Abolish FISA & The Patriot Act Now!

[White 6]

Abolish it? Yup, Hannity and Lavigne will be saying that here soon to, yet way back when Dubya made this law the line was "we have to give up some privacy for safety". I hope this burns them bad. And I'm thinking it will. Out of all the FISA warrants granted, how many people who had them used against them will get their cases tossed because doubt was cast on the FBI agents who got the warrants? FISA is a compassionate conservative's idea. Hope it keeps burning their ass's.

Yep! This time, I agree with the Tree. Glad he posted it!

 

[Oddball]

Where were you people when I was railing against this shit eighteen years ago?

I was right there with you, dude.....Ask anyone who knows me.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Where were you people when I was railing against this shit eighteen years ago?

I was right there with you, dude.....Ask anyone who knows me.

Me to

I was screaming bloody murder along with the leftards nazis ...just like I used to shriek over free speech along with them ....boy have my former fellow " american ""allies " have changed

 

[evenflow1969]

I’m done with this shit.

We are in a Surveillance State, and Secret Courts, Secret Witnesses, Secret Warrants, Secret Testimony, Spying on American Citizens simply because you suspect something are all Unconstitutional

We do not need to be The Soviet Union to protect ourselves. These people and this situation is out of Control!

Burn It Down!

Not normally on your side but I am absolutely for abolishing the patriot act. I need to understand FISA a littel better before juming on that band wagon. I would likely agree there also.

 

[task0778]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

It's not a stupid question....FISA cannot be trusted.

You do know that, prior to 1977, Murica was able to do lots and lots of foreign surveillance without an abusive ex parte "court" working in secret like the Stasi, right?

True, the FISA process cannot be trusted. So FIX IT. Or replace it.

I doubt very much there was much in the way of electronic surveillance going on in this country or anywhere else prior to 1967. Certainly terrorism wasn't much of a problem back then. SO - as I said in post #27, In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. And in 1972 the SCOTUS ruled that electronic surveillance had to be court-ordered, but subsequent rulings held that warrant-less surveillance could be allowed for national security purposes. Throw out FISA and we're back to where we were in 1972, right?

Question: How is that situation any better than what we have now? If you abolish FISA, unscrupulous gov't officials can scream "national security" and surveill whoever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And nobody the wiser, this time here's no application and no judge to rule on it, they just do it with no oversight. IOW, no paper trail and no evidence of wrong-doing, that's why FISA was created in the 1st place, to put some oversight on it.

GUYS - our gov't is not supposed to spy on us without cause. Abolish FISA if you want, but who the hell is going to determine "cause"? There's a reason why the FISA process is secret, we don't want the bad guys to know we're surveilling them. Basically, we trusted the FBI to watch the bad guys but not US citizens without good reasons, and they violated that trust. But the answer isn't to get rid of the FISA program because we need to surveill the bad guys in this country even if they are US Citizens. We need to ensure there is proper reason to do that. Prior to FISA there was no way to oversee that.

 

[Oddball]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

It's not a stupid question....FISA cannot be trusted.

You do know that, prior to 1977, Murica was able to do lots and lots of foreign surveillance without an abusive ex parte "court" working in secret like the Stasi, right?

True, the FISA process cannot be trusted. So FIX IT. Or replace it.

I doubt very much there was much in the way of electronic surveillance going on in this country or anywhere else prior to 1967. Certainly terrorism wasn't much of a problem back then. SO - as I said in post #27, In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. And in 1972 the SCOTUS ruled that electronic surveillance had to be court-ordered, but subsequent rulings held that warrant-less surveillance could be allowed for national security purposes. Throw out FISA and we're back to where we were in 1972, right?

Question: How is that situation any better than what we have now? If you abolish FISA, unscrupulous gov't officials can scream "national security" and surveill whoever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And this time here's no application and no judge to rule on it, they just do it with no oversight. IOW, no paper trail and no evidence of wrong-doing, that's why FISA was created in the 1st place, to put some oversight on it.

GUYS - our gov't is not supposed to spy on us without cause. Abolish FISA if you want, but who the hell is going to determine "cause"? There's a reason why the FISA process is secret, we don't want the bad guys to know we're surveilling them. Basically, we trusted the FBI to watch the bad guys but not US citizens without good reasons, and they violated that trust. But the answer isn't to get rid of the FISA program because we need to surveill the bad guys in this country even if they are US Citizens. We need to ensure there is proper reason to do that. Prior to FISA there was no way to oversee that.

We have to ignore the Constitution to save the Constitution!

Fuck my life.

 

[task0778]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

It's not a stupid question....FISA cannot be trusted.

You do know that, prior to 1977, Murica was able to do lots and lots of foreign surveillance without an abusive ex parte "court" working in secret like the Stasi, right?

True, the FISA process cannot be trusted. So FIX IT. Or replace it.

I doubt very much there was much in the way of electronic surveillance going on in this country or anywhere else prior to 1967. Certainly terrorism wasn't much of a problem back then. SO - as I said in post #27, In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. And in 1972 the SCOTUS ruled that electronic surveillance had to be court-ordered, but subsequent rulings held that warrant-less surveillance could be allowed for national security purposes. Throw out FISA and we're back to where we were in 1972, right?

Question: How is that situation any better than what we have now? If you abolish FISA, unscrupulous gov't officials can scream "national security" and surveill whoever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And this time here's no application and no judge to rule on it, they just do it with no oversight. IOW, no paper trail and no evidence of wrong-doing, that's why FISA was created in the 1st place, to put some oversight on it.

GUYS - our gov't is not supposed to spy on us without cause. Abolish FISA if you want, but who the hell is going to determine "cause"? There's a reason why the FISA process is secret, we don't want the bad guys to know we're surveilling them. Basically, we trusted the FBI to watch the bad guys but not US citizens without good reasons, and they violated that trust. But the answer isn't to get rid of the FISA program because we need to surveill the bad guys in this country even if they are US Citizens. We need to ensure there is proper reason to do that. Prior to FISA there was no way to oversee that.

We have to ignore the Constitution to save the Constitution!

Fuck my life.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

FISA is constitutional. Obviously it can and has been abused and needs to be fixed.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

This is what it was like prior to FISA being enacted in 1978. Anybody here want to go back to that? Doesn't sound any different that what is going on now.

 

[Crixus]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

It's not a stupid question....FISA cannot be trusted.

You do know that, prior to 1977, Murica was able to do lots and lots of foreign surveillance without an abusive ex parte "court" working in secret like the Stasi, right?

True, the FISA process cannot be trusted. So FIX IT. Or replace it.

I doubt very much there was much in the way of electronic surveillance going on in this country or anywhere else prior to 1967. Certainly terrorism wasn't much of a problem back then. SO - as I said in post #27, In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. And in 1972 the SCOTUS ruled that electronic surveillance had to be court-ordered, but subsequent rulings held that warrant-less surveillance could be allowed for national security purposes. Throw out FISA and we're back to where we were in 1972, right?

Question: How is that situation any better than what we have now? If you abolish FISA, unscrupulous gov't officials can scream "national security" and surveill whoever they want, whenever they want, and for whatever reason they want. And this time here's no application and no judge to rule on it, they just do it with no oversight. IOW, no paper trail and no evidence of wrong-doing, that's why FISA was created in the 1st place, to put some oversight on it.

GUYS - our gov't is not supposed to spy on us without cause. Abolish FISA if you want, but who the hell is going to determine "cause"? There's a reason why the FISA process is secret, we don't want the bad guys to know we're surveilling them. Basically, we trusted the FBI to watch the bad guys but not US citizens without good reasons, and they violated that trust. But the answer isn't to get rid of the FISA program because we need to surveill the bad guys in this country even if they are US Citizens. We need to ensure there is proper reason to do that. Prior to FISA there was no way to oversee that.

We have to ignore the Constitution to save the Constitution!

Fuck my life.

Na, just don't do terrorist stuff and you will be "fine".

 

[Rambunctious]

Okay, so you abolish FISA. What then? No surveillance at all? Or no control over surveillance at all?

It must be fixed to fit into our system of due process...or else the bad guys have already won...look at this...9-11 has made it possible for an outgoing president to take down a duly elected president of the opposing party...we can't have that...not here in America....

 

[Rambunctious]

Make the agents that submit the application to the court personally responsible for submitting a false report or not submitting all evidence...personally and monetarily responsible...so if there ever is another Comey he will think twice about lying....

Turd polish.

Abolish it outright.

I would love to watch Comey and his pals face a mountain of law suits....