It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Q: What's Your View on Granting Arrest Powers to the NSA and CIA as Proposed in H.R.5020

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This Bill, (Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 ),
has passed the House and read twice and placed on Calendar in Senate. Here is the two parts of the bill which relate to my question:


CIA AUTH

`Sec. 3065. Powers of authorized personnel in the Central Intelligence Agency

`(a) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may issue regulations to allow personnel designated to carry out protective functions for the Central Intelligence Agency under section 5(a)(4) of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 403f) to, while engaged in such protective functions, make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such personnel, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if such personnel have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing that felony offense.



NSA AUTH

`Sec. 3066. Powers of authorized personnel in the National Security Agency

`(a) The Director of the National Security Agency may issue regulations to allow personnel designated to carry out protective functions for the Agency to--

`(1) carry firearms; and

`(2) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such personnel, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if such personnel have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing that felony offense.

Bold:mine

Here is the the full bill H.R.5020

Here is the congressional record concerning the bill: Record

I am not posting my opinion on this legislation but would like to hear each candidates stance on this issue.

[edit on 2007/2/27 by JacKatMtn]




posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   


Q: What is Your View on the Subject of Granting Arrest Powers to the NSA and CIA as Proposed in House of Representatives?


Thank you for taking the time to post this question.

My view on the NSA and CIA will be outlined below:

The NSA as established in 1952 has clear-cut aims – these are too collect, analyse and research/investigate foreign communications and to stop other Governments from doing the same to the US of A’s communications. It should not have the right to arrest anyone without a warrant.

The CIA as established in 1947’s job should be to intercept communications and gather intelligenece on foreighn Governments, Coporations and people. It should then report them to the right branches of Government. Which I will outline below. They should not have the right to arrest anyone.

Threats to the United States of America directly by a foreighn Nation should be taken to the President.
Individuals coming into the country to do harm should be given to the Police for them to arrest.
International Coporations doing harm should be given to the United Nations and their own Governments.

To speed up the process their should be a Police force set to specifically liase with each of the two agencies. When evidence is provided to this group they should issue a warrant for the arrest of these individuals by the Police Force who should also conduct the interviews.

Furthermore, the C.I.A. should no longer be involved in the spreading of properganda to the people. The Government needs to become more open about its actions. They are accountable to the people and if the people do not know the truth than the Government can not be held.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I believe that this bill if passed would create tension between agencies. It will also give undue power to persons that are not qualified to make a legal arrest. If this bill is passed I believe that it may open the door to more of our rights being striped from us. Warrantless searches and unlawfull detention of our citizens withought just cause or proper protocoll.

We already have agencies that can serve in this capacity they are our police force. They are already in every city and town across America. If these agiencies need arrest powers they can go through the proper channels to obtain the arrest they so desire.

I am against this bill and I hope that it will not pass.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

To speed up the process their should be a Police force set to specifically liase with each of the two agencies. When evidence is provided to this group they should issue a warrant for the arrest of these individuals by the Police Force who should also conduct the interviews.


Are you, in essence, advocating the establishment of a new police organization specifically used in issues dealing with the NSA and CIA?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
As I said in my campaign thread here
Candidate Declaration : Neformore



I am against violations of constitutional rights unless a clear and immediate case is presented. I believe that a standing panel of legal experts and judiciary members needs to formed, cleared to the highest level to work hand in hand with the intelligence services to determine when - if necessary - individual freedoms may need to be curtailed in order to prevent acts of terrorism. This panel should report to a cross party congressional security panel on a regular basis as a check and balance to the system


I'm not convinced that this bill provides the checks and balances that need to be in place and as such I would oppose it unless it was subject to an immediate amendment to incorporate them.

[edit on 27/0207/07 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   


I am against this bill and I hope that it will not pass.


Should this Bill pass and it is presented to you for signature, you obviously would veto the bill, my question is,
"How would you present your argument against this Bill, to the American people, in a strong enough manner to prevent the Congress from overriding your veto?"



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Are you, in essence, advocating the establishment of a new police organization specifically used in issues dealing with the NSA and CIA?


Sorry that I did not make it clear in my post.

Yes and no.

I support the idea of taking a small percentage of the Police force of the United State’s of America and giving them additional training on how to deal with the new responses and threats that can be faced by international terrorists. But I do not desire they to be an aspect of the NSA and CIA, they should be given the information and allowed to conduct it through normal police procedures.

The reason I suggest this is that the NSA and CIA are reluctant to give information to everyday on the beat Police officers due to it being so specialist. These people can then get the training they need to be able to better deal with those they would be getting involved with. Members who know additional languages, Farsi, Arabic, etc even as far as getting members who understand the religion to help speed up the Police procedures.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
As I said in my campaign thread here
Candidate Declaration : Neformore



I am against violations of constitutional rights unless a clear and immediate case is presented. I believe that a standing panel of legal experts and judiciary members needs to formed, cleared to the highest level to work hand in hand with the intelligence services to determine when - if necessary - individual freedoms may need to be curtailed in order to prevent acts of terrorism. This panel should report to a cross party congressional security panel on a regular basis as a check and balance to the system



So, if I am reading this correctly, in addition to the checks already in place, ie. Dept of Homeland Security's inclusion of the FBI/CIA/NSA intelligence and their judgements of such intelligence, are not enough in your opinion to look after the welfare of the citizens concerning threats to the homeland.

Instead of entrusting the checks in place, you want to further expand this to another level and create a new redundant government entity to verify the importance of intel issues already hashed out by the DHS?

Wouldn't this lead to endless delays in situations which might require a more expedited decision.

What happens when this new entity becomes scrutinized? Do we then create another agency to check on this one?



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

The reason I suggest this is that the NSA and CIA are reluctant to give information to everyday on the beat Police officers due to it being so specialist. These people can then get the training they need to be able to better deal with those they would be getting involved with. Members who know additional languages, Farsi, Arabic, etc even as far as getting members who understand the religion to help speed up the Police procedures.


Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that these agencies (CIA/NSA) have the channels to secure "sealed" arrest warrants for individuals with sensitive or national security issues using law enforcement. If this is in fact true, there would be no need to further disseminate sensitive info to the arresting officers, they would only be the arresting agents and then turn the suspects over to the proper authority.

Thanks for your responses to my questions, I think this is a very important
issue that all candidates need to discuss in their bids for election.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
From what I understand after readig that bill, it more or less give CIA
and NSA agents the same authority as police, when it comes to arresting
someone.


However, I do not believe that they need that kind of power.

I oppose this bill, and, if I were president, and it was given to me,
I would veto it, and if possible, I would do a pocket veto.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
JacKatMtn, I believe these need to be removed and only allowing the Police to arrest and interview suspects. The NSA and CIA should only be collecting information. Once a suspect is in detention (interviewed under caution) they should no longer be involved as enough information should have been gathered (to warrent the arrest).



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
JacKatMtn, I believe these need to be removed and only allowing the Police to arrest and interview suspects. The NSA and CIA should only be collecting information. Once a suspect is in detention (interviewed under caution) they should no longer be involved as enough information should have been gathered (to warrent the arrest).


My turn to apologize for not being clear, the CIA/NSA would have to give most likely the FBI the info after the arrest and they (FBI) would be conducting interviews/prosecution if so warranted.

Those rules are already in place . No need to respond you have made your views clear, thank you for participating and good luck in your aspirations to lead the country.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

However, I do not believe that they need that kind of power.


Two questions on your response:

What "kind of power" should the NSA & CIA have?

From what position are you referring when you say you don't believe they need that kind of power. Make me understand what you are stating here, I want to know.

Thanks



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
What "kind of power" should the NSA & CIA have?

From what position are you referring when you say you don't believe they need that kind of power. Make me understand what you are stating here, I want to know.


Personally I think the CIA and NSA should be merged into a new
organization, and only be allowed to observe communications of nations
that are either are enemies, or are not free states.
There also needs to be a great amount of oversight.

Basically I think they both have to much power, and need to be watched
to make sure they don't go to far.


df1

posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I would veto this legislation. We have plenty of laws that can be used to arrest bad people.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I'm not totally against the idea of the CIA having this power, but the NSA is still a military agency, isn't it? I doubt it's even constitutional to give them that power.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I saw many websites that had this very same bill before. I doubt that the bill will get passed. The CIA as it was in 1947 was created to maintain intelligence as the NSA was made to created to maintain national security. This would only enlarge their power as they want excuses to single out and label individuals so that they can systematically shut down our constitution by finding loophols around the elastic clause. They are basically using the elastic clause to by any means necessary create a law that constitutes the violation of a supreme Court case. I present to you the Miranda Rights. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorny. And you have the right to a fair and swift trial.

That being said, I would not apss the bill. The Miranda rights are too important and normal citizens cannot be detained and deported because of some silly attack planned by the government to get us into war with Iraq, and possibly North Korea or Iran (9-11).

I will not restrict those agencies from weilding their power over foreign entities, but laws building guidelines over our own people SHALL NOT AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn


I am against this bill and I hope that it will not pass.


Should this Bill pass and it is presented to you for signature, you obviously would veto the bill, my question is,
"How would you present your argument against this Bill, to the American people, in a strong enough manner to prevent the Congress from overriding your veto?"


Your tax dollars pay for a well organised and effective authority that is trained, skilled and authorised to arrest and detain criminals and suspects. To allow this bill to pass would be a complete waste of your tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 27 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I am confused, The CIA and NSA have a site dedicated Police force allowed to arrest without warrant. But their jurisdiction is limited to the agencies faclities.

So does the bill give powers of arrest off of the agencies site?

if this is yes, i am a sad American.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
So, if I am reading this correctly, in addition to the checks already in place, ie. Dept of Homeland Security's inclusion of the FBI/CIA/NSA intelligence and their judgements of such intelligence, are not enough in your opinion to look after the welfare of the citizens concerning threats to the homeland.


You read me correctly. What is the most sacrosanct thing a person can have? Their freedom. If you are going to remove that from someone on suspicion that they are about to commit an act, then you need damn good reasons to do it, and if you are going to do it properly then it needs to be carried out within full constitutional grounds, otherwise you run the risk of being compared to the Stazi, the KGB and a whole handful of rather nasty organisatons round the world. The United States should lead by example, and do it properly.



Instead of entrusting the checks in place, you want to further expand this to another level and create a new redundant government entity to verify the importance of intel issues already hashed out by the DHS?

Wouldn't this lead to endless delays in situations which might require a more expedited decision.


No. In my opinion it wouldn't lead to delays. It would be a 24/7/365 set-up in a similar manner to the crisis response teams at the Whitehouse and the Pentagon, in order to aid swift decision making. Standing members would serve no longer than a single Presidential term.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join