"Well I'm all broken up about their 'rights'!" -Inspector Harry Callahan
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.
It’s ok Comrad, I assume you are OK with the police busting into your house as well just to check up on you whenever they want, since it’s for “national security.” I’m sure Clinton and other future crappy presidents will only use this for good and not for other federal disasters like Waco and Elian Gonzalez. /sigh it’s amazing how statist the Republican Party has turned in the last 8 years. When is the next Contract with America coming?
Just wait until Hillary has these powers.
Not to mention the Paul kooks here.
I guess you are ready to throw your rights away for them, huh?
Come to think about it, if there is a problem with the Second Amendment preventing the government from prohibiting people from possessing fully assembled guns, we probably need to repeal that also.
And by the way, one of the essential purposes of the First Amendment was to permit citizens to expose and describe in print, the malfunctions of elected public officials--Supreme Court has held Congress has the power to eliminate that right also (McCain Feingold)--First Amendment is really excessive at this point, as long as we are cleaning up the Constitution, probably ought to get rid of that also.
Habeas Corpus you say? I don't fully understand why it is that the courts have approved getting rid of that for citizens but if the courts say it is ok and the federal government wants to do it, might as well get rid of that also.
Since 1935, and Jones & Laughlin Steel, we have gotten rid of the limitation on the power of Congress to do whatever it wants, so why do we need all this language in the Constitution limiting the power of Congress to act at all--lets get rid of that also.
I could go on. Maybe what we need is a Constitutional Convention.
I do understand the S/W issues but when pressed the FBI will not say what the do with the "data of no interest". In wiretapping the FBI is out of control. Virtually every bit on electronic stuff that gets into the airwaves is now recorded. Good news bad news - they have about a 5 year backlog of stuff to listen too. Computer filtering it doing most of the work but there are still years of stuff a human needs to listen too.
BTW I do think there are 4th Amendment issues here but RP just goes over top in presentation. No this isn't just a W issue; JEH tapped the hell out of this country.
You show me anywhere in the Constitution where the word privacy is mentioned. I guarantee that you will not find it there.
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. Nothing needs to be implied or “found” by stretching the meaning or intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Of course this is how the Burger court found reason for “Roe”
I’m coming to your house at 2, wire tapping your phone and searching every knook and cranny in your house to see if you are aiding and abetting terrorism. I’ll also be monitoring your TV, what food you take in and what you search on the internet (including that “right wing extremist” website, Free Republic). If you will not let me, you are an enabler and a sympathizer and should have no rights, period.
I make no overseas calls to Mideast nations.
Would you rather a suitcase nuke go off in your city?
I sure wouldn’t. Oh, please don’t respond with that tired Franklin quote. Ben didn’t have to contend with savages like the Islamists.
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.
If that isn't the definition of privacy when dealing with government, I'm not sure what is.
Stopping jihadists is not unreasonable.
I have nothing to hide anyway. If they want to listen in on me ordering pizza from Vocelli’s, then they can be my guest.
We don't even have secure borders and you think wiretapping normal American's is OK. LOL. Build the wall, enforce illegal immigration laws first, have very, very tough background checks on all legal immigrants to the US and THEN let's talk about this. Until that's done, the suitcase nuke can go off anyway.
Such a model statist. You are no conservative.
Perhaps not, but certainly American citizens should have rights. Maybe these laws aren't being used to violate the rights of Americans now, but history shows that governments have a tendency to stretch, abuse, and misuse the powers they are given. What is used today to protect us from terroristic threats could very easily be used against us 10 or 20 years down the road. This is especially true when the government has little oversight or accountability.
Giving law enforcement these powers now will probably make us safer in many ways. But you have to admit that there is a significant long term risk involved. I don't think it's fair to question the allegiance of people who recognize this risk and are bothered by it.
It hurts their brain to ever think that far ahead.
Its not American citizens that are being eavesdropped on.
Can't wait to see how YObama-bama uses these wonderful 'protect' America powers.
Let freedom Ping.
You can live in that fantasy world if you want. Even if it were true, it won't hold any water under a Democratic president.
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.