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: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I feel that I have to agree with Odium on this one. Neither has the right to arrest anyone without a warrant, as that's not their jobs. They are simply meant to be intelligence gathering agencies, not local police. If this passes the Senate, it will be an insult to the American Justice system.

For Democracy,
TheBorg




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
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.


How would you provide the oversight and how do you propose to watch the agencies?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
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.


Please explain why you would consider giving the CIA warrantless arrest authority in the US?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
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.... 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 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.


Thanks for your views but this Bill has passed the House already and is on the Senate calendar for this session, when I can't find this info but it is flying in under the radar...



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
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.


Thanks for making your position clear, good luck in the election!!



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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.


Thanks for your clarification and your response to my question, good luck on your campaign for President.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
1. They already just kidnap anyone they really want to talk to. This would just make it all nice and legal.

2. They are suppost to operate on material outside the US. There initials dont say FBI in spanish. This would just creat a worse turf war between the FBI and the rest, they should talk more not less.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
How would you provide the oversight and how do you propose to watch the agencies?


I would create an oversight agebcy, that chose people based on trustworthiness, and that switched qualified indiviudal out on a tri-yearly
basis.

The agencies would have to provide a clear document on everything
they want to todo, and everything they have done.



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
1. They already just kidnap anyone they really want to talk to. This would just make it all nice and legal.


Wow!, That is a really strong statement, what basis do you have for making such a claim? I want to hear about this.......



2. They are suppost to operate on material outside the US. There initials dont say FBI in spanish. This would just creat a worse turf war between the FBI and the rest, they should talk more not less.


Who should talk more not less?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

I would create an oversight agebcy, that chose people based on trustworthiness, and that switched qualified indiviudal out on a tri-yearly
basis.


Who establishes the trustworthiness of the people considered to be a part of the agency?



The agencies would have to provide a clear document on everything
they want to todo, and everything they have done.


Who would this agency disclose this information to?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Who establishes the trustworthiness of the people considered to be a part of the agency?


The president nominates, and the congress decides.




Who would this agency disclose this information to?


To an oversight commitee.
All records, a month after the finishing of an operation would be accesible
by the public.

[edit on 2/28/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
The president nominates, and the congress decides....

To an oversight commitee.
All records, a month afterthe finishing of an operation would be accesible
by the public.


Thank you for your participation concerning my question, best wishes on your election campaign!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This bill is roughly equal to unleashing the deathsquads on the American public.

Giving these shadowy organizations any room to further take the laws into their own hands would be disasterous for everyone.

This could equate to having multiple Gitmo's within the US. It would effectively turn America into the eqivalent of Saddam Husseins Iraq. People would just disappear left and right


df1

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I would create an oversight agebcy, that chose people based on trustworthiness, and that switched qualified indiviudal out on a tri-yearly
basis.

The agencies would have to provide a clear document on everything
they want to todo, and everything they have done.

Perhaps this bureaucratic police state of yours would fit into a soviet styled socialist republic, but it certainly has no place in the America envisioned by our founding fathers. Your proposal of adding another layer of government is the very sort of thing that causes many Americans to be scared to death of socialist candidates. Further empowering of the CIA & NSA with draconian police powers and believing that you can restrain them with bureaucrats and documentation is foolish at best. This secret police state of yours is dangerous to our constitutional form government and must be stopped.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
How am I doing that?

I am not giving the CIA or NSA the power to arrest people.

I am however creating a transparent committee that chooses who is
hired to work at the NSA and CIA, and requires any action they take
to be documented and get permission for.

And become public knowledge once said operation(s) are over.



EDIT:
Spelling.

[edit on 3/3/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Candidates, please refrain from using this thread as a debate. While I can understand that this is a very touchy subject, I asked a question to start a 2-way with each candidate.

I was hoping to get each candidates views on the question so that everyone at ATS could see clearly see each candidate's position on this subject prior to election.

If you want to debate each other on this subject, I respectfully request that you start another thread so that the voters can look to this thread without bias.

Thank you, J


df1

posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
How am I doing that?

I am not giving the CIA or NSA the power to arrest people.

You are tacitly approving the expansion of CIA/NSA authority over US citizens by not trying to block or oppose this brutal assault on our freedom. Either you oppose and will you try to block this legislation or you support it. You can't have it both ways.

I have already unambiguously stated that I will veto this legislation should it cross my desk. Where do you stand? It seems that you have no problem with this bill so as long as it allows you to grow the federal bureaucracy.



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
I am not giving the CIA or NSA the power to arrest people.

You are tacitly approving the expansion of CIA/NSA authority over US citizens by not trying to block or oppose this brutal assault on our freedom. Either you oppose and will you try to block this legislation or you support it. You can't have it both ways.
I have already unambiguously stated that I will veto this legislation should it cross my desk. Where do you stand? It seems that you have no problem with this bill so as long as it allows you to grow the federal bureaucracy.

And as I said I would oppose legislation giving them this power.

I further went on to say I would work to limit the power they have
already and make them more transparent and less secretive.


Anyways, I'll not further debate in this thread, as asked by the OP,
JacKatMtn.

[edit on 3/3/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Having done some additional reading on this bill, I would (as vice president) advise Intrepid against signing it. Some strong cases have been made elsewhere that this kind of power is being used and abused by the current administration ( www.spencersundell.com... , among others). While we would all like to think we are reasonable beings, the sad truth remains that we cannot guarantee what kind of morals and moral fiber our successors will have.

Granting such powers will further divide the law enforcement community -- already there's "turf battles" when jurisdictional lines cross with state, local, and federal agencies. We don't need another agency added into the mix.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join