It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HauntWok
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by beezzer
I'm not providing any excuse, it's just the facts. Politicians lie. I was under no delusion when I voted for Obama. I am still under no delusion about him. He is a politician, he lies for a living. I don't believe half of what any of them say.
This thread is completely childish, and shows exactly the mentality of the right. They can't make their case using better legislation, or better leadership, so they go after democrats and try and make them look worse.
Obama hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor, (at least not in this case) so there is no reason to start impeachment proceedings.
Face it guys, he's gonna be in office till January 20, 2017 And then we are going to get the next liar in office. Your petty attempts at trying to remove him from office based on non existent "evidence" or guilt by association just aren't going to work.edit on 15-6-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by aceamoeba
Obama will not be impeached over this.. Taking his entire speech that included the language "nobody is listening to your phone calls" and putting it into context tells an entirely different story. He explained, once again, that the purpose of the classified program is to prevent terrorism and not about domestic spying. The President also laid out how all of congress was briefed on this and the FISA courts support of this program.
This is not a 4th amendment issue anyway. Phone calls, internet searches and likewise, while occurring in the home, in a place of privacy, also make use of technology outside the home, and there the 4th amendment doesn't apply. Nothing in the language of the fourth amendment suggests anything about this type of privacy.
Snowden DID commit treason by breaching security on a classified program and giving individuals who wish to bring harm to America the opportunity to adjust. He was given high level, if not top level, security clearance and he betrayed that trust. This can't happen here.
Originally posted by Skjord
I really don't understand all the big commotion about this. This has been happening since 2001 with the Patriot Act. Why are people so surprised.
Originally posted by elouina
If Congress was fully aware of this, as Obama stated, then why did Alexander perjur himself as he told the "already aware" congress his falsified answers? Explain this one if you can. And also how can we trust that this is being used strictly for anti terrorism reasons since these scandals have shown that governement officials are lying on a regular basis. Even our very own unethical president is lying his socks off. Thus why we need to make certain that the 4th amendment is followed to the "T".
Originally posted by elouina
The card you are pulling out on the 4th amendment is very sketchy. Please, oh please do, quote the part of the 4th amendment itself that states this. And not how government officials twist it for their own cause. The supreme court will rule correctly as long as none of Obama's thugs show up there and attempt to "sway" things like they tend to do. Cough cough hint hint....
Originally posted by elouina
Well, we the people say that Snowden can do this. And perhaps a national vote would be in order? Or would you be afraid of what you may find out? Perhaps that a certain president is a total failure in the eyes of the American citizens? This information was already out there, and Alexander lied about this info. Even more proof as to why we should not have any top secret courts. Which, by the way, I want to find out which totally idiotic arse started this. I think this could very well be another class action lawsuit.
But an even bigger point? This intelligence is something that they were never entitled to in the first place. Sure putting a vdeo camera into every house would also increase security. But it is also a severe privacy violation. Remove those cameras and yeah you may lose a little security, but it was never something they were entitled to in the first place.
-George W Bush
“There’s kind of a view that maybe they’ve gone away – they haven’t,” Bush said, referring to terrorists. “And now, techniques used to prevent attacks have been disclosed. I don’t know if you remember after 9/11, Congress had hearings, right? And you know what the hearings were about? We didn’t connect the dots. Well, we didn’t have the tools there to connect the dots.” “One of the killers makes a phone call from San Diego to somewhere, how come you didn’t know? We didn’t have the tools. We’ve got the tools. Now the people in Congress are saying, ‘Why are you connecting the dots?’ It’s a tough assignment for the president. It is.”
48% are for this, 44% against it according to the latest TIME magazine poll.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
There's the amendment in question. There language is very clear..houses, papers, effects...this is very limited. There is no reasonable way to explain this as relating to telephone/internet communications that have to travel "outside" of one's property to work properly.
§ 1.03 “Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects”
For Fourth Amendment purposes, “person” includes:
(1) the defendant's body as a whole (as when he is arrested);
(2) the exterior of the defendant's body, including his clothing (as when he is patted down for weapons);
(3) the interior of the defendant's body (as when his blood or urine is tested for drugs or alcohol);
(4) the defendant's oral communications (as when his conversations are subjected to electronic surveillance).
“House” has been broadly construed to include:
(1) structures used as residences, including those used on a temporary basis, such as a hotel room;
(2) buildings attached to the residence, such as a garage;
(3) buildings not physically attached to a residence that nevertheless are used for intimate activities of the home, e.g., a shed;
(4) the curtilage of the home, which is the land immediately surrounding and associated with the home, such as a backyard. However, unoccupied and undeveloped property beyond the curtilage of a home (“open fields”) falls outside of the Fourth Amendment.
Factors relevant to determining whether land falls within the cartilage are:
(1) the proximity of the land to the home;
(2) whether the area is included within enclosures surrounding the house;
(3) the nature of the use to which the area is put; and
(4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the land in question from observation.
United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
Commercial buildings receive limited Fourth Amendment protection on the theory that one has a greater expectation in his home than in commercial structures.
[C] “Papers and Effects”
“Papers” encompass personal items, such as letters and diaries, as well as impersonal business records. “Effects” encompass all other items not constituting “houses” or “papers,” such as clothing, furnishings, automobiles, luggage, etc. The term is less inclusive than “property”; thus, an open field is not an effect.
§ 1.04 “Search”
[A] Katz v. United States
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), federal officers, acting without a warrant, attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth where the defendant engaged in a number of telephone conversations. The controlling legal test at the time for determining whether police conduct violated the Fourth Amendment was known as the “trespass” doctrine. Under the trespass doctrine, the Fourth Amendment did not apply in the absence of a physical intrusion - a trespass - into a “constitutionally protected area,” such as a house.
Noting the advent of modern technology that allowed the government to electronically intercept conversations without physical intrusion into any enclosure, the Court abandoned the trespass doctrine and announced that the appropriate inquiry for Fourth Amendment challenges was whether the defendant had a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Applying this new standard, the Court found that despite the fact that the telephone booth was made of glass and the defendant's physical actions were knowingly exposed to the public, what he sought to protect from the public were his conversations, as evidenced in part by shutting the door to the phone booth. Thus, the government's electronic surveillance of the defendant's conversations without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
[B] “False Friends” Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment protects private conversations where no party consents to the surveillance and/or recording but does not protect conversations where one party consents to such activity. Thus, under the doctrine of “false friends,” no search occurs if a police informant or undercover agent masquerading as the defendant's friend, business associate, or colleague in crime, reports to the government the defendant's statements made in the informant's or agent's presence. United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971). A person is not deemed to have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality from a person with whom he is conversing.
The doctrine also applies where the “false friend” wears a “wire” to record the conversation with the defendant.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday disputed a claim President Obama made at a press conference only moments earlier, when the president said that every member of Congress had been briefed on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) domestic phone surveillance program.
Merkley said only select members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees had been briefed on the program, and that he was only aware of it because he obtained “special permission” to review the pertinent documents after hearing about it second-hand.