quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
I also believe that if law enforcement has probably cause (i.e. a warrant), they should use cell phone data to pursue and capture criminals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



The Bush policy was to moniter calls between known foriegn terrorist, and between known foriegn terroris and someone in the states. It was not about monitering U.S. citizen tallking to U.S. citizen without a court order, or trackiong the movement of U.S. citizens by their cell phome without a court order.

Big difference.

As for me, I want our authorites to moniter any calls from known terrorist to anyone anywhere in the world.

Thanks
RC

.....known foreign terrorist and some one (including US Citizens) in the states.

And yes, they did that for years (in secret) without any over sight. So who is to say they were not monitoring your phone conversations with friends abroad?

There needs to be checks and balances....

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
My biggest issue with the way Bush went about it is that if these were "known terrorists" and there was already a mechanism in place to recieve expedited wiretapping warrants why not just go get a warrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
And the libs considered it a violation of rights; go figure.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
I am far from a lib and i consider it a violation of rights as well. Rights are rights regardless of who may or may not be calling a US citizen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

If a drug dealer has a legal tap on his phone and calls you, you are listened to legally without a warrant being issued for your number.

quote:

I see no difference with known terrorist being tapped (no warrant needed), and they call you; that conversation needs to be listened to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
By being party to illicit activities on a warranted tapped phone i fall under the umbrella of that warrant. It is the same as if i were at that person's residence when a warrant is served, i become subject to search as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
By being party to illicit activities on a warranted tapped phone i fall under the umbrella of that warrant. It is the same as if i were at that person's residence when a warrant is served, i become subject to search as well.

So we can disagree on this.

I guess congress should pass a law that we can get warrants on known forieng terrorist so when they call someone in the USA they would also bo under that warrant as you so proberly stated.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
They can get a warrant on the phone in the US. Look it may make catching a terrorist harder or more labor intensive but rights are not to be violated, period. If we don't all stand for all rights equally then what is the purpose of having rights at all? If we feel it is alright to violate this right because it doesn't affect us we must remember that one day there will be someone in charge who will want to violate a right we do hold dear and we will have set the stage for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames
And how do they know who to get a warrant on until the call from a known foriegn terrorist to set off the nuke is made?

If they get a warrant on a drug runner and he calls you; there is no need for a warrant on your phone; the same should apply to terrorist.

Thansk
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
The issue you are not addressing is that the government was tapping US citizen's phones, not the foreign terrorists phones so they need a warrant to do that or it is a clear violation of the constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
The issue you are not addressing is that the government was tapping US citizen's phones, not the foreign terrorists phones so they need a warrant to do that or it is a clear violation of the constitution.

No they were not tapping USA citizen's phones, they were tapping the known foriegn terrorist phones; and if they called someone in the states of course they heard the conversation.

It is the same with any phone that is tapped, you only tap one; and then listen in on whom ever is called or calls on the tapped phone.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
No they were actually tapping both incoming and outgoing calls on US telephones, that requires a warrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
No they were actually tapping both incoming and outgoing calls on US telephones, that requires a warrant.

Only calls made or recieved from or to known foriegn terrorist were listened to without a warrant.

I think it was a great program and should still be in place.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
No they were actually tapping both incoming and outgoing calls on US telephones, that requires a warrant.

Only calls made or recieved from or to known foriegn terrorist were listened to without a warrant.

I think it was a great program and should still be in place.

Thanks
RC

But they were tapping phones in the US which is why they had to come up with the idea that they didn't need warrants. Had they been tapping phones outside of the US then it wouldn't even fall under the warrant requirements. If a phone in the US is tapped then they have to have a warrant, period. Our rights are not subject to the convenience of the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjamesNo sir, they were not listening in to the phones in the USA and whom ever they spoke to on that phone.

They were listening in to the foriegn terrorist phones and whom ever they spoke to; and if that was some one in the USA; then it was, but the USA phone was not tapped, it was incidental to listening in on the foriegn terrorist phone; no warrant needed.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

Additionally i have no idea why warrantless taps were necessary since FISA allows up to 72 hours AFTER surveillance starts for an agency to get a warrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

Additionally i have no idea why warrantless taps were necessary since FISA allows up to 72 hours AFTER surveillance starts for an agency to get a warrant.

But there were no warrantless taps on USA citizen's phones.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjamesNo sir, they were not listening in to the phones in the USA and whom ever they spoke to on that phone.

They were listening in to the foriegn terrorist phones and whom ever they spoke to; and if that was some one in the USA; then it was, but the USA phone was not tapped, it was incidental to listening in on the foriegn terrorist phone; no warrant needed.

Thanks
RC

They were tapping into the major interconnections between the telecommunication companies ON US SOIL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_


They were tapping into the major interconnections between the telecommunication companies ON US SOIL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

I know where jjp and Wing stand on the wiretapping so this is for those who supported Bush when he did this: If these wiretapping strategies were so important under W. for our safety as his supporters have alleged, why be upset when B0 continues it? So what if B0 condemned it, isn't his continuing of it his agreement with it and essentially say this is the right thing to do?

The Bush policy was to moniter calls between known foriegn terrorist, and between known foriegn terroris and someone in the states. It was not about monitering U.S. citizen tallking to U.S. citizen without a court order, or trackiong the movement of U.S. citizens by their cell phome without a court order.

Big difference.

As for me, I want our authorites to moniter any calls from known terrorist to anyone anywhere in the world.

Thanks
RC

quote:


My biggest issue with the way Bush went about it is that if these were "known terrorists" and there was already a mechanism in place to recieve expedited wiretapping warrants why not just go get a warrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:


My biggest issue with the way Bush went about it is that if these were "known terrorists" and there was already a mechanism in place to recieve expedited wiretapping warrants why not just go get a warrant.

Agreed. They avoided the FISA courts...

quote:

the FBI and other law-enforcement outfits have been obtaining more and more records of cell-phone locations—without notifying the targets or getting judicial warrants establishing "probable cause," according to law-enforcement officials, court records, and telecommunication executives.

The Justice Department doesn't keep statistics on requests for cell-phone data, according to the spokeswoman. So it's hard to gauge just how often these records are retrieved. But Al Gidari, a telecommunications lawyer who represents several wireless providers, tells NEWSWEEK that the companies are now getting "thousands of these requests per month," and the amount has grown "exponentially" over the past few years. Sprint Nextel has even set up a dedicated Web site so that law-enforcement agents can access the records from their desks....

quote:


Some abuse has already occurred at the local level, according to telecom lawyer Gidari. One of his clients, he says, was aghast a few years ago when an agitated Alabama sheriff called the company's employees. After shouting that his daughter had been kidnapped, the sheriff demanded they ping her cell phone every few minutes to identify her location. In fact, there was no kidnapping: the daughter had been out on the town all night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:


My biggest issue with the way Bush went about it is that if these were "known terrorists" and there was already a mechanism in place to recieve expedited wiretapping warrants why not just go get a warrant.

Agreed. They avoided the FISA courts...

They avoided the FISA courts only when it was legal to do so.

Thanks
RC