Replies

Multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuits have already been filed against telecommunication companies for giving personal information to intelligence agencies without warrants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

I have absolutely no problem with this now. Our various security agencies, including the IRS, abused the intel power by investigating US citizens for non terrorist related issues, including income tax related issues. In other words the feds abused the extraordinary power given to them for the purpose of intercepting terrorist intel., and so now they deserve to lose it, as the telecom companies will be sued by their clients, who THEY sold down the tubes by allowing for such things as warrantless wire taps on e-mail accounts by federal authorities on non terror related investigations.

Will there be an attack by terrorists as a result? Maybe, but the feds to blame for abuse of warrantless searches by misusing national security letters to investigate citizens on non-terrorist related issues.

I hope the telecom companies lose millions.

Our various security agencies, including the IRS, abused the intel power by investigating US citizens for non terrorist related issues, including income tax related issues.

Yep. They abused the power just like a lot of us knew government would. Government always does this. That's why the founding fathers put the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. Get a warrant or change the Fourth Amendment.

I agree. The Federal Government’s actions in warantless wiretapping and electronic survelliance are so obviously a violation of the 4th amendment that I shouldn’t have to explain why I oppose this.

It is like this: if the government does not have enough evidence to even get a rubber stamp warrant from FISA, then they should not be survelling that person.

Isn't it interesting how some will vociferously support a strict constructionist reading of one amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

but will allow a lot of leeway in "interpreting" a different amendment, under the pretext of "fighting terrorism":

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.

I know I'll get flamed for this by the knee-jerk, oh-so-patriotic, anti-terrorists on this, but I think all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be very strictly construed.

You want to do something that should require a Warrant, then get one. No shortcuts for the government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place to restrict government, not the people.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"Americans used to roar for Liberty, now they bleat for Security."
--Dr. Norman Vincent Peale

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
--Thomas Jefferson