Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

House Approves Extending the Warrantless Wiretapping Act

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the listen-up dept.

Privacy 326

wiedzmin writes "The U.S. House of Representatives voted 301-118 today, in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act until December 31st, 2017, effectively reauthorizing the broad electronic eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can this be retroactively legalized (5, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318253)

"that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program"

Sorry for the tangent, but I have a question. Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators? In other words, should the people involved in warrantless wiretapping before our hideously evil overlords legalized this rape of our rights be culpable for their crimes?

Also, someone do us the favor of linking to a list of the despicable scum in the House who voted in favor of further rape today.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (5, Informative)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318399)

Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569 [house.gov] .. Might not be there long

They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.

Most of the voters do too - there lies the problem (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318971)

Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569.. Might not be there long

They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.

I really like America and I really hate to say this ---

America is no longer the land of the free

It has become the land of the free to be wiretapped, without warrant, without due process, without any valid reason

Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319269)

which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?

don't parrot back to me what you think *should* be. we're probably in agreement on what *should* be. but answer me, what current gov, that has any core routers of its own, is *not* tapping and scanning and capturing and thresholding and triggering (all in hardware, these days)?

anyone who can buy or get their hands on top-end router and switch gear can install it and tap all they like. its not too expensive (for govs) and its very tempting to any human being with that much power.

the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.

so go ahead, name me a country that is wired (has some internet ability for its citizens), or is even voice-connected, and is not checking on its population using tech means?

deal with the fact that this is a human problem, not a US or UK or aussie or whatever problem.

Nice strawman (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319333)

which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?

Nice try, buckwheat, but you ain't fooling nobody.
 
I am not talking about other countries. I am talking about the United States of America - The Land Of The Free
 
Where "Liberty to All" is thing that supposed to differentiate the United States of America from the rest
 
This is also the country where "Give Me Freedom Or Give Me Death" has been taught in history lessons, to all students
 

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (4, Interesting)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318449)

If I understand what I've heard the way it works is you can make an action lawful ex post facto but you can't make it illegal ex post facto (I have no idea if this is right or not, just off the top of my head what I recall).

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318473)

I would think that such a policy could happen. In a less negative light, let's say that we ended the war on drugs and at least decriminalized a large number of substances. Would granting them amnesty/pardon be unconstitutional? I don't think so. However, wiretaps are searches, so Congress can't actually authorize them.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318641)

Technically it can until challenge for breach of constitution in the high court. Should the high court be stacked with corrupt judges, who choose to analyse laws upon their own political biases and, their sponsors beliefs in what should have been the intent of those that wrote the constitution, rather than literal interpretations of those laws against a literal interpretation of the constitution. So until the high court of the United States of America is unstacked with corrupt political flunkies, well, then anything goes.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318883)

It was never the intention of the founding fathers for the constitution to be read literally. The reason being that they didn't want to have to cover absolutely every combination and permutation of action or inaction that could apply. The constitution is there as a guide and subject to interpretation.

Even without that, there's serious disagreement of what some of the Amendments even say, like the 2nd Amendment means two very different things depending upon which copy you go by. The copy that passed the legislature or the copy that was ratified.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

ranpel (1255408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318527)

Roll Call

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

ranpel (1255408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318537)

rather... Roll Call [house.gov]

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318553)

Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators?

I think ex post facto laws refer to making what was formerly a legal activity to suddenly become illegal. Not sure if it covers the reverse (i.e. retroactively legalizing and excusing law-breaking)

If it did, then, presidential pardon would be trickier than it is.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319221)

I think ex post facto laws refer to making what was formerly a legal activity to suddenly become illegal. Not sure if it covers the reverse (i.e. retroactively legalizing and excusing law-breaking)

Ex post facto means, literally, "after the fact". Yes, it would apply to legalization as well as criminalization.

However, consider this. Criminal cases in the US are brought by the public prosecutor, an arm of the state. It is the state that is passing this law. The state should have no standing in objecting to an action by the state. The accused who isn't prosecuted would be stupid to object to his crime being made legal. He's the only other party with any standing. So, who's going to go to court to test whether ex post facto legalization of something is constitutional?

Civil matters are different, and I suspect that such cases are not hindered by ex post facto laws, but a real lawyer would have to answer that.

If it did, then, presidential pardon would be trickier than it is.

Presidential pardons are not ex post facto laws.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318595)

It's not supposed to be legitimate to give a pass ex post facto, but it happens. This is pretty clear in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (2)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318817)

And of course, Paul voted against it. One of only seven Republicans to vote against it. Shame he'll be gone soon, not that the vote made any difference.

4 years later... (4, Insightful)

KrazyDave (2559307) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318261)

and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.

Re:4 years later... (5, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318317)

and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.

Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well. It would be more appropriate to blame 'despicable politicians'.

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt. Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.

Re:4 years later... (4, Informative)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318495)

Behold! The BSABSVR!

I think that women, and Hispanics, and anyone who's part of a union, and the GLBT community, and plenty of others might possibly disagree though. Oh, and simple reality too: The vote was 301-118 in favor of passage, with 111 Democrats and seven Republicans voting no. Yep, both sides are clearly exactly equally as bad!

Re:4 years later... (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318875)

74 democrats voted yes... The only difference between the 'sides' is that one is dramatically more unified than the other. Regardless the content of their thought, that's a sign of strength!

Re:4 years later... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319013)

I didn't finish the sentence:

...that's a sign of strength! of the herding instinct...

so sorry

Re:4 years later... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319385)

So, most Democrats voted against this bill while an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, and somehow you've concluded that the Democrats are just as bad. This logic is really pretty twisted.

Re:4 years later... (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318501)

Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.

Nobody demands that they do. Oh, there's lots of pissing and moaning about it in some groups, but then they all go and reelect the same old bastards.

Re:4 years later... (2, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318589)

Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well.

Even if Obama WANTED to veto it (which, granted, he probably doesn't), what would be the point of doing that? The bill has enough majority to override the veto.
So I would mostly blame the representatives here.

Re:4 years later... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318615)

what would be the point of doing that?

To show that he's against it? To do... something? Trying to stop it is far better than just allowing it to pass with no resistance.

Re:4 years later... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319239)

There's two months till the election. My guess is that he's going to accidentally pocket veto everything for which the timer runs out. There are too many donors and golf courses to court and congress isn't in session all the way through November, is it?

Re:4 years later... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319261)

To override I believe they would need a senate majority, which wouldn't happen if Obama didn't want it to.

Re:4 years later... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319375)

The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt.

Only in loony land is this true. One of those two wants some sort of sensible tax reform where the rich are required to pay their fair share. One of those two openly supports the rights of homosexual couples. One of those two is pro choice. One of those two ended the war in Iraq. One of those two has stood up for what little regulations we have protecting net neutrality.

Maybe you can draw a few parallels here and there that piss you off, but the two men aren't the mirror images you've tried to paint here.

It Has Kept Us Safe (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318263)

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

These powers are what has allowed the authorities to infiltrate and disrupt these dastardly plots. If these jihadists might think the feds are watching, that is also an effective deterrant.

I'm all for giving the government all the powers they need to keep me and my family safe. My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318333)

Watch your comment get modded -1 Overrated even though it is a completely ontopic, relevant and expresses an opinion that many, many people would agree with.

Its only that the moderators and readers have a distinct political viewpoint that would be against this, so it would be unfairly modded down, which is completely against the slashdot moderation policy.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318835)

Fallacious appeals do not justify taking my freedoms (and the privacy they depend on) away.. Why would you burn the village in order to save it? An america that's run like a typical european state is not an america that has been saved.. If those islamic terrorists are that much of a threat, it's time to quit appeasing the governments (like syria for ex) that passive aggressively back them and declare war on them instead.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318953)

....and expresses an opinion that many, many people would agree with.

And many people fall for the faulty logic of the GP.

Just because many many people hold the same opinion does not make it correct.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318433)

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya?
And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?

And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319019)

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya? And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?

And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?

Warrants take effort to get, and a modicrum of evidence. Cops, particularly the Federal type, are inherently lazy. If a warrantless wiretap will get them the evidence they need to get the evidence they need, so much the better.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318451)

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

But everyone's freedom is worth more than a few casualties (assuming that this security theater is even effective, and it isn't). You do not get to punish everyone or take away everyone's freedom just because you're a miserable coward.

Have your lovely totalitarian government, but move elsewhere. I love how you imbeciles think that the government is made up of perfect beings, but in reality, they're just as susceptible to corrupting or mistakes as anyone else, and they can be just as bad as the people they claim to want to protect you from. But you're an idiot, so of course you'll give away all of everyone's freedoms so you can feel safe from a nearly nonexistence threat; pathetic.

That would be my serious response if the OP wasn't a complete troll. No one on Slashdot believes that illogical garbage. I hope...

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (3, Insightful)

ranpel (1255408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318459)

Apparently nobody else's freedom is worth anything to you alive.

Do enjoy your essential security. Others will see to you having neither in the end, rest assured.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318477)

Freedoms are also not worth anything if they are stolen away..

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (5, Insightful)

Yakasha (42321) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318483)

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Your life is worth nothing if you are not free.

If you are not free, you are merely a commodity. A resource to be used in the furtherance of your controller's desires.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318609)

Oh, so you are saying people in prison have worthless lives. You'd rather they just be executed instead because they are not free. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318711)

That was a terrible troll. Or maybe it was awesome satire. Hard to tell on the internet.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318687)

Big Brother finds this comment to be ungood. The Ministry of Love will shortly be by to re-educate you in the importance of your life, and how it is bettered by your compliance to the Party's will.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318709)

Your life is worth nothing, and you are not free.

But, life is short... Enjoy every minute of it.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318565)

There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America

Remind me again when the world was without "evil doers", whatever that means. Can you name one "evil doer" we are currently fighting that doesn't feel WE are the "evil doers" THEY are fighting.

I for one do not believe in "evil", that seems to make me the odd man out in this world. For the sake of world peace, I invite everyone to go to war with me. Common enemy and all...

 

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (2)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318621)

Yup. This has absolutely kept us perfectly safe. All of our consulates are safe, we've never had any terrorist attacks, and there have never been any breaches of government security. This is clearly working so well.

By the way, you're a selfish bastard if all you care about is "My freedom".

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318629)

Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.

I can't tell if you are being serious or not here (modded Funny + Interesting + Troll). Go figure

But might I note that any power that is needed while there "are still evildoers" will be available infinitely and with no checks, because we are not scheduled to reach nirvana and absolute enlightenment any time soon.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318659)

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Wow, glad the men and women of the American Revolutionary didn't think that way. For that matter anyone that has fought for a peoples freedom against oppression.

How sad that you feel that life and freedom are not possible at the same time.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318951)

My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.

Wow, glad the men and women of the American Revolutionary didn't think that way. For that matter anyone that has fought for a peoples freedom against oppression.

How sad that you feel that life and freedom are not possible at the same time.

I, too, heard the voices of Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin when I read that.

How we have fallen. A lecherous old womanizer and his friends risked torture and death all so that they could bequeath a nation to spineless cowards who run around chanting "USA! USA! USA!" and then beg the government to take all their freedom so that the big mean terrorists won't eat them.

Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319071)

The Libyans were pissed that we support a culture that does nothing but hate on Islam. I'm pissed too.

Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom (3, Insightful)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318271)

We need a workers party that fights for a workers government! Down with the "war on terror" racist police state! Mobilize the power of the international working class to defeat U.S. imperialist war & drive the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Iraq & everywhere! For international socialist revolution to smash imperialist barbarism before it's too late!

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318795)

Pass. I don't like the proles any more than I like the politicians.

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318925)

Because Workers parties have such a jim-dandy record in the rest of the places they've gained traction. /eyeroll

Re:Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318949)

Fuck work! We already do too much work...

Will you run an engine lathe eight unfucking hours a day because the syndicate tells you the people need what the lathe produces? If you will, the people just becomes a new tyrant.

The end is nigh (1)

starworks5 (139327) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318279)

As the resouce cruch comes ever closer, the rich in this country need the monopolization of force, to keep them sheltered from the huddled masses, the ones that our lady liberty sought to provide refuge for.

Obama = Bush III (3, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318297)

And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

Pathetic.

Re:Obama = Bush III (3, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318339)

And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

Pathetic.

Why are you trying to confuse people with facts?

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318507)

Because it if fun to watch them struggle to understand? They make the goofiest faces.

Re:Obama = Bush III (0)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318915)

Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers.

For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority. Republicans march in lock-step like Red Square on May Day.

For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority. Enough votes to override the massed Republicans and the breakaway Democrats. Like Will Rogers said: "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat".

Obama is another story, though. Sure, he's skinnier, darker, more capable of coherent speech. But dangit, sometimes it's hard to tell W's not still in the Oval Office. They even both have the same ears!

Re:Obama = Bush III (2, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319343)

For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority.

301 to 118 is hardly "a simple majority".

For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority.

For the existing Senate, all it took to block passage of this extension was one person. One person is hardly a super-majority. I don't need to bother looking up whether the Senate is Democrat or Republican controlled, if all it takes is one it doesn't matter.

That's a pretty strong clue that one person could have stopped this before, and not a single Democrat could muster up the ability. Your rants about those awful Republicans are ignoring a large number of other, non-Republican guilty parties.

Obama is another story, though.

Obama is the same old story, rewarmed and rehashed and doing the same things, under the banner "Hope and Change". How could anyone see his pick for VP and not know that it would be four more years of the same old politics? And now the banner "You Hope we can Change what we didn't Change during our first four years."

Re:Obama = Bush III (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318407)

And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....

You better stay away from War-on-drugs Road.

Re:Obama = Bush III (2)

AlienSexist (686923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318521)

Because phenomenal powers are only evil when the opposition is in position to use them. Win some elections and suddenly they are okay again.

Re:Obama = Bush III (5, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318741)

So 111/191 Dems in the House, presumbly all who might be described as actually liberal or left-leaning (Including my own, Peter de Fazio), vote against this seditious legislation.
Liberal and civil rights supporter Ron Wyden has put a hold on the corresponding act in the Senate, as he has on multiple such acts in the past.
Meanwhile, the Republicans (both in Congress and in the media) make emotional appeals to fear to explain why we must give up our rights in order to be safe and preserve our "Freedom," and ever since 9/11 have openly and vehemently accused anyone who questions the nascent police state of being unpatriotic, unamerican and traitors.

But you're right, clearly both sides are equally as bad. But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?

Re:Obama = Bush III (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318869)

Understand where you're coming from, but let's not forget that a major part of the support of Mr Hope & Change was from people who understood his position to be against warrantless wiretapping, and this bill wouldn't be on any agenda if Obama had actually been the person with that position.

We're best off voting for a third party at this election for President (Congress is more of a local matter and can't be generalized like that.) No matter who wins, we will get this crap anyway. At the very least, though, votes for a third party for President are votes that analysts will recognize as votes that could have been for a major party, had either one shown any principle whatsoever.

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319035)

I would recommend Gary Johnson. At least you may have a clear conscience after. Bush=Obama=Mittens.

Re:Obama = Bush III (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319109)

But the Democrats are worse, so you should vote Republican to be safe, amirite?

How about you vote for neither? And where did he imply that you should vote republican? Insulting democrats != praising republicans. Actually, by calling Obama "Bush III," it looks more like an insult to both.

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319169)

The original sentiment seems to be somewhat Libritarian leaning. Most of the Libritarians I've met tend to vote conservative, due to their image as being the party of smaller government. GP is probably basing his comment on that.

Bush III Few wingnuts have read beyond the 2nd (5, Informative)

dizzy8578 (106660) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319283)

Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)

---
Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But the --"

Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."

Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."

Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"

Gen. Hayden [exasperated, scowling]: "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "

Gen. Hayden [indignant]: "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'" ( h/t Dale)
-- Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January.

----
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.

" Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment."

    "It is a measure of the framers' fear that a passing majority might find it expedient to compromise 4th Amendment values that these values were embodied in the Constitution itself."

    --- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. 1981-2005 (resigned)

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319365)

Liberal and civil rights supporter Ron Wyden has put a hold on the corresponding act in the Senate, as he has on multiple such acts in the past.

And you might read to the end of the article and notice that Wyden says he'd be agreeable to a 'short term extension' of FISA so that the issues can be more fully discussed. This is a five year extension, which is a reasonably short extension in terms of government actions.

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318749)

As a "progressive" in the literal sense, what I believe extends well beyond the impotent stupidity of politics.

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319137)

You're kind of a tool. The house has a super-majority (70%) voting yay for this piece of legislation, so it probably won't make a damn bit of difference whether or not Obama vitos it.

95% of the republicans in the house voted for this bill
39% of the democrats voted for this bill.

Clearly there's no difference between the parties on this issue *rolls eyes.* Keep telling yourself that your vote, and everyone else's doesn't matter.

It's not the democrats who are ruining america... It's not the republicans... Apathy is ruining america. And it's pathetic little people like you who are pushing it along.

Re:Obama = Bush III (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319297)

in short, bush was not man enough to resist spying on us. and obama is not man enough to stop spying on us.

I think it did take bigger balls to start the wholesale spying. and it takes very little effort to keep things going, once started. in fact, it takes more effort to stop things than to start them, in cases like this.

it would have been nice to have obama taken a stand and cut the stupid 'reaction-based laws' that we got stuck with over the last decade or so. including the TSA. and the WoD.

I'm not sure anyone could really reverse the stupidity that we have created for ourselves. it was easy to do this dumb shit to ourselves and now its really hard to put a stop to it. too many people have dug in and make profit from it. while that goes on, you can't expect sanity to rule. money is involved.

obama promised more than he could deliver. his failure was thinking he could actually do things in this very rigid world.

Sedition (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318327)

The govt, by virtue of its actions, it promoting sedition.

reaat (0)

isyanq4r (2728853) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318361)

Sorry for the tangent, but I have a question. Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators? In other words, should the people involved in warrantless wiretapping before our hideously evil overlords legalized this rape of our rights be culpable for their crimes?Porno izle [slashdot.org] daha önce okumadnz Sex Hikayeleri [slashdot.org]

Yes!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318373)

5 more years of safety

Can we please give the libertarians a chance now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318383)

Gary Johnson 2012

How's your (2, Interesting)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318431)

Constitutional republic?

I don't think you are any better off than me in the UK or anyone else in this part of the world.. Your 1776 revolutionaries must be turning in their graves...

Re:How's your (4, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318597)

How do you think these dicks fund themselves? They hook up the Founding Fathers to some dynamos and sell the electricity.

Re:How's your (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318943)

Finally! I finally understand the Democrat plan to fix the economy!

Re:How's your (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319173)

Constitutional republic?

It's long gone. It has been under attack pretty much since its inception.

-jcr

Paranoia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318467)

You will be monitored for reading this post, which is considered a suspicious activity.

Smile!

Re:Paranoia (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318605)

SIGNAL TO NOISE! Diminishing... oh so tiny.... oh look, where did the signals go?

I already knew they would do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318479)

I already knew that would pass. Hold on... Congressional meeting on other line... Wow, really? OK, so I buy 1000 puts tomorrow on--Oh, hold on, text to speech is still linked to Slashdot, OK so I buy (unintelligable) (text to speech made with iPhone6 TTS).

Always happens with "Sunset" laws (4, Informative)

AlienSexist (686923) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318487)

Controversial legislation will attempt to lull some opponents by having a "Sunset" provision where the law will expire or require some sort of a reauthorization. The thought is "Okay we need it for right now but it is far too terrible to make permanent." When that time comes they always pass or are made permanent. Proponents argue "We've already spent all this money to implement it, no sense in squandering it now", "It is just so useful and important it is absurd to abandon it", or "Termination of the program would cause the layoffs of thousands of government & contract workers (in my jurisdiction)." PATRIOT Act did this too. Not to mention taxes and tolls as well. Government just cannot resist getting bigger. And yes, as others have pointed out, it doesn't matter which political party is in power when they pass. As soon as another party takes over for a term they really start to love these new powers and suddenly their criticism vanishes along with their promises to repeal.

Re:Always happens with "Sunset" laws (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318583)

"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." --Milton Friedman

our basic fascists (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318555)

Only one correct answer. Seig Heil !

I can't believe my eyes... (1)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318569)

At first glance I read "House Approves Extended Warranty Wiretapping Act". In all seriousness the house really should approve this one!

Where do I sign up (1)

ozduo (2043408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318585)

to be a monitor and listen to all those steamy phone calls. Plus with the bonus of insider trading info I'll work for free!

And Obama will sign it...but only reluctantly (4, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318625)

He's going to sign it...but he didn't mean to.

He's going to fight for our civil rights next year. He promises. Honest.

Re:And Obama will sign it...but only reluctantly (2, Informative)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318745)

We have to sign the extension act to see what's in it. Only then can we stop it!

Find your Representative (3, Informative)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318733)

Re:Find your Representative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319039)

The real list to make is the list of ones that publicly denounced the bill then turned around and voted for it anyways like fucking traitor cowards.

Re:Find your Representative (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319317)

None of then are mine. They represent the highest bidder.

Any elected official that accepts campaign contributions from people outside of their district no longer represent their district.

Third party doctrine (4, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318765)

It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.

If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.

Read it and weep:

"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."

Re:Third party doctrine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41318977)

A careful reading of the text of the 4th amendment shows that it creates a procedure for the government to follow. First comes probable cause, then a warrant, and finally a search. Warrant-less wiretapping and FISA courts granting warrants after the fact are clearly unconstitutional.

Re:Third party doctrine (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41318979)

It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.

If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.

Read it and weep:

...

Of course you'd believe that. The amendment that nullifies that for affairs of National Security is Classified.

Kill the traitors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41319017)

We as Americans should kill every one of these bastards where they stand. Burn down the house!!!

The government, the terrorist... (4, Insightful)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319057)

Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack. But considering the freedoms and rights to privacy that we've sacrificed in the process, I'd choose to live my life in pre-9/11 vulnerability, than a reality where everything I say and do is being recorded and monitored. I feel like "terrorism" has still won.

Re:The government, the terrorist... (2)

Mitreya (579078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319219)

Bin Laden is dead, as are many of the top Al Queda leaders, the network has been dismantled, and spuriously we're safer from attack.

Ah, but there still are faceless "evil doers" who wish to "harm us". So there is clearly a need for more and more military and extra-judicial actions.

Plus, if we keep bombing random countries with drones (without even contemplating war declaration), new terrorist groups will eventually form. Or we can just name some organization in that country as "terrorist"

So it's really a win-win all around

Check your congress critter's voting record. (2)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#41319165)

Anyone who votes for a statute that violates the fourth amendment is failing to uphold their oath of office.

-jcr

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?