Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program

[Wired]

Maybe I'm off mark here, but why would any citizen of this country need to worry about ANY surveillance, foreign OR domestic, if you're not participating in anything heinous?

Sounds like people trying to protect their unethical deeds.

Just my .02, if I've missed, let me know.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by nmmirich

It seems any opinion not congruent with the majority is discouraged. I did not intend to flaunt any achievement of mine, I am aware it does not match most on this site. I only mentioned my degree to qualify myself as a student of history following an attack. I would not purposely insult others on the site however I see my presence has done just that. I will not post anything further

Nobody is trying to attack you.

It is merely a debate. Disagreements will happen.

If you fervently believe your position and wish to advocate it, more power to you.

Please extend to others the courtesy of allowing them to advocate their positions and, if they disagree, rebut yours.

Your posts have a certain "tone" to them.
Expect the tone of the responses to be in-kind.

My "commencement" comment was meant to make a point:
Receiving your degree is the beginning of learning, not the completion thereof.

Some advice:
-If you wish to learn, grow a thick skin like everyone else.
-Don't look to others to validate your position.
-Let challenges to your position to be a opportunity to excercise your mind.
-If you feel you are right, stick to your guns. But, do so with an open mind.
-If someone attempts to correct you, they may be doing you a favor.
-If you discover that you may be mistaken about something, there is no shame in these three words: I stand corrected.

The QP's here are an invaluable resource and have freely offered their insight into many things.
It would be difficult to find a finer assembly of teachers.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Wired

Maybe I'm off mark here, but why would any citizen of this country need to worry about ANY surveillance, foreign OR domestic, if you're not participating in anything heinous?

The same reason that most people would object to the Police searching their homes, cars, or conducting random firearm inventory checks without cause...... Americans are kinda touchy when it comes to a perceived infringement of rights, fearing a slippery slope toward Big Brother.

Back to the original topic...... Technology changes, and we (society, the military, LE, and Intelligence Agencies) have to change. If we are strapped by rules made in a different day and age, then we have lost.

The rules regarding phone surveillance and "wire tapping" were made back when each house had one phone number, it was a land line, and that was the only way to communicate. That was then.

Now, we have disposable (anonymous) pre pay track phones, phone cards, numbers can be run through internet proxies, ghost numbers, internet phone service, text messaging, instant messaging, video messaging, etc....... This is now.

You think an organized terrorist cell is going to use the same phone long enough for you to get a warrant for that number? Hell, even street level drug dealers are more sophistaicated than that....

Like it or not, this type of surveillance is a matter of survival in the telecommunications age..

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

The Constitution says that the Courts decide what is or is not against the Constitution. (Courts such as the 6th Circuit and the Supreme Court).

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

In the rock, paper, scissors of the three branches of government, the legislature has the plenary power, in that they can amend the constitution if the SCOTUS goes nuts.

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by Tubbs

Thank you for taking the time to address my question.
If I may, I would like to ask one more since you gentlemen seem to have access to more truthful information on the topic, or you're smarter than I am and can cut through the BS better, probobly both.
What were (or are) the safeguards in place the kept this system from being abused?
There obviously must have been several since its constitutionality was upheld in this court case, but according to most media outlets the TSP ate babies and killed puppies.

Since the TSP is Top Secret there is very little known about the safeguards. AG Alberto Gonzales did state that the TSP was only employed when one party to the communication is outside the continental United States. Further probable cause must exist that one of the two parties is linked to Al Queda or an affiliated terrorist organization.

I think this link will further enlighten you on the TSP.


http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/readingroom/surveillance19.pdf

This is the Bush administrations answer to inquiries about TSP.

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Remington Raidr

In the rock, paper, scissors of the three branches of government, the legislature has the plenary power, in that they can amend the constitution if the SCOTUS goes nuts.

No they can't. They can propse Constitutional Amendments but the final power in determining what gets amended is the states.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[longrange1947]

Why do I get the feeling that 'some' feel that there is a room filled with thousands of guys, drinking gallons of coffee, and smoking tons of cigarettes listening in on everyone's phone conversations?

Even if you said, from overseas to here to your best friend, "That party was the bomb"; no "one" would listen in on that conversation and no one would note who said it. Think about it.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

Just thought I would point out that this is incorrect. The Court decided that it had the sole responsibility to determine Constitutionality of laws in Marbury v Madison. The right to do so was not conferred upon them by the Constitution but taken by Judicial fiat.

Good point. I stand corrected.

Maybe this is better:
The Supreme Court has decided that Constitution says that the Courts decide what is or is not against the Constitution.
(That would make the power of judicial review a shining example of petitio principii)

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by longrange1947

Why do I get the feeling that 'some' feel that there is a room filled with thousands of guys, drinking gallons of coffee, and smoking tons of cigarettes listening in on everyone's phone conversations?

Even if you said, from overseas to here to your best friend, "That party was the bomb"; no "one" would listen in on that conversation and no one would note who said it. Think about it.

Thought about it.

Here's a conjecture:

Given that there's a finite amount of human judgement which can be applied to the issue, there will be a sifting process.
After the data mining has been done, the actuaries cook up a nice little "profile" which maximizes the effectiveness of limited resources.
This "profile" would not likely be equally representative of all groups (ethnic, religious, etc.).

How much money could a good trial lawyer make off of this fact?

If, by chance, there existed some politicians who would put the needs of their career ahead of the nation's security, they might be tempted to make political hay once a the lawsuits began.
Let's just hope such politicians don't exist.


If telecom companies lost money in lawsuits as a consequence of all this they might be tempted to do something about it.
Perhaps they might invent ways to increase customer anonymity.
(which would encumber intelligence gathering efforts)

This way, they could fully cooperate with authorities and have some protection from civil liability associated with politically incorrect "profiles".
But then again, why would a for-profit company be motivated to protect their bottom line?


Whatever the details are, we can be assured (by the MSM) that any/all problems are Bush's fault.

Originally Posted by rubberneck

No they can't. They can propse Constitutional Amendments but the final power in determining what gets amended is the states.

Ya got me, BUT I was just comparing the power of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches.

[swpa19]

Just finished reading the last 5 or 6 posts. That is what a DISCUSSION is all about. An informative learning process.