Cheney Calls for Permanent Warrantless Wiretapping

[rpm]

Warrants? We don't need no steenking warrants!
link

Vice President Cheney called on Congress today to permanently extend the Protect America Act as the White House launched a drive to secure the tools it says are needed to fight a continuing terrorist threat beyond the law's Feb. 1 expiration.

In a speech to a sympathetic audience at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank, Cheney also said the law must include immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that assisted the U.S. government's electronic surveillance efforts after Sept. 11, 2001.

"There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it," Cheney said. "The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months. It won't expire any time soon, and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise."

Now think about this, permanent warrantless wiretaps. Before you go jumping on the flag waving bandwagon remember that Bush/Cheney have less than a year in office remaining. There is a strong chance Hillary may become the next POTUS. Do you want Hillary to have free rein with wiretaps? Who knows who she may decide is a "terrorist".

I think the constitution is a good thing. It says you need a warrant.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by rpm
I think the constitution is a good thing. It says you need a warrant.

[dangleworm] Wellllll ...... I dunno now. Seems most of the Constitutional experts I run into online see a completely different one than I do. Maybe there's some fine print on the back that granted dictatorial control ..... mandated by God .... and capitalism. [/dangleworm]

[JB88]

screw that.

[john9001]

Originally posted by rpm
I think the constitution is a good thing. It says you need a warrant.

cop at  checkpoint:: "drivers license, registration and insurance papers sir."

driver:: "you got a warrant?"

[Shamus]

Hillary is gonna love taking over the strong executive branch that Bush & Co. have put into place, and by golly I bet she has some improvements in mind that the increased power will make far easier to implement.

shamus

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by rpm
Warrants? We don't need no steenking warrants!

Now think about this, permanent warrantless wiretaps. Before you go jumping on the flag waving bandwagon remember that Bush/Cheney have less than a year in office remaining. There is a strong chance Hillary may become the next POTUS. Do you want Hillary to have free rein with wiretaps? Who knows who she may decide is a "terrorist".

I think the constitution is a good thing. It says you need a warrant.

.

I cannot believe how many of you (will fall) for this troll.


__________________
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

I would love to change the world, but I do not have access to the source code.

[eagl]

I think I can safely say that the "flag waving bandwagon" *should* be filled with people OPPOSING warrantless wiretapping.  The bandwagon filled with people who want warrantless wiretapping are the weak sister socialist liberal big-city dwellers who are as afraid of freedom as any animal raised in a cage, and the politicians who are afraid to tell those people to STFU and grow a spine.

But that's just me...

[Yeager]

Yeah, warrants are good.  Stick with warrants.  The only thing I worry about is losing the ability to pick up signals that are outside the scope of targeted warrants.  How are we supposed to find the sneaks if we cant cast a wide open net?  You know sometimes you find things in the most unlikely of places, like where you are not supposed to be looking

Not to get too far off subject but there was a discussion I heard today where this guy is going to high school sports swimming events, taking pictures of young men in their swim trunks and posting them on a gay internet porn sight.

Apparently it is constitutional in my state to do this and no one can stop the guy (they don't know who he is or what he looks like).  I think you should need permission to post a persons image when used for sexual gratification on the internet, but we cant trample peoples rights....or something.  I know it sounds corny but there must be a balance of rights.

Rights must always be challenged to validate their base components I guess....I don't know.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Yeager
Yeah, warrants are good.  Stick with warrants.  The only thing I worry about is losing the ability to pick up signals that are outside the scope of targeted warrants.  How are we supposed to find the sneaks if we cant cast a wide open net?  You know sometimes you find things in the most unlikely of places, like where you are not supposed to be looking
 

Yeager remember that you need a warrant to use the evidence in court. Now if you don't plan on taking the guy to court why would you need a warrant? You might want to let the Pacific International Fruit Export Company take the case.  Know what I mean? nudge, nudge, wink, wink...

You let warrantless searches become evidence in court and you have just taken a huge crap on 230 years of integrity and being the good guys.

[Saxman]

Actually you DO need permission. Because otherwise it's invasion of privacy which is ITSELF protected by law.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Shamus
Hillary is gonna love taking over the strong executive branch that Bush & Co. have put into place, and by golly I bet she has some improvements in mind that the increased power will make far easier to implement.

shamus

Which is why impeachment should not be off the table.

Reid is an ineffectual ****stick and Pelosi is a worthless ****.

[Toad]

I support the 4th.

Is this what you are talking about?

The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:

there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);

the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;

a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours. The certification is then filed with the FISA Court.

Once the certification is filed with the FISA Court, the Attorney General or DNI can direct a provider to undertake or assist in the undertaking of the acquisition.

[rpm]

Originally posted by Sandman
Which is why impeachment should not be off the table.

Reid is an ineffectual ****stick and Pelosi is a worthless ****.

Dead Center Bullseye.

[Pooh21]

She might not even be elected so talking of impeaching her is a bit early

[rpm]

But is it early to think of how this could be used against the American people in the name of special interests? I think not.