Posted on 07/09/2008 1:05:04 PM PDT by shrinkermd
“When the Dems declare pro-lifers, NRA members or conservative blog posters “domestic terrorists” maybe then you will wake up. Until then , enjoy your police state.”
FISA, The F in FISA stands for Foreign, not domestic.
If I remember correctly, FISA existed under the Clinton administration, so I am sure you can name the names of all the conservatives who were against it under Clinton.
“The government has plenty of means to fight terrorists without infringing upon the forth amendment. This bill has killed the forth by nearly eliminating the need to seek a warrant.”
This bill has done NOTHING to the 4th amendment for those within the USA.
“So you honestly feel that it’s good that the government can listen to your phone conversations? You trust the government that much? The founding fathers certainly didn’t that’s why they put so many restraints on the government.”
The founding fathers intercepted mail going to the British during the Revolutionary War. It’s the enemies, stupid.
Everyone's rights are infringed upon when the government manages to gain a new power to usurp the Constitution.
According to Article VI, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any action which is contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate.
While a jury would have the power to acquit someone or hold him not liable for obeying an illegitimate order, I see nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress such power. To give Congress plenary power to protect people who obey illegitimate orders of government is to give plenary power to have illegitimate orders enforced. Can you not see the dangers in that?
Suppose you run a publicly-traded telecommunications company and a government agent comes knocking. He asks for certain information he really has no authority to demand, and tells you that if you refuse he'll make your life miserable. If you want to take things to court, you'll win, but your shareholders will be out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Whereas if you simply supply the information you can guarantee that your shareholders will be off the hook.
Given that your fiduciary duty is to your shareholders, rather than to the public at large, how could you justify going against the government agent in that scenario?
The government has the ability to make people's lives miserable for pretty much any reason it wants. This power can be, and often is, abused to make people do things the government wants but has no legitimate authority to demand. There are limits to this power, though, since people will often balk at doing illegal things whose penalty would exceed the pain the government could assert for refusal.
Granting the government the power to protect people who do illegal actions on its behalf is very dangerous. To be sure, crooks already have too much power within the government, but to allow the government to extend its corrupting tentacles beyond itself is extremely dangerous.
Telecommunications wiretaps are just the beginning.
Does it shield the telcos from lawsuits resulting from unlawful domestic wiretapping? If so, that's a huge blow to the Fourth Amendment,
“Does it shield the telcos from lawsuits resulting from unlawful domestic wiretapping?”
First of all, it is not wiretapping, no matter how often the media calls it that.
Second, every call is foreign, no calls are domestic.
Third, the lines that are being intercepted are owned by the telecos, not the persons at each end, and the telecos have agreed to the intercepts, therefore, no warrant is needed. This does not effect the 4th amendment in the USA at all.
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.