Posted on 01/30/2008 2:50:09 PM PST by BGHater
A bill to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 30 Days
Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.
The mis-named Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:
“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.”
The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States ." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.
We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government’s illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to “upgrade” FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!
The only legitimate “upgrade” to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States . Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States . This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.
While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
You know, he should have fired his ghost writer long ago, or at least have someone proof read his ghost writer before handing it to Paul to read..
Becoming more irrelevant daily. He’s still running political ads on the radio here in NH. And on stations that couldn’t possibly be heard in any other state. Unbelievable.
Just more grist for the wheel. R-U-N Paul should right now drop out of the GOP race and go away from political life.
I think the debate tonight will have some fireworks.
He doesn’t think phoning Osama Bin Laden is probable cause?
Now you’ve offended a wonderful part of God’s creation— loons.
Why oppose this Ron? Get out there and repeal FISA.
“You know, he should have fired his ghost writer long ago, or at least have someone proof read his ghost writer before handing it to Paul to read..”
Why would he? He didn’t read a racist and conspiracy theory wacko newsletter with his signature over three decades. He is probably too busy with more important things.
I don’t see where your Paul quotes show any lack of proof reading. Would you please elaborate?
While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States ." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.
I think Paul is saying that an American's communication can sometimes be monitored without a warrant, hence violating the 4th Amendment, if the other party is an overseas non-citizen.
Let freedom ping!
That’s called “money laundering”!
From Soros to Paul to liberal station owners.
Ron Paul notes that proponents say a warrant is still required but also notes that the wording in the bill belies its proponents.
Delegates of candidates who have dropped out are free to vote as they wish. I think RP is trying to get some of those delegates.
Paper pleeze, ver are your papers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.