Posted on 02/16/2008 7:49:09 AM PST by no nau
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul opposes the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 as the legislation violates the US Constitution.
"The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant, which violates the Fourth Amendment," Paul said.
Speaking before the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, he said 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.
The 10-term congressman added that it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of an 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 US Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens," said Paul.
The libertarian-leaning Texan noted that 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.
"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," Paul concluded.
Constitutionalist Ron Paul is an outspoken critic of current US fiscal and monetary policies. He advocates a full troop withdrawal from Iraq and the abolishment of income taxes.
Foreign citizens in foreign nations have NEVER been subject to Constitutional protectections EVER by ANY decision of ANY court until after 9/11.
None of the intercepts originated in or ended on US territory. They were foreign in origin and foreign in destination, they were merely routing THROUGH the US. The Dems decided to hobble the US by encouraging the lawsuit that spuriously argued that communications that PASSED THROUGH the US were covered by the Constitution, which demanded that the intercepts which UNIVERSALLY were NEVER previously subject to review (since the Constitution does not cover a French Citizen in Belgium Calling A Turkish Citizen in Brazil SINCE THEY ARE HEY NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS OR EVEN IN FRIGGIN' AMERICAN TERRITORY) .
Talking about the intercepts being compared to the original FISA specs (FOREIGN NATIONAL CALLING INTO AMERICA OR TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN) is absurd at best, but is simply irresponsible and deliberately misleading.
So your point is refuted, eliminated, and shown to be not only untrue, but deliberately misleading and false. In simpler words, your arguement is a lie of the highest order.
What’s that stench? Is it boiled frog?
What happens when these slowly creeping powers of the Federal government start to encroach on US? By a Democratic President?
Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth shall begin.
Since it’s “our guy”, it’s okay!
The scary thing is that unlike a war against a well defined nation state, this War has the stench of the War of Drugs or the War on Poverty on it.
When will these powers ever expire? There is always the ‘threat’ of terrorism. There’s probably millions of Islamist Extremists all over the globe. The threat probably won’t end in our lifetime.
This should make conservatives very nervous. Especially with a new administration only months away.
Read Shadow Warriors you’ll never trust the FBI again. When I read the history of the FBI and the Biography’s of J Edgar Hoover it’s hard to believe that anyone ever trusted them in the first place.
Unfortunately you are correct. I'll probably be voting for the Constitution Party this year since our choices are liberal McCain, liberal Clinton or liberal Obama.
Thanks for that.
“Makes you wonder, why this guy is still in the race? He’s not garnering enough support to win the position of dog catcher.”
What makes me wonder even more is why you anti-Paul posters go on and on and on about the guy even though, as you correctly note, he hasn’t enough support to win the position of dog catcher.
Guys like do not understand that they can haul you away and they do not even have to tell your lawyer or your family where you are or if they even have you. There are 5-7 such cases right now. Habeas Corpus is gone.
Oh and exactly how many cases have been initiated and stopped terrorist actions because of wiretapping. Exactly NONE! Fort Dix was an informant and so and so on.
Besides as long as the border is open this is all just mental masturbation.
That's a hell of a lot of "potential terrorist" activity. Either that, or a lot of indiscriminate spying on US citizens by the Executive branch. Makes Hillary Clinton's 900+ FBI files look positively amateur by comparison.
The point is that the 4th Amendment is not absolute. It implicitly allows reasonable searches, as determined by objective standards. If an American citizen is speaking on an overseas call with a person he has reason to believe is terrorist-affiliated, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Seems like 33 out of 34 of their ideas have initial ideas (whether or not it should be addressed, extra-or contra-constitutional aspects of programs or goals, etc) result in a precedent that could be used by tyrants to subvert the healthy tyrant-roadblocks put in by our Founders. The precedent of "hate crimes" can be used to horrible effect by a tyrant.
But FISA? You're being manipulated about FISA. What FISA in the 1970's did was make it explicit (where it wasn't before) that if a communication that was suspect either originated IN or had a destination TO either US Territory OR a US Citizen, then Constitutional protections kicked in and you had to justify a court order (FISA COURT) just like any agent investigating Mafia control of sewage hauling in Kansas City would have to get from the District Court. That's consistent with the Constitution. In fact, it protects non-citizens in our territory with the assumption of innocence (we assume they aren't illegal until proven guilty of the crime, so to speak). That's a big heavy burden that is rightfully borne by law enforcement.
It isn't one that is Constitutional if you apply it to foreign nationals on foreign soil calling other foreign nationals on foreign soil. They don't get the Constitution - they're not covered. See?
Can you prove that there are absolutely no abuses of the monitoring system?
Or do you assume that since it is the Government, and a Republican administration, that all is good?
If these are known identities on the other end of these phone calls, what is the problem with getting a warrant?
That’s all intercepts, because they are counting the foreign-to-foreign intercepts in that count because of the MIS-application of the Constitution to those foreign nationals on foreign soil who have their coms routed THROUGH the US. It is an artificially high number because they forced the US to go to the FISA court for calls that were explicitly not covered - foreign to foreign. The dems supported a horrible lawsuit that in effect said that our Constitution protected every citizen of every country in the world, even if they never step inside our borders.
THAT’S the crime against the Constitution - not the PAA or the FISA court.
“Nobody is spying on American citizens.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How is the weather in LaLa land? If you believe that statement you are a lot more of an idiot than Mr. Paul!
The Sheeple have been duped with the WOT. They follow the leader blindly into the Constitutional Rights Slaughter House gladly and obediently raising their necks to have their throats cut. We have always had terrorist. They were here in the 1700's. Only a fool would believe in the WOT while our elected leave our borders wide open yet wish to be more intrusive in our private affairs.
Homeland Security? A loaded 12 gauge. A concealed weapon while out with the family. The willingness like the passengers on the last hi-jack plane not to become victims. That is Homeland Security and nothing Bush is pushing can match it in effectiveness. The Bush WOT is nothing but a ruse designed to put us under complete government authority. BAA Blind Sheep.
The Founding Fathers were all good enough writers that had they intended for there to be a right to privacy they would have EXPRESSLY put it in there.
You are such a dumbass.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I’ve always said, when it comes to Liberty, Americans will give it up faster than a drunk prom date when faced with the right threat. We just don’t have the stones for it anymore.
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.