SubscribeIt seems clear that there's something involved here that goes far beyond ordinary wiretaps, regardless of the technology used. Perhaps some kind of massive data mining, which makes it impossible to get individual warrants? Stay tuned.
UPDATE: Lots of people have suggested that the NSA program has something to do with Echelon, a massive project that vacuums up communications of all kinds from all over the globe. The problem is that Echelon has been around for a long time and no one has ever complained about it before — so whatever this new program is, it's something more than vanilla Echelon. What's more, it's something disturbing enough that a few weeks after 9/11 the administration apparently felt that even Republicans in Congress wouldn't approve of it. What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?DefenseTech: New Tech Behind NSA Snoop Case ?
DefenseTech: Wiretap Mystery: Spooks React
Secondary Screening: Something's Happening Here
Secondary Screening: Who says Bush's end run around surveillance laws are illegal? The Supreme Court.
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 seizedFrankly, I get much, much more worked up by the State's right to stop me at the airport and when driving, seizing weapon-like objects in my carrry-on personal property and drugs in my car.
...a computer listens in on my phone conversations for keywords...An urban myth. Read Bamford's two books and get a grasp of the real situation.
It's more power than King George III had at the time of the revolution in asserting the theory that anything the President thinks is helpful to fighting the war against terrorism he can do. That was why he claimed he can ignore the torture convention...Over and over on last night's Diane Rehm Show, all three guests said, one way or another, This cannot stand--the precedent that this arrogation of powers would set if left unchallenged will destroy the Republic.
"Our decision in Katz refused to lock the Fourth Amendment into instances of actual physical trespass. Rather, the Amendment governs "not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements . . . without any `technical trespass under . . . local property law.'"hmm, I see with Katz, 1967 the court abandoned the "trespass" doctrine that made warrantless searches unconstitutional (no trespass == no violation of rights).
On the record in this case, the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by petitioners, which violated their rights under the Fourth AmendmentBut in their Katz decision, the court explicitly used Silverman as a basis for extending 4th Amendment protections to conversations:
(a) The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 . P. 353.Silverman explicitly did not go that far:
Daine Rehm Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?
Bruce Fein, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration:
I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
Norm Ornstein: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
Another matter of scope recently addressed by the Court is the category of persons protected by the Fourth Amendment--who constitutes 'the people.' This phrase, the Court determined, 'refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with [the United States] to be considered part of that community.'cite.
« Older The ultimate rubber woman.... | Computerized physician system ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by stonerose at 10:54 AM on December 20, 2005