Watch Bush sign his new American Citizens Surveillance Act

[freightmaster]

Everyone tune in to c-span.org tonight at 9pm eastern and watch our 4th amendment officially go in file 13!

Pres. Bush Signs FISA Legislation (9pm)
· House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) & Democratic Leaders Briefing (9:05pm


C-SPAN | Capitol Hill, The White House and National Politics - C-SPAN

[TN. TRUCKERS WIFE]

Ok i hate to seem stupid, but what is the FISA?

[freightmaster]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act...

This link may work also.

C-SPAN: Watch LIVE

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 9, 2008 to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[1] It was signed into law on July 10 by US President George W. Bush.
Contents

[hide]

• 1 Provisions
• 2 Legislative history
• 3 Effects
• 4 Netroots opposition
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links

[edit] Provisions

Specifically, the bill:[2]

• Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
• Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records (it requires them to only keep the records for a period of 10 years).
• Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists."
• Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance.
• Increased the time allowed for warrantless surveillance to continue from 48 hours to 7 days.
• Requires FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
• Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
• Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
• Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
• Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.

The bill also provides immunity for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other U.S. telecommunications companies against 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government's NSA electronic surveillance program conduct an illegal warrantless spying program after the September 11th attacks.[3]
The bill would protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for cooperating for "past or future cooperation" with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists and other criminals.



FISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freightmaster]

Does anyone else see any contradictions to the U.S.Constitution?

Amendment IV


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.




LII: Constitution

[TN. TRUCKERS WIFE]

thanks for the info. hun

[SilverSurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freightmaster Does anyone else see any contradictions to the U.S.Constitution? Amendment IV 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. LII: Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

FISA also prohibits states, ultimately the people, from exercising their sovern rights provided within our Constitution. This current government body is utilizing powers not granted by the governed.

-ss-

[freightmaster]

You are quite welcome.TTW

[freightmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. FISA also prohibits states, ultimately the people, from exercising their sovern rights provided within our Constitution. This current government body is utilizing powers not granted by the governed. -ss-

Yea S-Surfer... What part of that don't they understand is my question?

[rebel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. FISA also prohibits states, ultimately the people, from exercising their sovern rights provided within our Constitution. This current government body is utilizing powers not granted by the governed. -ss-

‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--

• ‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
  ‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
  ‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
  ‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
  ‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
  
  
  I was pretty upset about this so I took the time to read the whole thing(a couple of hours).
  While there is always the possibility for abuse, I can say this;
  
  1) The section above printed directly from govtrack.us site from the Surveillence Act specifically places itself under limitation of the 4th Amendment
  
  2) Any constitutional objection under 10th Amendment or Ex Post Facto provision is covered (I think) by the fact that this is an ACT, not a LAW
  
  Regretably, I have to admit that technically this is constitutional
  
  I don't like it, but if I'm in the wrong - I admit it

[SilverSurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel ‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)-- ‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; ‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; ‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; ‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and ‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I was pretty upset about this so I took the time to read the whole thing(a couple of hours). While there is always the possibility for abuse, I can say this; 1) The section above printed directly from govtrack.us site from the Surveillence Act specifically places itself under limitation of the 4th Amendment 2) Any constitutional objection under 10th Amendment or Ex Post Facto provision is covered (I think) by the fact that this is an ACT, not a LAW Regretably, I have to admit that technically this is constitutional I don't like it, but if I'm in the wrong - I admit it

The use of the phrase "may not intentionally" has drawn major concerns from me about this act. Our government uses that phrase for the reason of covering their butts. How easy is it to use that in defense of violating an American's 4th Amendent right? Also, this act allows for several days of monitoring before the action of being consistent with the 4th amendment right. At least that's how I'm understanding this act when I read the articles.

Once again our government has over-stepped their power given from the consent of the governed. I was never asked whether I would agree to surrender my 4th amendment right in the interest of national security by my representatives...and we all know this was not asked of any American citizen by their representatives. When did the governed give their consent for this action by our government?

-ss-

[freightmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel ‘(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)-- ‘(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; ‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States; ‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; ‘(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and ‘(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, I was pretty upset about this so I took the time to read the whole thing(a couple of hours). While there is always the possibility for abuse, I can say this; 1) The section above printed directly from govtrack.us site from the Surveillence Act specifically places itself under limitation of the 4th Amendment 2) Any constitutional objection under 10th Amendment or Ex Post Facto provision is covered (I think) by the fact that this is an ACT, not a LAW Regretably, I have to admit that technically this is constitutional I don't like it, but if I'm in the wrong - I admit it

Knowing full well the track record of the party in question, do you really trust them to do the right thing?

[rebel]

Uhhhh....no
Don't misunderstand me, I don't like, don't trust it, government's track record speaks for itself.

I had just gone thru the surveillance act and couldn't find any constitutional challenges in the way it was written.
How it is used or abused on the other hand....well, you know what I think.

[freightmaster]

Right on,,,

[Grinder]

Tard-in-chief said that the Constitution is just a "god damn piece of paper". That he signs a bill like this, surprises people? How?

Ask yourselves why they are doing this. I mean the Real Reason why. The conclusion I came to is that they are scared to death of us. Of US. We, a pitiful minority, have the power to crash this system. Our "leaders" know this. This is why we have an emerging police state, to keep us intimidated.

All is it going to take is 1 more Ruby Ridge, or 1 more Waco, and it is all over for them.
It almost happened in NH in the Ed and Elaine Brown standoff. The militias were ready to go to war if that had turned out badly. The militias were even at the Browns' residence.
Sooner or later, the government will bite off more than it can chew. I hope it happens sooner rather than later. 1 more incident is all it will take.

.02

[Blakowt13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freightmaster Does anyone else see any contradictions to the U.S.Constitution? Amendment IV 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. LII: Constitution

That went out the door on fire after 9-11-01 with the introduction of the pathetic acts 1 & 2.
It only gets worse!!

"YOUR PAPERS PLEASE!!"

PLEASE, WILL EVERYONE THAT IS BEING SUBJUGATED, PLEASE BEND OVER AND ACCEPT BY THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT OR DEATH, YOUR NEW WORLD ORDER IDENTITY CARDS!!
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE AS YOU WILL ACCEPT ONE OR THE OTHER!!

Trust us as WE are YOUR government and are only here to help YOU.