No. This can be dealt with later, through separate legislation.

So we fight excessive government control by giving them more control?

As for pathetic … what would be pathetic (AND IS) is watching this country be destroyed from within by a bunch of groups using our own laws and weaknesses against us as a bunch of coddled fat-cat-bureaucrats sit back and collect lobbyist dollars thinking they will somehow be immune once the defecation is deftly redistributed by the rotary oscillator … once the “it” hits the fan so to speak!

On February 28th, 2008 at 10:37 am, tgillian said: It doesn’t bother you that your house can be searched, your private papers read and pictures of your family seen by prying eyes without court authority? You are not breaking the law, therefore you are immune from such activity? The Patriot Act doesn’t distinguish you from the lawbreaker. How can it be determined that you are not participating in illegal activities until AFTER the search. As a writer, you should more interested in protecting your rights. “..then they came for me.” Yes, pitiful.

It bothers me that the government can and did take 110 acres of my land in Northern Nevada because we lived off the grid. My crime was taking my father home after he had a heart attack. It bothers me that they can tell me what I can and cannot allow in the confines of my own home and my own business when I OWN those establishments and my actions are well within the law. It bothers me that abuse of the law runs rampant among our politicians and they not only remain in power but continue to get reelected. Hell yes the corruption bothers me but we are talking about national security and not somebody’s pathetic little nickel and diming.

If the government wants to come and search my home in the Philippines … more power to them. There is enough exint in the expatriate community here to make it easy. Remember though, that here in the Philippines, I also have the legal right to shoot anyone within fifty meters of my home if they are a viable threat to my safety or that of my family. And just in case you did not know … the government here will not go out of their way to protect the American Int community.

As for national security, if calls are being routed through the USA or computerized communications are being routed through the USA or based on US servers, why the hell should we not listen to them? Do you have any idea how many people died to obtain the codes for the Japanese communications or to get the Enigma machine off the German U-Boat? There are people attempting to destroy our nation and again … one of the very few powers our federal government has is to protect this nation.

The house wants to go after “past actions”. I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the Telecoms doing this because they were asked to by the White House and thought it was the right thing to do, our country needed their help.

Agreed. That is why I said there were exigent circumstances and this can be dealt with separately.

Or would you rather give the benefit to the trial lawyers to do the right thing when you open up lawsuit mania for again, past actions.

No. This can be dealt with later, through separate legislation.

The Telecoms have already stopped helping and this will make it worse.

Not true. When a warrant is secured the Telecoms are protected.

And your mention of FISA updates is a joke, right.

Nope. It has been revised and updated to meet the changing needs and requirements since it’s initial inception.

The warrant on a phone conversation can’t happen fast enough. By the time they get that warrant for a specific phone # or communication, they get a new phone(it’s called technology and the terrorists have it).

Warrants can be back dated when the circunstances are exigent. Warrants are not only for fixed apparatus like phones and computers, but for individuals. So, any mode of communication that an individual uses is subject to that warrant. These were just a few of the updates and revisions to FISA.

(A brief aside – If we can identify an individual terrorist as Pres Bush has said, “Known terrorists are calling” why aren’t we whacking these individuals?)

Why are you worried about our government listening to a foreigner’s phone conversation.

I am not and have never said that.

If updating FISA is critical to the Nation’s security then do not allow one element (Telecom Protection) that has nothing to do with the actual workings of FISA to hold it up.

I still have not seen one example of how this could affect an American citizen.

Well, wait and see what happens if Clinton is elected. Would you trust her with this power? Getting warrants is also a check against an abuse of power.

Finally, recall that the expiration of the Protect America Act is because it was recognized that it was done in haste because of exigent circumstances. It was purposefully designed with time limits to allow review of every element contained within it.

What’s the problem. Get warrants. Follow the law.

On February 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am, WarTip said: Where am I giving up any of my liberties? I do not participate in illegal activities. I do not care who listens to my communications because I do not discuss illegal actions.

It doesn’t bother you that your house can be searched, your private papers read and pictures of your family seen by prying eyes without court authority? You are not breaking the law, therefore you are immune from such activity? The Patriot Act doesn’t distinguish you from the lawbreaker. How can it be determined that you are not participating in illegal activities until AFTER the search. As a writer, you should more interested in protecting your rights. “..then they came for me.” Yes, pitiful.

On February 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, nosheep said:

zyzzyg #21…Read your own words. The house wants to go after “past actions”. I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the Telecoms doing this because they were asked to by the White House and thought it was the right thing to do, our country needed their help.

One of the very few powers a federal government has is the power to protect this nation from its enemies. This does not give the local cops without a warrant the right to listen to liberals dealing dope over their cell phones. This gives the federal government the right to do what it must to protect our nation from attack by people who openly state that we are the great satan and they want nothing more than our complete and total destruction. I do not know about you but if somebody tells me they want to kill me, my only concern is getting to them before they have a chance to get to me.

I still have not seen one example of how this could affect an American citizen.

I am an American living in the Philippines. Even though there are relatively few problems where I live, the Southern part of the country has many factions vying for control. Some of these are Muslims trained in the Middle East. My Mother held security clearance and I am sure, even unwittingly, I know some things I am not supposed to know. I am quite certain that ALL of my communications are monitored and quite frankly … I am glad! What if there are others like me who are not quite so patriotic or concerned with National Security? (Perhaps someone from the NYT even?) If they were down here telling people how to get to us and how their attacks could be more effective, wouldn’t you want preventative measures to be in place to prevent that information from being used? I do not know about everybody here, but I sure would.

Immunity for past actions on the part of the Telecoms can, and should, be dealt with separately. There were exigent circumstances that came in to play early on and that can be dealt with.

Immunity prevents the telecoms from being sued by our enemies (Via the ACLU, CAIR or any other organization that may push their agendas for whatever reasons) and giving our enemies further insight into our tactics and a better means of being successful in attacking us. Again, one of the very few real powers that the feds have is the ability to protect the nation.

You guys that say you’re happy to give up some liberties for security are taking the easy way by saying “take care of me, please, at any cost” rather than taking responsibility for yourself. You’re pitiful.

Where am I giving up any of my liberties? I do not participate in illegal activities. I do not care who listens to my communications because I do not discuss illegal actions. As anybody here knows who has read my writing, I despise what our government has become and their abuse and illegal usurpation of power from We the People and the States. I do not hide it, nor is it illegal. Still, I wish they would do the job they are responsible for though I doubt protecting our borders will be a real issue to them anytime soon.

I am much more fed up with government illegally redistributing my money to others in the name of social welfare. I am concerned with govt illegally telling me what I can and cannot do within my own home and my own business even when those actions are perfectly legal and within the confines of the law. I am more concerned with govt telling me how I can and cannot raise my children or how I can educate them. I am much more concerned with blatantly illegal actions being blatantly disregarded when committed by members of the government. When those issues are resolved, talk to me again about “relinquishing” my rights and freedom so the Nation can be protected.

Sorry about being so long-winded again but I am a writer and a Hillbilly and this is something I am passionate about.

On February 27th, 2008 at 7:01 am, Crazy Horse said:

I wonder how much money Al Queada has given to Democrat races.

Yes, it sounds flippant, but in all sincerity I wonder whether there’s a grain of truth there; are there any “Trojan Horse’ Islamic radical front contributors to the Dems? A revelation would be dynamite come Nov.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

(A Thompson guy voting for MacCain not be cause he has to but cares about my wallet more.)

FISA has been updated over the years and the only element that the House has a problem with this time around is that the Bill contains immunity from prosecution for the Telecoms (Phone, Internet, etc.) for past actions.

My question is not entirely rhetorical, though the answer is obvious. If there is some action that requires electronic surveillance then a warrant should be sought. Having a warrant protects the Telecoms providing the information. That is the current structure of FISA and all warrants. We have adequate laws and we should use them.

Immunity for past actions on the part of the Telecoms can, and should, be dealt with separately. There were exigent circumstances that came in to play early on and that can be dealt with.

Big Brother, Big Brother. He will protect us.

You think that the House believes the same thing Rusty believes – the Constitution is WRONG?

How far will these idiots go to betray us? Sadly, we need to point the finger at the Repubs lack of willingness to take this to the public. The Repubs should break in with a special announcement during Idol (when most of the country is watching TV) and let them know what our government is up to. TV is a great tool and the Repubs just ignore it.