Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying

[genieroze]

Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying
Washington Post | March 17 2006
Charles Babington

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

http://jonesreport.com/articles/bill_would_allow_warrantless_spying.html

[liveoaktx]

1. I continue to say that this is the SECOND step-the FIRST is NSA

collecting this information... at all. This bill does not address the issue of NSA collecting the information in the first place. It is only AFTER they mine the information and decide to eavesdrop on a given person that they will be able to do it without a warrant. for X amount of time.

But do we want, in the first place, to allow the NSA to datamine through telecomm switches all our communications?

[Rex]

2. Hagel wants everything to be in place for his 2008 coronation.

So someone can yell, 'national security' even if it is obvious that the target is a political opponent like say...oh I dunno...a Dem? Sponsoring fascism is soooo, hmmm, pathetic.

[thinkingwoman]

3. Passing this law won't make it legal

There's still that pesky 4th amendment.

[genieroze]

4. Since when does the Constitution matter to these fascists?

[shance]

5. When did it matter to the Democratic leadership for that matter?

What are they doing about the bullying?

What are American citizens doing about the bullying?

Thats the question. It's about us too.

[genieroze]

6. I think you are right

So does Eric Blumrich
http://www.ericblumrich.com/ipdi.html

My own take on this garbage:
Oh yeah let's have a poll. Who likes the fact that * is spying on Americans. The majority say they don't like it. Solution, come up with a faux bull crap bill that appears to make it legal even though it's unconstitutional. See, everyone wins except the American people.

[thinkingwoman]

9. since never

sigh.

[Trillo]

7. Seems fatally flawed.

Who would 'watch' the Justice Department to verify? Another 'trust us' idea.

Better to keep the FISA court oversight. It's secret enough. They just want 45-days to go fishing, and then if there's nothing, pretend it didn't happen. What if they overhear a biz deal, and decide to self-advantage their chosen friends?

"There's no record, it didn't happen," since it only happened for less than 45-days.

A bad, fatally-flawed idea.

[sueh]

8. There they go again!

Another attempt to give the perception they're hard at work solving the problem while really acting as *'s enablers.