• 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

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has conducted warrantless searches of Americans' communications as part of the National Security Agency's surveillance operations that target foreigners located outside of the U.S., the administration's top intelligence official confirmed in a letter to Congress disclosed Tuesday.These searches were authorized by a secret surveillance court in 2011, but it was unclear until Tuesday whether any such searches on Americans had been conducted.
The recent acknowledgement of warrantless searches on Americans offers more insight into U.S. government surveillance operations put in place after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The government has broadly interpreted these laws to allow for the collection of communications of innocent Americans, practices the Obama administration maintains are legal. But President Obama has promised to review some of these programs to determine whether the government should be conducting this type of surveillance at all.


Read more @: U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans

A giant collective no **** moment. And hopefully a giant collective "this **** needs to stop ASAP" moment.
 
It's not really warrantless, that's just a catch phrase used by hacks. There are a few major requirements regarding these searches:

1. One of the communicators must be outside the US.
2. One of the communicators must be on the Terrorist Watchlist.
3. A special warrant must be obtained, from a panel of judges, before the tap occurs.
4. For anything in the tap to be used against someone, a full warrant must be obtained without the use of tap-gained material.
 
It's not really warrantless, that's just a catch phrase used by hacks. There are a few major requirements regarding these searches:

1. One of the communicators must be outside the US.
2. One of the communicators must be on the Terrorist Watchlist.
3. A special warrant must be obtained, from a panel of judges, before the tap occurs.
4. For anything in the tap to be used against someone, a full warrant must be obtained without the use of tap-gained material.
Still are warrantless. Still used against Americnas.
 
Still are warrantless. Still used against Americnas.

Yeah, against freedom loving US citizens who belong to patriot groups. Against those who stand up for their civil liberties and defend the Bill of Rights as a whole and not in part.

Your SPLC has labeled guys like me "extremists" and potential "terrorists" for even questioning government and their authoritarian intent.
 
Yeah, against freedom loving US citizens who belong to patriot groups. Against those who stand up for their civil liberties and defend the Bill of Rights as a whole and not in part.

Your SPLC has labeled guys like me "extremists" and potential "terrorists" for even questioning government and their authoritarian intent.

:roll: Yea... Surrreee they have..
 
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.

By your logic, normal warrants can be declared insufficiently obtained and therefore no warrants exist at all.

Why can't you just be honest and admit that a warrant is required for the tap (among other strict requirements) and that a full warrant (without tap material) must be obtained before anything can be used against someone?

Is it so difficult for you to admit reality?
 
Last edited:
By your logic, normal warrants can be declared insufficiently obtained and therefore no warrants exist at all.
Not at all. Its When they reject .03% of all warrants issues ever it essentially becomes a rubber stamp authority. Hell I be the PRC's congress or the DPRK's congress rejects more than .03% of all acts of law that come before them. How can you call something fair, democratic, or just when essentially everything that is brought before the body is accepted?


Why can't you just be honest and admit that a warrant is required for the tap (among other strict requirements) and that a full warrant (without tap material) must be obtained before anything can be used against someone?
A rubber stamp warrant. When something is rubber stamped its essentially unjust and unfair.

Is it so difficult for you to admit reality?
"Liberty and justice for all".
 
Not at all. Its When they reject .03% of all warrants issues ever it essentially becomes a rubber stamp authority. Hell I be the PRC's congress or the DPRK's congress rejects more than .03% of all acts of law that come before them. How can you call something fair, democratic, or just when essentially everything that is brought before the body is accepted?


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.


A rubber stamp warrant. When something is rubber stamped its essentially unjust and unfair.

Stop with the fantasy. Let reality in.
 
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.
Ohhh yea... Like it was never abused... :lamo http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/us/eavesdropping-ensnared-american-law-firm.html?_r=0 I wonder if these lawyers were on the terrorist watch list or any of the foreign officials... :lamo
"A top-secret document, obtained by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, shows that an American law firm was monitored while representing a foreign government in trade disputes with the United States. "
As the article points out, " "At the point that a FISA judge can compel the disclosure of millions of phone records of US citizens engaged in only domestic communications, unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence…there is no longer meaningful judicial review."....
-Also when your hearing are entirely in private and you dont have to report anything that goes on in that courtoroom ever, its pretty darn hard to find out whats being reported and what not.
-Also when the NSA always claimed they never did these practices that are just now revealed, and they just no reveal that they do do it, how can you say they dont abuse their power or are doing more than just this?
I'm sure your "Mother Jones" article blames the Illuminati, but let's be sensible people here.
Typical ecofarm, blame the source not the content.
 
Typical ecofarm, blame the source not the content.

Why are you being silly? There is a warrant required. The requirements for even requesting that warrant are so strict that very few are rejected. That's reality. Deal with it.
 
Why are you being silly? There is a warrant required. The requirements for even requesting that warrant are so strict that very few are rejected. That's reality. Deal with it.

*Cough cough* rubber stamp.
 
It's not really warrantless, that's just a catch phrase used by hacks. There are a few major requirements regarding these searches:

1. One of the communicators must be outside the US.
2. One of the communicators must be on the Terrorist Watchlist.
3. A special warrant must be obtained, from a panel of judges, before the tap occurs.
4. For anything in the tap to be used against someone, a full warrant must be obtained without the use of tap-gained material.

1. Then we should all be warned with an audio message every time we make an international phone call that the conversation may be monitored.
2. I believe that is not true, one of the communicators only needs to be considered suspicious. Even if it is limited to only people on a Terror Watchlist we have no idea whether those lists are accurate and there is no way to appeal being placed in the list.
3. A secret court in a secret proceeding sees who-knows-how-much secret evidence of unknown accuracy before making the decision. No wonder they very rarely turn down a surveillance request.
4. That assumes that legal proceedings are used against the suspect instead of him being sent somewhere via rendition for torture and indefinite incarceration without a legitimate trial.
 
1. Then we should all be warned with an audio message every time we make an international phone call that the conversation may be monitored.

That's nuts, and you're ignoring the other requirements.

2. I believe that is not true, one of the communicators only needs to be considered suspicious. Even if it is limited to only people on a Terror Watchlist we have no idea whether those lists are accurate and there is no way to appeal being placed in the list.

So your tactic here is to deny reality and substitute fantasy?

3. A secret court in a secret proceeding sees who-knows-how-much secret evidence of unknown accuracy before making the decision. No wonder they very rarely turn down a surveillance request.

The reason requests are rarely rejected is the strict requirements for making the request.

4. That assumes that legal proceedings are used against the suspect instead of him being sent somewhere via rendition for torture and indefinite incarceration without a legitimate trial.

Black helicopter CT does not substitute for reality.
 
:roll: Yea... Surrreee they have..

Yeah, the SPLC only labeled my organization has a "hate group" on their biased and ignorant "hate map" and I suppose the IRS attacking several groups that are similar to mine haven't been attacked by the IRS?

No you see, what Obama and the rest of the socialists have done has shifted focus off of radical islam and have focused quality time on investigating "patriot organizations."

The best part is that the government overlooks pro-government "anarchistic" and "communist" organizations - such as the OWS clowns and all sorts of communist organizations.

You think these ****s give a **** about the First Amendment - Especially when my group(s) intent is to hold these tyrants accountable for their actions?
 
You could say the same about any warrant, and thereby claim no warrants exist at all.

Why must you ignore reality?

Do a quick Google search and you find that warrants are often times denied
 
Do a quick Google search and you find that warrants are often times denied

Certainly not often enough. Let's just say they don't exist. Why not? Ignoring reality is a great routine and lots of fun, right?
 
Certainly not often enough. Let's just say they don't exist. Why not? Ignoring reality is a great routine and lots of fun, right?

Why are you pointing out a hypothetical to remove warrants now?
 
You could say the same about any warrant, and thereby claim no warrants exist at all.

Why must you ignore reality?

Yeah, well "law enforcement" will be the first in line to enforce their tyranny - cops are already sadistic psychopaths that enjoy murdering, tasing and beating anyone they deem to be a "bad guy"... Few have any intent with doing their jobs by the book - they're so ****ing lazy they will just disregard the Bill of Rights, snag you off the street then retort back to the old cliche of "tell it to the judge" -- of course they only do that when you exorcize your civil liberties.
 
Why are you pointing out a hypothetical to remove warrants now?

I'm pointing out how stupid your reasoning is for claiming that warrants are not obtained. You use conspiracy theory to discount the warrants and then claim they don't exist. One could do this with absolutely anything. Why not just accept reality and stop making false claims?
 
I'm pointing out how stupid your reasoning is for claiming that warrants are not obtained.
So your saying all warrant processes are rubber stamps?
Your claiming that the FISA warrant process is fair and just?
Your claiming that the FISA process is not a rubber stamp?

You use conspiracy theory to discount the warrants and then claim they don't exist.
Where did i do this? Please point that out for me.
 
Read more @: U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans

A giant collective no **** moment. And hopefully a giant collective "this **** needs to stop ASAP" moment. [/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm attaching a link that sums up our gov't eavesdropping much more eloquently than I.

Just Salute and Follow Orders’: When Secrecy and Surveillance Trump the Rule of Law

"John W. Whitehead
“The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and superpatriots, who, for a variety of motives, operate outside the legitimate institutions of government. Presidents have turned to them when they can’t win the support of the Congress or the people, creating that unsupervised power so feared by the framers of our Constitution...”- Journalist Bill Moyers and White House press secretary under President Johnson (1988)

Question: How can you tell when a politician is lying? Answer: When he’s moving his lips.

If that didn’t generate a chuckle, how about:

Q: Why is honesty in politics like oxygen?

A: The higher you go, the scarcer it gets.

Then there’s President Obama’s gaffe on the Tonight Show: “We don’t have a domestic spying program,” which is downright laughable in light of this past year’s revelations about domestic spying by the National Security Agency. But if that still doesn’t push you over the edge into near hysterics, here’s one guaranteed to get the biggest laugh of all, at least from those clear-sighted enough to grasp the irony of a politician talking about “trust”:

“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law,” declared President Obama in June 2013, in response to questions about the government’s domestic spying program, “then we’re going to have some problems here.”

What’s not at all amusing, of course, is the fact that our nation is riddled with all manner of problems, and it’s because we have government officials in the executive branch, Congress, and the courts incapable of abiding by the Constitution. These people have proven time and again that they cannot be trusted to do what they say, and they certainly can’t be trusted to abide by their oaths of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Indeed, the American people have been cheated and lied to for so long that we’ve arrived at a stage of disbelief and skepticism. So when the Obama administration announces that it will be rolling out proposals to rein in the NSA bulk collection of data about Americans’ private communications, you’d be perfectly justified in wondering what other far-fetched schemes they plan to sell you next."

‘Just Salute and Follow Orders’: When Secrecy and Surveillance Trump the Rule of Law
 
Back
Top Bottom