• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans

Can you name a foreign country that uses widespread surveillance of private communications authorized by secret courts using secret evidence to catch suspects that are then incarcerated indefinitely (and frequently tortured) without a legitimate trial that is a desirable place to live?

Did you get that crap from a book?
 
Did you get that crap from a book?

Nope, he wrote it all by himself. Only konservatives need to copy from books to get large words, because they don't know what they mean.
 
Even a nun is potentially extremely loose.


So I've heard though most of the nuns I remember from school were pretty uptight. Except sister Mary-Margaret but that's another story. But what do loose nuns have to do with the price of tea in China?
 
So I've heard though most of the nuns I remember from school were pretty uptight. Except sister Mary-Margaret but that's another story. But what do loose nuns have to do with the price of tea in China?

Your platitude means nothing. The facts are on the table. The requirements are known. The procedures are followed. There are -in fact- warrants for the searches. There are -in fact- additional protocols calling for a full warrant to be obtained without tap information before anything can be used against someone in court.

You claiming 'black helicopters' does not counter this reality. Take off the tin foil and look at the facts.
 
Of course they're spying on us, it's what Big Brother does.

You have communications with someone outside the US and on the Terrorist Watchlist? Who?
 
Your platitude means nothing. The facts are on the table. The requirements are known. The procedures are followed. There are -in fact- warrants for the searches. There are -in fact- additional protocols calling for a full warrant to be obtained without tap information before anything can be used against someone in court.

You claiming 'black helicopters' does not counter this reality. Take off the tin foil and look at the facts.

I am looking at the facts. And the facts I see show a set of requirements that are to all appearances simple to meet and open to abuse and not nearly as stringent as you are making them out to be. It isn't even clear to me that the criteria for issuing a FISA warrant rise to level of needed for a criminal warrant.

No tin foil hats. No black helicopters.
 
I am looking at the facts. And the facts I see show a set of requirements that are to all appearances simple to meet and open to abuse and not nearly as stringent as you are making them out to be.

So you're going with conspiracy theory instead of the facts. Ok.
 
I am looking at the facts. And the facts I see show a set of requirements that are to all appearances simple to meet and open to abuse and not nearly as stringent as you are making them out to be. It isn't even clear to me that the criteria for issuing a FISA warrant rise to level of needed for a criminal warrant.

No tin foil hats. No black helicopters.

The problem is there's no real oversight. Several years ago it had come out that the FBI had committed countless violations of the Patriot Act, but there was never anything to come of it. The real problem with all these "secret" programs in a system designed to be open, is that they are secret. Without knowledge, there can be no servo. So if they're even going to consider having something approaching anything like this, first step is proper oversight. And there appears to be none.
 
So you're going with conspiracy theory instead of the facts. Ok.

What conspiracy theory? How about answering the substance of my comments for a change? I'm claiming that the requirements you've put forth are flimsy and open to abuse. Answer that instead of making dopey conspiracy theory claims.
 
What conspiracy theory?

That the strict procedures are being ignored and all of the thousands of people involved are conspiring to hide this from you.
 
That the strict procedures are being ignored and all of the thousands of people involved are conspiring to hide this from you.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I didn't say the procedures were being ignored. I said they appeared to be inadequate and open to abuse. And that is a real concern because governments generally, and ours is no exception, are prone to abuse their authority.
 
You have communications with someone outside the US and on the Terrorist Watchlist? Who?

Snowden has been communicating w/everyone quite successfully through his leaked NSA documents.
 
Your platitude means nothing. The facts are on the table. The requirements are known. The procedures are followed. There are -in fact- warrants for the searches. There are -in fact- additional protocols calling for a full warrant to be obtained without tap information before anything can be used against someone in court.

You claiming 'black helicopters' does not counter this reality. Take off the tin foil and look at the facts.

While there may be certain procedures followed, you yourself stated that "It's a highly restricted and regulated process with requirements so strict as to virtually eliminate rejections. A full warrant must be obtained (without using anything from the tap) for anything from the tap to be used against someone." (emphasis added) (http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...less-searches-americans-4.html#post1063106294)


Given the fact that although there are procedures, the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections, thus one can argue that it is indeed a rubber stamp.
 
Dear Conservatives:

I'm glad you've caught up to liberals in 2001. Glad to have you on board.
 
Dear Conservatives:

I'm glad you've caught up to liberals in 2001. Glad to have you on board.

If a Republican gets the Whitehouse in the next election will Republicans and conservative still oppose these policies when they continue? Most of them had no problem with the security state under Bush II.
 
Given the fact that although there are procedures, the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections, thus one can argue that it is indeed a rubber stamp.

The system was not designed to have no rejections; that's CT and assigning demonizing motives to others. The system was designed to have strict protocol that leaves little room for doubt. This removes judgement calls by those involved and keeps the system based on facts.

That you have a problem with a system based on facts, and would prefer a system based on judgement calls by people in power, is contrary to good governance. If it was as you would like, I would object to the protocols and I hope you would too. We do not want FISA warrants being decided by whim instead of strict requirements.

I cannot believe you would argue for a softer system, more prone to abuse. What kind of logic and reason could lead you to such desires?
 
You're using conspiracy theory to compare the US to North Korea. Let me know when you'd like to join us in reality.

I never saw any suggestion by DemSocialist that North Korea was tapping his phone, bur if it is OK for the USA to tap his phone, then it wuld be OK for North Korea to tap his phone.
 
I never saw any suggestion by DemSocialist that North Korea was tapping his phone, bur if it is OK for the USA to tap his phone, then it wuld be OK for North Korea to tap his phone.

It would be ok for North Korea to tap your phone. Lord knows, someone should be.
 
The reason that so few FISA warrants are rejected is because of the strict requirements for requesting the FISA warrant in the first place. With one person outside the US and one person on the Terrorist Watchlist, I think the average person can figure this out. I'm sure your "Mother Jones" article blames the Illuminati, but let's be sensible people here.




Stop with the fantasy. Let reality in.

I think the complaint has been that the warrants were overly broad and gave too much latitude to the investigators.
 
If you call the FISA court offering legitimate warrants then you have to kidding me. FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests | Mother Jones
If anything the FISA court is essentially a rubber stamp.

Wait...

How can they rubber stamp something that doesn't exist? Since this is "warrantless"?

If they rubber stamped a warrant, then it wasn't warrantless.

So what's your argument? That warrantless actions are going on....or that the warrants for the action are obtained with a rubber stamp?

Because as it stands, you seem to be making the both arguments, but the second counters the first.

The Federal justice system also has an incredibly high conviction rate compared to other matters of law. Assuming it's because it's corrupt, just like you seem to be assuming with the FISA Courts, is poor logic. COULD that be one option? Sure. Another option could be that, much like the court system, they don't bother bringing many instances to the FISA court unless they're exceedingly confident that it'll pass.
 
I think the complaint has been that the warrants were overly broad and gave too much latitude to the investigators.

That's the opposite of the truth. The protocols are clear, strict and leave little to no room for interpretation - that's why so few are rejected. That's how the system for special warrants should be.

Would you prefer whimsical protocols that result in many rejections due to unclear standards and weak requests? Wanting that doesn't make any sense.
 
The system was not designed to have no rejections; that's CT and assigning demonizing motives to others. The system was designed to have strict protocol that leaves little room for doubt. This removes judgement calls by those involved and keeps the system based on facts.

That you have a problem with a system based on facts, and would prefer a system based on judgement calls by people in power, is contrary to good governance. If it was as you would like, I would object to the protocols and I hope you would too. We do not want FISA warrants being decided by whim instead of strict requirements.

I cannot believe you would argue for a softer system, more prone to abuse. What kind of logic and reason could lead you to such desires?


Read what I wrote. I never said that it was designed to have no rejections. I clearly stated that "the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections", just as you yourself did when you said that the system is "so strict as to virtually eliminate rejections."

EDIT: I didn't address the rest of your post because all you did was put words in my mouth. That really shows the strength of your argument right there.
 
Read what I wrote. I never said that it was designed to have no rejections. I clearly stated that "the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections", just as you yourself did when you said that the system is "so strict as to virtually eliminate rejections."

And that's a good thing, right?

Or would you prefer a soft system with unclear requirements that results in judgement calls instead of action based on clear and defined facts.


ps. The system is not designed to have virtually no rejections, that's just the result of a system designed to be based on clear and strict requirements. You're putting the cart before the horse.
 
Wait...

How can they rubber stamp something that doesn't exist? Since this is "warrantless"?

If they rubber stamped a warrant, then it wasn't warrantless.

Its like saying that the DPRK or the PRC has a democratic legislative body but infact they are essentially just rubber stamps, so they basically dont exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom