Why FISA is more dangerous than letting government wiretap

(without additional oversight). FISA court delays may have lead to ...

from JoeUser Forums

Several people have spoken up in the past claiming that the Bush administration, through the use of the (in their words unconstitutional) Patriot Act, has trampled people's rights and needlessly ignored protections against wiretapping and other surveillance methods that apply to the use of such technologies on U.S. soil.

Perhaps those people should take some time to read the editorial in today's The Washington Times:

Fix FISA

A few words from that editorial:

Few cases highlight the acute need to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) like its role in delaying a May search for three American soldiers ambushed by terrorists in Iraq. At one point after the soldiers were kidnapped, it apparently took the U.S. government more than nine hours to begin emergency surveillance of the kidnappers' electronic communications — the result of a ruling by a judge on the special court overseeing FISA that challenged the government's ability to collect data from wires in this country — even if they were monitoring foreign terrorist targets. One of the soldiers was later found dead, and the other two are missing.

As always, there's a lot more in the original article linked to the headline above. Please take the time to check out that original article, it just might open your eyes on the issue.

politics
3,949 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Some Patriot Act haters will likely, as noted in the editorial, place blame for these problems on the Bush administration, but in doing so they ignore the kinds of problems that the FISA court creates for people in the intelligence business. When moments count, when it has to be done as quickly as possible to save lives, the FISA process, or any process which impedes the intelligence communities' efforts at gathing intel could cost people their lives.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hey Terp:

A government which operates without a judicial system to oversee it is moving in the direction of a dictatorship. Saving lives is not the only concern, though it is high on the list. Life must have quality, it must be lived without the fear of a government spying on it without established cause. The soldiers were captured by insurgents. I find the ubiquitous use of the word "terrorist" to be asinine and emotionally charged, as well as seriously misleading.

Lots of lives could be "saved" if we abandon court checks and balances, but do you really trust the government that far?
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
terp,

I'm ashamed of you on this one, seriously. A true conservative is not going to stand by and watch their precious Constitution die without a fight. The same Constitution that stops the secularists from shutting down churches, the same Constitution that forbids the government from taking our guns, ALSO protects us from illegal search and seizure.

The question is, do you want a police state or don't you? Allowing the government to implement warrantless wiretaps with no oversight is guaranteed to bring out a police state. And all of us will suffer, not just the terrorists.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The question is, do you want a police state or don't you?

I think there is a third alternative, and it lies somewhere between pre 9-11 and post 9-11.  Pre 9-11 the CIA could not share with teh FBI, but they could spy all they wanted to (so if they heard about a drug deal going down - too bad), but they could pursue enemies even into this country (spying on the spies).

I am not saying there can be no exchange of inormation, just any information the spies get on domestic crimes should not be used (not gathered in accordance with Constututional rights), but they have to be able to gather intelligence on what foreigners are doing business in this country to the detriment of this country and pursue them.  In the latter case, I dont see how FISA would even matter.

One thing is certain, if we are going to extend the constitutional protections we enjoy to every slime ball in the world wanting to do us harm, we might as well hang up a going out of business sale sign now.  Cause they are and will use that to their advantage.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

One thing is certain, if we are going to extend the constitutional protections we enjoy to every slime ball in the world wanting to do us harm, we might as well hang up a going out of business sale sign now. Cause they are and will use that to their advantage.

Well stated.

That is exactly where I sit on the issue.

Oversight is fine, but oversight that truly impedes the intelligence community from doing their job has got to go.

And sorry Gideon, we've argued about this before, and you won't change my mind by (and I don't mean to insult or antagonize here, so please don't take this wrong) fear mongering about the constitution being trampled.  The rights of the innocent should be protected, but the security of the innocent also must be protected and tieing our hands behind our backs isn't helping the situation.

I don't have a problem letting the surveillance happen first and then having the oversight come into play after the fact with the information that is obtained being declared inadmissable in court cases if necessary.

I liken this whole problem and situation to one where an adult sees a toddler about to walk into the deep end of the swimming pool.  The adult can stand by and watch the toddler walking in while they ask around whose child the toddler is, and who is responsible, and would the responsible individual please retrieve the child, etc., all while the child is going down for the third time gurgling and choking on the water, OR the adult can immediately intervene, save the child's life and pull them back to safety and then have to deal with the parents/guardians that weren't paying attention but have suddenly awoken to notice that someone (not them) is apparently now interfering in their duties and responsibilities as a parent by having pulled the child back to safety.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why can't we wiretap for extenuating circumstances and go back for the court order? Let's see, soldiers kidnapped, wiretap them NOW and then ask if it's okay.