Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts (POLL: 66% NOT BOTHERED IF NSA COLLECTS PHONE RECORDS )
Washington Post ^ | Friday, May 12, 2006 | By Richard Morin

Posted on 05/12/2006 6:27:29 AM PDT by ziggy_dlo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: sinkspur
It is clear that you are more concerned with the probable cause provision (which applies to the warrant and not to the reasonableness clause) than with the reasonableness provision.

Neither supports this, sink - but probable cause is the standard for a subpeona or a warrant. I agree warrants are not always needed - but those are typically in hot pursuit or emergency situations, which this is not.

And the Supreme Court does not support your understanding.

The Supreme Court also does not support my views on states deciding abortion. Guess I shouldn't want Roe v. Wade overturned then, either.

61 posted on 05/12/2006 7:47:39 AM PDT by dirtboy (An illegal immigrant says my tagline used to be part of Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I would even favor an expedited process with a lower threshhold of probable cause. But there has to be some process and it has to be a rifle, not a shotgun.

Isn't this called the Patriot Act?

62 posted on 05/12/2006 7:53:27 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM: The perpetual insulting of common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
How does this help them "connect the dots" or find patterns among the calls

You have a phone number gathered by other means or a name with a corresponding phone number. Get a subpeona. Get all the people that person has called. Heck, allow a second tier to in turn get all the people called by those he called in order to "conect the dots". Set up an expedited process - mandate that telecoms have a dedicated liason to provide this data - I imagine they already have a group that answers subpeona requests from law enforcement already.

It sure sounds like a lot of subpeonas. How many tiers? A subpeona for every phone number on the list and every phone number for everyone on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th tier? I don't expect you to have all the answers, just want to point out how complicated it can get. Any these are just phone numbers. And they are looking for patterns not individuals as a first pass. When it comes to individuals, the subpeona process works better I would think.

In other words, you can come up with a quick method to provide the needed data that has due process.

Well the quick method is to run things through a judge but what I think you are suggesting is many, many, many judges or one judge who looks at lots of phone numbers. Anyway, in doing what they are doing and informing Congress I think they are doing "the quick method" out of necessity.

63 posted on 05/12/2006 7:54:26 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo

Probably support a gun registry too (assuming there already isn't one).


64 posted on 05/12/2006 7:54:36 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Isn't this called the Patriot Act?

And that has provisions for probable cause. I have a couple of objections with minor aspects of the Patriot Act - I'm not one of the knee-jerkers with that. But I do have a problem with the government obtaining data like they did here that normally requires a subpeona.

65 posted on 05/12/2006 7:54:52 AM PDT by dirtboy (An illegal immigrant says my tagline used to be part of Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
It sure sounds like a lot of subpeonas. How many tiers?

No, one subpeona for all calls tied directly to the phone number in question and for the next level of calls from those numbers.

Like I said, I am willing to bend probable cause in wartime. But not ignore it entirely.

66 posted on 05/12/2006 7:56:00 AM PDT by dirtboy (An illegal immigrant says my tagline used to be part of Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Like I said, I am willing to bend probable cause in wartime. But not ignore it entirely.Yup, I agree with you but I also think that Bush and Company have probably bent over backwards to try and comply. Proabably far more than previous war-time Presidents. Still, it's a worthy discussion and something the founders probably couldn't have anticipated.
67 posted on 05/12/2006 7:58:32 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Do you think when they had Moussaoui in custody they had a right to look at his computer? Would that violated his rights? Probable cause. No problem.

Guess I'm not that familiar. What was the probably cause for Moussaoui? I thought he'd just violated his visa. Of course I know there's a dispbute about how many "rights" illegals are entitled to (I couldn't even type that without snickering).

68 posted on 05/12/2006 8:01:06 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ziggy_dlo
A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program

by putting the word "initially" in there, the MSM is telling us they are still confident they & the Dem's can convince a solid majority of Americans that Bush is an evil, spying, dictator-wannabe.

69 posted on 05/12/2006 8:01:25 AM PDT by ghost of nixon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"Have you calmed down enough to realize that there is no threat to liberty by collecting a bunch of phone numbers?"

Are you ready to be honest and say that they are not collecting phone numbers but calling records, or do you not see the difference?


70 posted on 05/12/2006 8:02:56 AM PDT by VRing (Happiness is a perfect sling bruise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information.

So I would assume that that would apply to ANY service; Banking, Credit Card, Cable, Internet, TV, Public facilities (including roadways etc. Any time personal information is divulged to a second party it becomes public property or when private belongings enter public property they are no longer private. Sound about right?

71 posted on 05/12/2006 8:03:50 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

IMO, if they have someone in custody for a valid reason, that is probable cause. But that is my opinion.


72 posted on 05/12/2006 8:04:36 AM PDT by dirtboy (An illegal immigrant says my tagline used to be part of Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jumping in red OK

"Why are they tracking YOU AND ME?
IMHO, this is a tactic old leftist/communist regimes would have been proud of."

They aren't tracking you and me. They're looking at patterns of phone dialing. And no, the things I spoke of that happened during WWII did not use or require warrants. When you're searched at an airport, no warrant is involved. When the gov. requires you to submit a census form, no warrant is involved. When the police search your car based on reasonable suspicion, no warrant is involved. The Constitution does not require warrants for all intrusions into people's privacy, so long as such intrusions are deemed "reasonable" by the courts.

As far as I'm concerned, W's actions are moderate, highly reasonable, and appropriate. And no, the Communists would not be proud, mainly for that very reason.


73 posted on 05/12/2006 8:06:39 AM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
IMO, if they have someone in custody for a valid reason, that is probable cause. But that is my opinion.

How about Driving Under the Influence? Can I pull all your phone records, credit records, medical records to see who you have called, done business with and what drugs you are taking? Can I then go to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier or do I need to find a judge who would say, "what's the probable cause"> just because dirboy sounds dirty or looks dirty or has pals outside the country? It gets complicated quickly.

74 posted on 05/12/2006 8:08:10 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Here's the thing...the letter-reading did not stop. This is the modern version of it, being supported on the basis of what a democratic president did sixty years ago and what Clinton did just a few years ago. What sort of basis will the next president need to search every home in the US, because government already invaded our lives during this president's term? What happens when Hillary, God Forbid, trumps up some cause far less noble than the War on Terror in order to take away even more rights? What sort of nation are we defending when we give up traditional American freedoms and values?
You're partially right, though. I don't know for certain that Bin Laden isn't living in America. I do, however, have faith in my leaders, however misguided the NSA intrusions are, that they're competent enough not to allow Bin Laden to hide in our own country. If you genuinely suspect otherwise, how can you defend anything the this White House authorizes--ever?
And yes, I'm willing to help. I don't know you, but maybe you're on the front lines, serving our country in Iraq or elsewhere. If so, God Bless you. Or, perhaps, you defend our country by contributing to the patriotic discussion on this board. As do I. And in my case, defense of the country must include defense of its traditional values and freedoms. God help us if we allow their erosion before a power hungry democrat takes power and does away with the rest of them.


75 posted on 05/12/2006 8:08:17 AM PDT by Jumping in red OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jumping in red OK
We're at WAR: Why can't the White House spy on the ENEMY, instead of its own citizens?

Could it be there might be a Fifth Column?

76 posted on 05/12/2006 8:10:48 AM PDT by RightWhale (Off touch and out of base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Realism
So I would assume that that would apply to ANY service; Banking, Credit Card, Cable, Internet, TV, Public facilities (including roadways etc. Any time personal information is divulged to a second party it becomes public property or when private belongings enter public property they are no longer private. Sound about right?

Yep. When you voluntarily enter private information into a public property or venue or a property owned by a third party, that private information is no longer private.

77 posted on 05/12/2006 8:12:39 AM PDT by sinkspur ( OK. You've had your drink. Now why don't you tell your Godfather what everybody else already knows?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
No. And I didn't think so back in the 1990s.

However, there are two points to be made:

The Left--and its Political and Propaganda Machines--have reinvented the problem of domestic spying in yet one more attempt to spew forth anti-Republican propaganda--though they ran interference for the Democrat President--in typical Leftist mendacity and hypocrisy; and

9/11 has never been repeated thanks to President Bush and his surveillance program, and, considering this, the good of it outweighs the bad.

Frankly, I'm not particularly worried about domestic spying under a Republican administration, but I am seriously concerned about what would happen under a Democrat administration. This is my most gut-wrenching concern. The possibilities for abuse are legion--and the Democrats would definitely abuse it. The mendacity and hypocrisy of the Left--an example of which has just been given--not to mention other dangers of an empowered Left--are enough to give any honest citizen cause for apprehension.

78 posted on 05/12/2006 8:13:30 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The Spirit of Flight 93 is the Spirit of America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: VRing
Are you ready to be honest and say that they are not collecting phone numbers but calling records, or do you not see the difference?

OK. Call 'em whatever you want.

79 posted on 05/12/2006 8:13:32 AM PDT by sinkspur ( OK. You've had your drink. Now why don't you tell your Godfather what everybody else already knows?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: zook
When the police search your car based on reasonable suspicion, no warrant is involved.

That happened to me when I was a collage student. The officer only need to say the words "I smell pot". I knew he didn't, he knew he didn't, but those words gave him reasonable cause to search my car and belongings. His fishing expedition was quite unsuccessful and legally violated the Constitution.

80 posted on 05/12/2006 8:17:11 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson