Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2789101112131415161722 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 546
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree. FISA cannot infringe on the President's constitutional powers. However, remember that the key is gathering of foreign intelligence. When the President gathers domestic intelligence, there are constitutional considerations.
    ANd, the only thing I have seen (with one exception that NSA has admitted was a technical glitch) every communication was international (foreign). Different rules for domestic and international.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I would argue that international phone calls are not "domestic" in terms of intelligence gathering. Why would the NSA simply not set up shop in a friendly country (or international waters) and monitor international communications? This sets up a practical absurdity where the same call can be legally monitored by us if the monitors are outside our territory but not if they happen to be within our borders.
    FISA allows domestic calls (originating and ending in the US) to be monitored by NSA if they are not on US soil (British Embassy in DC)
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I would argue that international phone calls are not "domestic" in terms of intelligence gathering.
    But I am not sure that is the legal definition. The legal definition (if it is defined) would probably be in the FISA (usually at the beginning of it.) If there is no definition there, then the courts look at case law, Congressional intent (whatever informal record there is leading up to the Act being passed.)

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Why would the NSA simply not set up shop in a friendly country (or international waters) and monitor international communications? This sets up a practical absurdity where the same call can be legally monitored by us if the monitors are outside our territory but not if they happen to be within our borders.
    Ok, you have me confused. I am saying that if the call originates from me here while I am in the U.S., then it would not fall into the international call and therefore would need a warrant to listen to it.

    If the call originates from me and I am outside the U.S. (i.e. Mexico on vacation), then no warrant would be needed (although that still causes me to pause since I am still a U.S. citizen even when abroad).

    I am not following you on the "Move the NSA outside the U.S. to listen". It's not where the NSA is located that makes it an international call but rather where the call originates (at least from what I have read).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  4. #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ANd, the only thing I have seen (with one exception that NSA has admitted was a technical glitch) every communication was international (foreign). Different rules for domestic and international.
    I agree. But I thought the issue is that Pres. Bush is saying that he is not bound by FISA and he can authorize domestic calls originating from within the U.S. to be surveillanced without warrant...right?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    FISA allows domestic calls (originating and ending in the US) to be monitored by NSA if they are not on US soil (British Embassy in DC)
    Am I the only one who finds this absurd?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #226  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree. But I thought the issue is that Pres. Bush is saying that he is not bound by FISA and he can authorize domestic calls originating from within the U.S. to be surveillanced without warrant...right?
    No, he is saying that he does not need FISA to monitor international calls that originate or end in a foreign country, where certain paramenters have been met (to a known or highly suspect terroris, or to a terrorist organization, etc)
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am saying that if the call originates from me here while I am in the U.S., then it would not fall into the international call and therefore would need a warrant to listen to it.
    I believe calls can fall into only two categories: Domestic and International.

    If you're calling Dublin from the Bronx, we would consider it an international call. If you're calling Detroit from San Juan, we would consider it an international call.

    I can't agree that calling Tokyo wouldn't be considered an international call. How does "who starts it" matter?

    "Mike, this is Osama, call me back, quick." Starts in Whereizhestan and goes to Duluth. Can be monitored...
    "Osama, this is Mike. I'm calling you back..." From Duluth to Whereizhestan... Can't be monitored...

    This doesn't make sense. Both are international calls.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I believe calls can fall into only two categories: Domestic and International.

    If you're calling Dublin from the Bronx, we would consider it an international call. If you're calling Detroit from San Juan, we would consider it an international call.

    I can't agree that calling Tokyo wouldn't be considered an international call. How does "who starts it" matter?

    "Mike, this is Osama, call me back, quick." Starts in Whereizhestan and goes to Duluth. Can be monitored...
    "Osama, this is Mike. I'm calling you back..." From Duluth to Whereizhestan... Can't be monitored...

    This doesn't make sense. Both are international calls.
    Whereizhestan Love it
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    This doesn't make sense. Both are international calls.
    And what about VOIP? If I'm Al Qaeda, I'm a big Vonage customer. I'll get a bunch of US phone numbers and plug my vonage box in over in Whereizhestan. Now evry call I make to my terrorist buddies in the US is a "domestic" call.

    Technology is making a lot of these domestic vs. international communications issues harder to figure out.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    I believe calls can fall into only two categories: Domestic and International.

    This doesn't make sense. Both are international calls.
    This is my understanding (and I could be completely wrong).

    Domestic (i.e. both parties are within the U.S.), International (i.e. one of the parties is in a location outside the U.S.)

    The debate hinges on whether the government can listen to a phone call I make from within the U.S. to a foreign country without first getting a warrant.

    I don't think anyone is making the argument that the government cannot listen in on a call made from Iraq to my cell phone in the CA (if they are, then point them to me.)

    link
    The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States.

    Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    And what about VOIP? If I'm Al Qaeda, I'm a big Vonage customer. I'll get a bunch of US phone numbers and plug my vonage box in over in Whereizhestan. Now evry call I make to my terrorist buddies in the US is a "domestic" call.

    Technology is making a lot of these domestic vs. international communications issues harder to figure out.
    I think the Pres. would argue where the IP address originates would determine that it would be an international call.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I think the Pres. would argue where the IP address originates would determine that it would be an international call.
    IP address ranges are assigned to entities such as companies or ISPs and are not strictly-speaking geographically indicative of anything. If I have a front company in the US with a range of public IPs I can go to Whereizhestan where I plug in with one of my "US" IP addresses.

    Now of course there are ways to trace IP traffic through routers, etc... but US domestic IP traffic can be routed through international hops as well. It's not as clear-cut as with land lines and must present a nightmare for intel folks.

    Incidentally, I've been doing some reading about the 4th Amendment and warrants. It turns out there are all sorts of circumstances criminal or otherwise where warrants are not required to conduct searches of US citizens or their property. Drug testing of railroad employees mandated by the Federal government is one. Mandatory unannounced mine inspections and OSHA inspections are some others.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Incidentally, I've been doing some reading about the 4th Amendment and warrants. It turns out there are all sorts of circumstances criminal or otherwise where warrants are not required to conduct searches of US citizens or their property. Drug testing of railroad employees mandated by the Federal government is one. Mandatory unannounced mine inspections and OSHA inspections are some others.
    I heard during any interview today on one of the major new networks that there are at least 28 Federal exceptions that make warrantless searches legal. Don't know what they are....but it would be interesting to see a list.
  14. #234  
    Nah, very uninteresting in fact.

    Unless of course you feel that you deserve to be issued a search warrant for something... personally.... I don't.

    The next 20 years or so will be very touch and go... the government needs to be unencumbered in it's ongoing investigations.
  15. #235  
    It's just not going to be satisfying enough to be able to turn to the Libs and say "See, I told you so" after another major attack within our borders. Not justifyable.
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Jefferson
    Nah, very uninteresting in fact.

    Unless of course you feel that you deserve to be issued a search warrant for something... personally.... I don't.

    The next 20 years or so will be very touch and go... the government needs to be unencumbered in it's ongoing investigations.
    I am feeling safer already that you are willing to give up all your civil liberties

    The constitution has handled the test of time for over two centuries...there is no reason to throw away the rule of law now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Jefferson
    It's just not going to be satisfying enough to be able to turn to the Libs and say "See, I told you so" after another major attack within our borders. Not justifyable.
    But it would give you SOME satisfaction?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I heard during any interview today on one of the major new networks that there are at least 28 Federal exceptions that make warrantless searches legal. Don't know what they are....but it would be interesting to see a list.
    I wouldn't doubt that there are that many exceptions (it's a reflection of the fact that the courts recognize the 'necessity' at a certain level that an individual's rights are below those of society's.) But it just begs the question...with all those exemptions, we still need to add even more exemptions to the list?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  18. #238  
    Or....is what happenned simply among those already established?
  19. #239  
    Paranoia will Destroya.....

    OK everyone, let's come back down to Earth now...

    If you're not collaberating with Hamas or Al Quaida and you're not a threat to National Security... I'd say you can chill out now.

    But so sorry Beavis, your delicate sensibilities and yearning for enlightened political correctness will have to be put on hold... sleeper cells come first.

    Like I was saying, this country enjoys the presence of it's women and children in the following condition:

    -happy
    -healthy
    -non-stressed and without on-going, daily fear
    -non-irradiated
    -with all limbs intact
    -with no chemical induced nerve damage

    Y'know... FREE

    Kinda like the way it is right now, in fact.

    Thank you President Bush
    Thank you U.S. Armed Forces
    Thank you US Border Patrol
    Thank You Sky Marshalls

    Merry Christmas Everyone!

    -----------------------------
    Oh, this is the point at which the deluded, the paranoid, the politically hateful, and terrorists with something to lose... begin caterwalling again.
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am feeling safer already that you are willing to give up all your civil liberties

    The constitution has handled the test of time for over two centuries...there is no reason to throw away the rule of law now.

    But it would give you SOME satisfaction?
    Listen to what you just said "...the test of time? for over two centuries?"
    Jesus man... we are infants in World History, two hundred years is a flash in the pan, man...

    Granted the Constitution is great.

    Granted, we are successful and I love this Country very much, but we are NOT infallible. Political Correctness, with the support of trial lawyers and rogue Circuit Court Judges has the potential to completely take our society into insane decadence and beyond to self destruction in a very short period of time.

    Seriously, think about that for a moment.

    Nearly every great society that has ever existed on this planet has fallen from either decadence or generally having too much of itself.

    Are we, The U.S., exceptions to the rule?

    Sorry GungHo, the laws of the universe still apply.

    If we stop defending this Country from within over subtle nuances in our freedoms, with an enemy such as terrorism having already successfully pulled off what only a hollywood director has been able to do to date... we are screwed.

    But what about our civil liberties? Please... stop it... there hasn't been one case of prosecution of an American yet over this... when there is a case brought to court involving a secret roving wiretap, we can talk again.

Posting Permissions