Newsstand - Warantless Wiretaps can target Americans now

This just got out of committee and can make it to the floor.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search the houses of U.S. citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday, and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act, which was co-written by committee's chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in concert with the White House.

(snip)

The bill:

* Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
* Expands the section of law that allows the attorney general to authorize spying on foreign embassies, so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war. The lack of any congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the president at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.
* Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans. Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.
* Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
* Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington, D.C., comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
* Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

A markup of the corresponding House bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) was scheduled for Wednesday, but was canceled.

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

Unfreakingbelievable. :mad: :td:

Great Congress, let's just hand the president the keys to the kingdom while we're at it.

If this gets voted into law, we will be a lot closer to becoming a police state. All we'll need is a cover project named BIG BROTHER and we'll be set.

It also sucks that they want to do a vote that won't show who voted how. I guess so the people can't see that they're Congresscritter voted for it and then vote them out.

Super

It's so nice that this is being done just before an election. Let me guess, it's "...Being done for your protection!" Blech!

Unbelievable!!!! "Just trust us... we won't commit war crimes..."

Unbelievable!!!! "Just trust us... we won't commit war crimes..."

If Nixon had these kind of powers with J Edgar Hoover, Nixon would still be president.

OT question: I must have missed it. When did we vote to eliminate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? They obviously are not in force any more. :mad:

It's so nice that this is being done just before an election. Let me guess, it's "...Being done for your protection!" Blech!

On the other hand, it gives us a chance to vote them out quick if they support this crap.

Somehow, I think the sheeple will buy it hook, line and sinker though. :td:

OT question: I must have missed it. When did we vote to eliminate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? They obviously are not in force any more. :mad:

Our "inspired" leaders are doing what they think we want to keep us safe.

Anyone else seeing parallels between our government and Star Wars Episode 3?

The Emperor: [to the Senate] In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society which I assure you will last for ten thousand years.

[Senate fills with enormous applause]

Padmé: [to Bail Organa] So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

On the other hand, it gives us a chance to vote them out quick if they support this crap.They're putting this to a voice vote so they won't be able to be pinned down on the issue.

FYI, this abomination is called the "National Security Surveillance Act of 2006" and the full text can be found here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2453:). I've just sent messages about it to my Senators and Congresscritter. I urge the rest of you to do the same.

FYI, this abomination is called the "National Security Surveillance Act of 2006" and the full text can be found here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2453:). I've just sent messages about it to my Senators and Congresscritter. I urge the rest of you to do the same.

I will be tomorrow. :td:

Warantless Wiretaps can target Americans nowIf this gets voted into law,
I don't understand why thread titles often conflict with the actual posting.

If Nixon had these kind of powers with J Edgar Hoover, Nixon would still be president.

The BIG difference was that Congress was controlled by the Democrats during Nixon's time.

I don't understand why thread titles often conflict with the actual posting.In this case it's probably because the bill has a good chance of passing. We have a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and an upcoming election where these three want to do as much as possible to make the sheeple feel "safe."

The BIG difference was that Congress was controlled by the Democrats during Nixon's time.But if this law were in place the Democrats would never have known about what was going on.

In this case it's probably because the bill has a good chance of passing. We have a Republican President, a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and an upcoming election where these three want to do as much as possible to make the sheeple feel "safe."
If it has a "good chance," then write, "good chance," in the title not "now."

Has the media made the details of this Bill public knowledge? Does the public know? Has there been any public debate?

Why am I not surprised no one wants to go on the record voting for this....

Disgusting. Un-American. Un-Constitutional. Un-Patriotic.

I don't understand why thread titles often conflict with the actual posting.

I don't understand why people have to post nitpicks.

I don't understand why people have to post nitpicks.

It wasn't a nitpick. It was a reasonable observation.

The thing about unanimous consent is that it has to be, erm, unanimous.
If one Senator says the magic words, "I object," then they either have to forget about it or have a roll-call vote.
So the thing to ask your Senator to do is object to unanimous consent. Whether a D, even one not up for reelection, would do this is another question.

Of course, the R's might try to use the method pioneered by Lyndon Johnson: announce that it won't be brought up, and then on the day of adjournment in October, keep the Senate in session until everyone but the majority leader and the poor sap in the chair have left town. Then bring it up. Hearing no objection, the gavel comes down.

How about this. The warrentless wiretaps are already happening. Hence the now part. If this becomes law, then it will be legal instead of illegal. Better?

OT: I'm sorry. Sometimes I come across too harshly. I didn't mean to rail on this but here's my point. Aside from just being plain inaccurate, the thread title misleads the reader into thinking a law has passed. Voters are more likely to complain to their reps about a proposed bill than one which already passed. So the OP unknowingly does himself a disservice with this. It's just a small change to write something like "Proposed bill will legalize more wiretaps targetting Americans!"

I don't understand why people have to post nitpicks.

I don't understand how Newstand became the anything-goes Politics forum.

Good point. Can this be moved?

This is not the first time such acts have been passed by a repressive regime. Whetehr they are used by an occupying power to subdue the occupied or by a Govt to subdue its own people, motivation is the same-- depriving people of civil liberties. Even the language is remarkably similar. Compare this with Rowlatt Acts of 1919.

The Rowlatt Acts were legislation that imposed authoritarian restrictions upon Indian people. The notion of habeas corpus was discarded, and the police and army were empowered to search and seize property, detain and arrest any Indian without the slightest need for evidence. Promulgated by the British Parliament, the Viceroy and the Imperial Legislative Council, they were to be enforced on April 6, 1919."
......
The Rowlatt Act was passed in 1919, indefinitely extending wartime "emergency meaures" in order to control public unrest and root out conspiracy. This act effectively authorised the government to imprison without trial, any person suspected of terrorism living in the Raj .


Both from Wikipedia. In 1975 Indira Gandhi used Emergency to assume similar powers, that was the cause of her eventual downfall. I think it's naive to think that our Govt is not likely to be as autocratic as some other Governments as long as we let them.

Rowlatt Acts resulted in the Jalianwallah Bagh massacre shown ion the movie Gandhi.

You mean like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus?

You mean like when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus?
If you want to argue whether Lincoln was justified in his actios in another thread. As I undersatnd :

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

I don't see any threat of a civil war, rebellion or an invasion now. In fact President Bush has suspended the writ selectively.

Thanks for posting the link!

Here's more of it.

(8) It is in our Nation's best interest for Congress to use its oversight power to establish a system to ensure that electronic surveillance programs do not infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans, while at the same time making sure that the President has all the powers and means necessary to detect and track our enemies.

(9) While Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained that the executive branch reviews the electronic surveillance program of the National Security Agency every 45 days to ensure that the program is not overly broad, it is the belief of Congress that approval and supervision of electronic surveillance programs should be conducted outside of the executive branch, by the Article III court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803). It is also the belief of Congress that it is appropriate for an Article III court to pass upon the constitutionality of electronic surveillance programs that may implicate the rights of Americans.

(10) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the proper court to approve and supervise classified electronic surveillance programs because it is adept at maintaining the secrecy with which it was charged and it possesses the requisite expertise and discretion for adjudicating sensitive issues of national security.

(11) In 1975, then-Attorney General Edward Levi, a strong defender of executive authority, testified that in times of conflict, the President needs the power to conduct long-range electronic surveillance and that a foreign intelligence surveillance court should be empowered to issue special warrants in these circumstances.

(12) This Act clarifies and definitively establishes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has the authority to review electronic surveillance programs and pass upon their constitutionality. Such authority is consistent with well-established, longstanding practices.

(13) The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court already has broad authority to approve surveillance of members of international conspiracies, in addition to granting warrants for surveillance of a particular individual under sections 104, 105, and 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804, 1805, and 1842).

(14) Prosecutors have significant flexibility in investigating domestic conspiracy cases. Courts have held that flexible warrants comply with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States when they relate to complex, far reaching, and multi-faceted criminal enterprises like drug conspiracies and money laundering rings. The courts recognize that applications for search warrants must be judged in a common sense and realistic fashion, and the courts permit broad warrant language where, due to the nature and circumstances of the investigation and the criminal organization, more precise descriptions are not feasible.

(15) Federal agents investigating international terrorism by foreign enemies are entitled to tools at least as broad as those used by Federal agents investigating domestic crimes by United States citizens. The Supreme Court, in the `Keith Case', United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), recognized that the standards and procedures used to fight ordinary crime may not be applicable to cases involving national security. The Court recognized that national `security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of ordinary crime' and that courts should be more flexible in issuing warrants in national security cases. United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297, 322 (1972).

(16) By authorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review electronic surveillance programs, Congress preserves the ability of the Commander in Chief to use the necessary means to guard our national security, while also protecting the civil liberties and constitutional rights that we cherish.

The problem is that there are some minor changes to the law that would actually be good, while still protecting liberty and privacy. But these folks want to take a mile where they need an inch. So what will end up happening is either (1) there will be a backlash and nothing will be done - including no improvements to the current situation or (2) they'll pass this, which will decrease our security - security including threats from bad people as well as bad governments/government agents. (People in communist countries didn't have "security" because the police state they lived in could get them arrested or worse for any or no reason.)