this, but I think it is worth inconveniencing a few electrons in this case for possible clue transmission:

PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE HAVING SOMETHING TO HIDE.

I hardly see how it's "privacy infringement" for the government to see whether you happen to call Saudi Arabia every week.

Credit card companies already evaluate your buying patterns so they can figure out when your card has been stolen; is that privacy infringement?

 

[sysyphus]

the secret services in Canada already do it, they even told it publicly.

They said that its to monitor possible terrorist attacks.

So that's why the Ministry of Health sent me a letter telling me to stop ordering so much pizza.

 

[sysyphus]

Credit card companies already evaluate your buying patterns so they can figure out when your card has been stolen; is that privacy infringement?

I'd say the criteria on that is whether or not they use it either against you or to their own advantage.

And let's face it, everyone has something to hide, the only question is how serious it is.

 

[Brian_B]

From a legal perspective, "privacy rights" aren't a very fertile ground to make your argument from. There are no "privacy rights" per se in the Constitution. Really it's just a matter of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as others have mentioned.

 

[cgannon64]

And let's face it, everyone has something to hide, the only question is how serious it is.

But the government is only looking for one specific category of "something." And, as far as I understand this program, the people they search are narrowed down significantly: first, because they called or were called by someone outside the US; then, because they said certain words.

You could be a drug peddler, child pornographer, adulteress, and this program wouldn't find what you want to hide. (Granted, this is an assumption. The government could use this for other crime-fighting purposes, but that would be a pretty big story, and if they're doing it it's either covered up or I really missed out.)

 

[amadeus]

It strikes me as a bit odd because it seems to me like those that are arguing against this would in any other circumstance be most in favor of nationalizing the telephone companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but just wanted to get that observation out of the way.

It appears that the government is collecting a database of telephone numbers that interact with other telephone numbers. I can see where this would be useful in connecting anyone to potential terrorists or what have you, but I don't know in detail the program. It would seem irresponsible to criticize the program when you don't even know what exactly it is.

 

[Rad Chris]

It seems to me that the whole hoo haa over being spied on isnt as important as other potential abuses of having a huge database of peoples phone calls. You dont need the content to get information out of it.

What if Dick Cheany wants to know who told a reporter about secret CIA prisons. He checks his phone records.

What if the Prez wants to know whos support Hilary is looking for during the upcoming election. He checks her phone records.

Even if we all trusted the Senate oversight on this database this still isnt the point. The fact it could be abused is the point. The temptation for such a large advantage abuse would bring is to large for me to trust any politician, let alone Bush.

Why dont we just make a huge database of all gun owners in the country. That would work a lot better than phone records. After all terrorists need guns right? Whats the matter? Think of the lives that would be saved!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It would seem irresponsible to criticize the program when you don't even know what exactly it is.

I'm sure you would feel the same if Hillary were Preznit.

To move this beyond partisan politics for just a moment, consider the Republican argument that the CIA is carrying on a "shadow war" of disclosing classified information to harm the Bush administration.

It's true. I mean, it couldn't possibly be more obvious that the scoop which is the focus of this thread was deliberately leaked, probably from within the CIA, to dynamite the nomination of Hayden to head that agency. Because they hate the idea of having that guy in charge.

Normally, we're all down wit' CIA leaking. It's not like it's some new dramatic development in the agency's history. And the things which the CIA does leak - proof of the Administration doing flagrantly unConstitutional bullfeathers, like secret prisons or wiretapping - are things which need to be revealed to the public.

But hold on a second. Do we really want the NSA - an agency under the aegis of the Limitless Executive (tm) - to have records of all phone calls made in the USA?

Do you really think a sufficiently ruthless incumbent would refrain from culling some really sweet oppo research from that? "Hey Senator Thretomy Relexion! How good was the prostitute you had on the night of the 9th July?"

Whether you're Republican or Democrat, as long as you're not a total fool you've got to be worried about the potential for abuse of power there.

And what about those few people who dare to be vocal dissidents (I'm not counting any of you slackers who haven't participated in an antiwar/proClintonimpeachment march)?

The purpose of such a huge datamining program is not to track the communications of terrorists. A terrorist plot of 19 people is not going to cause the phone calls to Saudi Arabia to have a statistical blip. That's clearly bunk. To trace potential terrorist plots by mining the phone calls of 25 million Americans is the stupidest idea our intel agencies ever had, and these were the guys who decided that we could win the Cold War by making Fidel Castro's beard fall out or sending him exploding cigars.

Clearly, the "cover reason" for this program doesn't hold up in the slightest.

The purpose is on the contrary, very clearly to track the communications of people who:

1) are already within the country, and making calls here
2) already are being "traced"
3) are perceived by the executive as posing a threat but
4) cannot be legally arrested and thus taken care of less circuitously

in other words, protestors.

Again, Republican or Democrat, as long as you aren't an idiot you've got to be worried about the potential for abuse here.

 

[IglooDame]

It strikes me as a bit odd because it seems to me like those that are arguing against this would in any other circumstance be most in favor of nationalizing the telephone companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but just wanted to get that observation out of the way.

Ummm... civil libertarians are the ones taking the strongest stand against this, and I don't know a one of them that is in favor of nationalizing any private companies.