Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html





BMT

[Ret10Echo]

Good

[SF_BHT]

Yeah!!!!!!! Some one is thinking there for once.....

[Tubbs]

I'm not tracking on this one guys.
Why is this a good thing?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Tubbs

I'm not tracking on this one guys.
Why is this a good thing?

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25064

TR

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

TR

X2

And it is the ACLU and they are against almost anything that helps protect America under the auspices of your freedom. Some times you have to give up a little freedom to be free of Idiots trying to kill you.

[grumpz]

this is definitely good news.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by grumpz

this is definitely good news.

It is if you are a terrorist.

TR

Is anyone afraid of government abusing this program? I am happy we are using all our tools against foreigners but apprehensive about listening to American citizens. Our gov has a history of finding new uses for otherwise harmless programs. I think Orwell is rolling over.

[swpa19]

I am happy we are using all our tools against foreigners but apprehensive about listening to American citizens.

Thats like saying I support the troops, but not the mission.

I was going to answer in detail your comment, but there are a whole lot more on this board more learned and intelligent than me that would probably be happy to enlighten you. Ill just wait for them.

I don’t believe it is farfetched to draw a distinction between foreigners and citizens.
“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.” Fourth Amendment Constitution

[BMT (RIP)]

Let's say for what ever reason the program key's on the word NO DOZ' Then they check and the conversatiion is something like this " Honey I might be Heavy on my feet but I'm lite on the sheet's and when I get you in the No Doz'
motel, I'm going to put something on you AJAX want wash off".

They'll get a good laugh and move on.

BMT

If the gov was not wire tapping Americans why is Congress giving the telecommunication companies immunity against lawsuits filed by American citizens? “(CBS/AP) Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech before a conservative think tank, warned that if telecoms were not given immunity for past surveillance, they would hesitant to assist the government in the future, and is vital "to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3748882.shtml

Here are some links to the whistleblower from the telecom's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aeKF-rOGA
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2006/04/70621

I do not personally believe any malicious wiretapping has occurred but I am apprehensive because it could easily occur under this program without adequate oversight.

Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY. Benjamin Franklin

Originally Posted by nmmirich

If the gov was not wire tapping Americans why is Congress giving the telecommunication companies immunity against lawsuits filed by American citizens? “(CBS/AP) Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech before a conservative think tank, warned that if telecoms were not given immunity for past surveillance, they would hesitant to assist the government in the future, and is vital "to help us prevent another 9/11 down the road.”

Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY. Benjamin Franklin

Duh. Read what Cheney said. If someone wanted you to do something but you knew there were politically motivated groups who would bring suit against you JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT and you were responsible for paying to defend against the suit, would you put yourself or your enterprise in harm's way? Maybe. My cash on the table says the average man in the gray flannel suit says no. Not because he or she does not want to help, but because they do not want to be the target of meritless lawsuits. Hence, the need for the law to shield these organizations, just like we have laws to protect whistleblowers. I'm sure, reading your posts and seeing you wringing your hands in worry, you love whistleblowers and hold such laws are all good.

Then, in a weak attempt to butress your position, or raise doubt, you rip off a true patriot's quote. That is weak, weak, weak.

Look junior, as a citizen of the United States I enjoy certain protections against government authority. If you do a little research you might realize that these protections CHANGE with the circumstances. I will give you an example and go real slow, just for you. If Deputy Fife stops me driving my motor vehicle and does not have a warrant signed by a judge and he searches my vehicle without my consent whatever he found and is trying to use as evidence against me may be suppressed if that evidence was unconstitutionally obtained. So far, so good? I hope so.

Same scenario, I am a lawful citizen of the United States operating my motor vehicle. The only difference is I am crossing the border from Canada or Mexico. Does Inspector Fife need a warrant to search my vehicle? Will that kilo of cocaine be suppressed? FUCK NO. At a border crossing the standard is different. You would be well served to do a little study on search and seizure law instead of gazing at your navel, which just leaves you in the perfect position for Machmoud to lop off your head.

Think, grasshopper. These calls were "crossing the border". Different standard.

Here is another quote for your quiver, although I can't remember who said it:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

It's good you are looking out for our freedoms. Keep looking.

[Tubbs]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Because people overseas communicating electronically who would do us harm have no right to expectations of privacy or the rights afforded to American citizens.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25064

TR

Thank you for the article. I was under the impression that this was being primarily used on domestic targets.
That cleared up a good amount of ambiguity for me.