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.

 

Bush Passes Unconstitutional Spying Law

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Bush Signed a Law today, allowing the spying of citizens without warrant or judicial approval. It was met immediately with a lawsuit from the ACLU.

Source

[edit on 10-7-2008 by Empath]




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Yeah, Bush everyone again. I don't believe all of the 9/11 conspiracies, though in the case of the Pentagon I think the military got in on the act. We have regimes taking all of our liberty away now, to give them more power. Why? Because they can't trust us to apply our intelligence without undermining their position. There are too many people in this world who define themselves as leaders when they would have no other role due to their lack of skills. And those interests speak.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   
yes he is just a tool.. I just love how the mainstream media responds to this, and even if they do it's meet with little discussion of the ACLU's actions, or the fact that both of the "presidential" candidates and congress support it.. once again I'll tally a vote for "no confidence" I want my country back!



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Every politician that signed this needs to be strung up by a testicle (or ovary) and spat upon by the people.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
what is the penalty for high treason again?



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Yeah, Bush everyone again. I don't believe all of the 9/11 conspiracies, though in the case of the Pentagon I think the military got in on the act. We have regimes taking all of our liberty away now, to give them more power. Why? Because they can't trust us to apply our intelligence without undermining their position. There are too many people in this world who define themselves as leaders when they would have no other role due to their lack of skills. And those interests speak.


You are pointing in the right direction. The neo-cons and their liberal collaborationists want a world for their Bilderberg masters in which there are princes and kings on the one hand and serfs on the other hand.

The middle classes are the only ones possessing enough education or material substance to provide an opposition. So the Bushbots say, "Nuke 'em." And that is why they are going to destroy the US economy completely later this year or early 2009.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pellevoisin
 


And aren't the intellectual Iranians the new middle east middle class? Guess why Bush is so scared, he wants them back in the mud, as many of your own I suggest?



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Yeah, I'm not surprised...The only thing Bush has done that's in line with the Constitution is to speak his Oath of Office in front of the cameras so he can sit in the chair at the Oval Office. Virtually & literally everything else he's done has been in violation of that Oath.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Just wanted to clarify one thing. Bush didn't pass anything. Like many other things he get blamed for, the real culprits is Congress. Patriot act, FISA, NAFTA, Iraq, were all passed by Congress. Bush was only gullible enough to sign on the dotted line.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I didn't know that Bush was Congress.

Oh wait, he's not. Congress passed this.

You know, the Congress with the Democratic majority? Not that Bush is any better for signing it, but come on.

Your bias is insulting.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Your bias is insulting.

I think the only bias that should insult all of us is the bias in the article. It is not true that this bill (FISA bill) allows unlawful wiretapping, but just the opposite. It re-instates the original restrictions from the original bill in 1978 that requires a warrant to listen in on our phone conversations. Granted it is a secret court that gives approval of those warrants, but they are not allowed to listen to what any American, nor are they allowed to identify said American without just cause.

The problem with the law is that it gives retroactive immunity to the tellecom companies that cooperated with the NSA when Bush signed a presidential order allowing warrantless wiretaps. That is what has some people riled up because they will not be able to sue the tellecom companies and win a big law suit. Without the immunity compromise, Bush promised to veto the bill, and we would still be unprotected.

Don't take my word for it, do your homework. You will find that this article is bogus.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
I think the only bias that should insult all of us is the bias in the article. It is not true that this bill (FISA bill) allows unlawful wiretapping, but just the opposite. It re-instates the original restrictions from the original bill in 1978 that requires a warrant to listen in on our phone conversations.


I think you're mistaken.

From what I understand, the bill allows listening in on conversations between foreign "suspects' and American citizens. I.e., if a "suspect" overseas happens to be speaking with an American citizen in Montana, the Feds are allowed to listen in without a warrant.

Thanks George. Thanks Barack.


The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
I think you're mistaken.

From what I understand, the bill allows listening in on conversations between foreign "suspects' and American citizens. I.e., if a "suspect" overseas happens to be speaking with an American citizen in Montana, the Feds are allowed to listen in without a warrant.

It allows to only listen to those outside the US. Even your quote says that.




The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop without court approval on foreign targets believed to be outside the United States.

Bold emphasis added.



The administration says the measure will allow it to swiftly track terrorists. But the suit charges the law permits warrantless surveillance of phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens who may have legal and legitimate reasons for contacting people targeted by government spying.

Wrong. To listen in on any US citizen requires a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, they can only see the part of the conversation that comes from a foreigner, and no US citizen's identity can be divulged. If they suspect an American is involved with terrorist activity, they have to get a warrant before they are allowed to see what they are saying or who is saying it.

In other words Americans rights are now protected, where before they were able to do what you are saying. Here is another case where anti-Obamites are trying to twist a good issue to bash a candidate that you don't like only for political gain. You should be ashamed.

I don't think it is the perfect law, but those who voted in favor of it did what they had to to force the administration to obtain warrants. Would you rather leave it the way it was before, where they don't need a warrant to listen in on a conversation between you and your mother?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Something is not right here. I just checked the voting record from the senate, and it looks like Obama did not vote on this bill.

www.senate.gov...

He didn't vote, as well as Hillary didn't along with Senator Graham. Just for the record, John McCain did vote, and voted FOR the bill.

Even I thought Obama voted for this according to all the articles. I guess he didn't. I think this shows how some articles may be wrong.

Somebody please verify this.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
It allows to only listen to those outside the US. Even your quote says that.


No, that's not what the bill says. It refers to a TARGETED person being reasonably believed to be outside the U.S. However, if that targeted person calls somebody inside the U.S., those calls can be monitored.

Plus, the bill allows for "emergencies" that give the AG 7 days to listen to somebody before having to notify the FISA court. That's warrantless invasion of privacy.

Do you actually believe that the AG needs to get a court order for every possible person a targeted suspect may call?

And yes, Obama voted for it.

Maybe you should try reading the entire bill.

FISA BILL



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jamie83
And yes, Obama voted for it.

As they say in Missouri... show me.



Maybe you should try reading the entire bill.

FISA BILL

Sorry. I don't have time to read it as I'm sure you didn't either, but that's not the point. You are trying to deflect the issue. Even if I did read it, I couldn't claim that I understand everything about it. However, isn't it a good thing the next president will have a law degree?



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   
OK, congress put it through, BUT Bush could have Vetoed it and he didn't, so he is just as guilty as the rest.

In a move that is suppose to protect the people of the United States they (the government) have once again proved that to have freedom they (the people) have to give up their freedoms. Makes not a single bit of sense to me.

The is the first big step towards a police state and Marshall law. It only proves that the American people do not have control of their country. If they do want some control they better do something mighty fast.

Are the Americans afraid they will be bombed? Honestly, I don't see them running around and looking at the sky. If there were truly a fear of this then the US government would have no flights to anywhere on the planet, in or out of the US. Long distance phone call would not be allowed, period.

How much security is enough? If I were living in the States I would be more afraid of my own countrymen, and my own military than what any other country might do to me. I think it is so out of hand that the US government has lost its own perspective as what it is suppose to really be doing.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Hal9000
 


Yes, Obama DID vote yea on the bill. The link you gave was to last year's vote.

Current vote .

Amazing how the Bashers want to put the blame on one man, conveniently forgetting that it takes over 60 votes to actually PASS a bill that's veto-proof.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by eaglewingz
 


Yep.


Obama (D-IL), Yea



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Originally posted by jamie83
And yes, Obama voted for it.

As they say in Missouri... show me.



I'm from Pennsylvania. Here we tell people to get off their lazy asses do things for themselves.




Sorry. I don't have time to read it as I'm sure you didn't either, but that's not the point.


How exactly do you know what I did or didn't do? Yes, I did read the entire bill. Thank God I'm not from Missouri.



You are trying to deflect the issue. Even if I did read it, I couldn't claim that I understand everything about it.


Then perhaps you should quit trying to do just that. You can't even seem to be able to figure out who voted for it, let alone what the bill says.




However, isn't it a good thing the next president will have a law degree?


The U.S. cannot afford to have the next POTUS calling for troops to recite Miranda rights to terrorists as they prepare to detonate their next IED. Of course this is exactly what Barack, the intellectual lawyer, called for when he stated that terror suspects should have Constitutional rights.

And for what it's worth, like I said I live in PA. Over the last few weeks every Obama supporter I know has totally soured on Obama. Even the most die hard Obama supporters I know are now saying they wonder if they Dems didn't make a bad choice by picking Obama over Hillary.

I don't think you understand how deep the resentment goes over Obama misleading people about the FISA bill.



new topics




 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join