House to close its door for Spying Bill

House to close its door for Spying Bill

apnews.myway.com

House Democratic leaders agreed Thursday to a rare closed-door session - the first in 25 years - to debate surveillance legislation. Republicans requested privacy for what they termed "an honest debate" on the new Democratic eavesdropping bill that is opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.
The closed-door debate was scheduled for late Thursday, after the House chamber could be cleared and swept by security personnel to make sure there are no listening devices.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
AT&T and Other ISPs May Be Getting Ready to Filter

[edit on 3/13/2008 by biggie smalls]

The American people are being cut out of the republican process.

We have been hijacked by people who do not care about our privacy. All they want is more and more power.

The last private session in the House was in 1983 on U.S. support for paramilitary operations in Nicaragua. Only five closed sessions have taken place in the House since 1825.

That's a scary thought...Its been 25 odd years since the last time the House has done this.

Some of the 100 most powerful people in the world without the press debating over our collective future, now that's something to worry about.

I think this may be an even scarier thought:

Bush opposes it in part because it doesn't provide full, retroactive legal protection to telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He wants immunity to companies (AT&T) that provided full disclosure of their customer's activities.

This is not only unconstitutional, this is completely unreasonable.

Fuhrer Bush, thanks for speaking for us you fear, war, hate-mongering monster.

apnews.myway.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I say to protest outside the White house and congress while they are doing their meeting, it is the right of the citizens to know what this government is doing specially now with the rights of the people that forgot how to serve.



[edit on 13-3-2008 by marg6043]

Yet another of the endless examples of double-standards practiced by this facade of a government. They can do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet we are supposed to be transparent to them? In comes the parade of people saying 'if you have nothing to hide'...

I'm far beyond being fed up with the absolute apathy and ignorance that the 'civilians' in this country have for the reality behind the curtains. You skeptics that require impossible proof, you naysayers that pretend everything is just opinion, you are all incompetent fools who will never realize your enslavement.

The cockroaches hate the light, don’t they? One only needs the cover of darkness if your deeds are evil. How long will the American people lay down and throw up their heels for theses scum bags? That cool-aid must be strong stuff for the people to not see through this.

I was just watching this on CSPAN and wondering about how often this is done. Thanks for posting. Star and flag indeed.

Now I can understand an Intellignece Comittee metting in secret or something like that, but this is just going too far. Didn't we learn anything from the Iran-Contra scandal? Aparrently not. There is no reason why our employees should be meeting in secret like this.

Isn't it kind of ironic that they aren't allowing any bugging, or video survelliance, or any kind of outside tactics, when they are trying to strip us of our rights not to be bugged, or survellianced. Being overseas, an American in Europe, im sure everything i do is monitored, in fact, i went to class with this lady who's husband's job was to monitor everyone associated with the military overseas. . . emails, instant messaging, phone calls, you name it. . . we all need to stand up for our rights! but im guessing mainstream news won't cover a thing abnout it., for sure i won't hear it on AFN (armed forces network). . .

I think everyone who tries to keep informed on the latest machinations of Congress, is all too familiar with the provisions laid out in the Patriot Act for spying on a “united states person”. The true meaning of the “term’ United States person has already been decided by the courts, according to one attorney I spoke with, but he didn’t elaborate. So with that in mind, lets take a look at some uses of the “term’ United States person used in the code.
First off TITLE 48--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
(2) The term `United States persons' has the meaning given that term under section 101(i) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(i)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty straight forward wouldn’t you say? Title 48 of the code deals with contracts (erecting federal buildings, airports) BTW, the Real I.D is only required at airports owned by the federal government (limited to 15), to board aircraft owned by the federal government, and for federal employees boarding private aircraft, provision are laid out in title 49 of the code. The “no fly “ list only applies to aircraft owned by the federal government, and for federal employees. Title 48 also deals with licenses issued by the federal government, mostly for exporting things to terrorist countries, weapons. I’ll try to keep this brief, if one goes to title 50 USC to discover one of the meanings of united states person, it states its based on the
Export Administration Regulations
Legal Authority 67
Here’s the definition for united state person, as for as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is concerned.
(2) the term “United States person” means any
United States resident or national (other than an
individual resident outside the United States and
employed by other than a United States person), any
domestic concern (including any permanent domestic
establishment of any foreign concern) and any foreign
subsidiary or affiliate (including any permanent foreign
establishment) of any domestic concern which is
controlled in fact by such domestic concern, as
determined under regulations of the President….. end quote.
You’ll notice that a “domestic concern” can also be united states person, as the definition states. Well that sort of begs the question what is a “domestic concern”, and do the regulations define “domestic concern”? Here’s the definition for a “domestic concern”
(B) A comprehensive operations license,
authorizing exports and reexports of technology and
related goods, including items from the list of militarily
critical technologies developed pursuant to section 5(d)
of this Act which are included on the control list in
accordance with that section, from a domestic concern
to and among its foreign subsidiaries, affiliates, joint
venturers, and licensees that have long-term,
contractually defined relations with the exporter, are
located in countries other than controlled countries,
(except the People's Republic of China) and are
approved by the Secretary. The Secretary shall grant… end quote
So by definition, a “domestic concern” is someone in the United States that has acquired a license from the federal government, per Title 48 USC, for the sole purpose of exporting weapons, and weapon technology, and is subject to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , as amended, it now includes wire taps, reading mail et.

Interesting that the power of the people or person is over powered by the president,

(2) the term “United States person” means any
United States resident or national (other than an
individual resident outside the United States and
employed by other than a United States person), any
domestic concern (including any permanent domestic
establishment of any foreign concern) and any foreign
subsidiary or affiliate (including any permanent foreign
establishment) of any domestic concern which is
controlled in fact by such domestic concern, as
determined under regulations of the President….. end quote.

So this means that our president indeed have the dictatorship power he needs to over ruled the citizens of this nation as given to himself with te patriot act.

So this means that our president indeed have the dictatorship power he needs to over ruled the citizens of this nation as given to himself with te patriot act.

With all due respect, I understand there may be some cofussion as to what the Export Administative regulations definitions are saying, and the meaning of "united states person" in the Patriot Act. This should clear it up.

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 39 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 2778
§ 2778. Control of arms exports and imports

(e) Enforcement powers of President
In carrying out functions under this section with respect to the export of defense articles and defense services, the President is authorized to exercise the same powers concerning violations and enforcement which are conferred upon departments, agencies and officials by subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g) of section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 [50 App. U.S.C. 2410 (c), (d), (e), and (g)], and by subsections (a) and (c) of section 12 of such Act [50 App. U.S.C. 2411 (a) and (c)], subject to the same terms and conditions as are applicable to such powers under such Act [50 App. U.S.C. 2401 et seq.],
(i) Report to Department of State
As prescribed in regulations issued under this section, a United States person to whom a license has been granted to export an item on the United States Munitions List shall, not later than 15 days after the item is exported, submit to the Department of State a report containing all shipment information, including a description of the item and the quantity, value, port of exit, and end-user and country of destination of the item.