posted April 08, 2009 08:46 PM         

whatever, he knows it hasn't changed just as well as we do.

posted April 08, 2009 09:34 PM         

I thought the point of the thread was Obama over the constitution. That the bill is illegal. When in fact surveillance has been conducted since the inception of the internet. The real point of the Post is to say that Bush can do it but Obama cannot. Silliness.

posted April 08, 2009 09:44 PM         

What: The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.

When: Decided Feb. 2, 2006 by U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan in Washington, D.C.

Outcome: E-mail surveillance approved.

What happened: As part of a grand jury investigation that's still secret, the Justice Department asked a federal magistrate judge to approve monitoring of an unnamed person's e-mail correspondents.

The request had a twist: Instead of asking to eavesdrop on the contents of the e-mail messages, which would require some evidence of wrongdoing, prosecutors instead requested the identities of the correspondents. Also included in the request was header information like date and time and Internet address--but not subject lines.

The federal magistrate judge balked and asked the Justice Department to submit an additional brief to demonstrate that such a request would be legal.

Instead, prosecutors asked Judge Hogan to step in. He reviewed the portion of federal law dealing with "pen register" and "trap and trace" devices--terms originating in the world of telephone wiretapping--and concluded it "unambiguously" authorizes the e-mail surveillance request.

posted April 08, 2009 10:26 PM         

On the other hand, I asked a straightforward question and asked for the names of any 3 citizens out of 300,000,000 citizens of the US whose constitutional rights were breached by Bush or the Patriot Act.

This is not the first time everyone took a pass...after first alleging Bush, through the Patriot Act violated citizens Constitutional Rights.

In the case Node cites you will notice the Justice Dept WENT to a federal judge to get permission.

Notice also that the proposed bill would not require any operation of law, policy, procedure a judge or anything else to bypass the provisions of the 4th Amendment and let the government snoop through all Internet users private online records without so much as any "probable cause".

posted April 09, 2009 03:11 AM         

I mean, what if 1000 were wire tapped and found innocent. Why would their names be released? They would be public if they were found guilty. There are plenty of muslim americans who were detained unnecessarily in jail by the patriots act. It was all over the news paper. I mean I feel bad for some targetted Americans for being singled out this way.

My emails were tapped by some indian agency and instead of reporting to the FBI, I let him go. I mean, if i was guilty of what they were accusing me of, i would have been arrested but nope didn't happen or didn't happen yet. That jerk was some social website cop. He doesn't know what he is dealing with -- i.e. I know how to play this game LOL. But it is such utter waste of time if the innocents plays this game.

However, I agree that we are being subjected to the same $hit here. Just deal with it because its gonna happen anways sooner or later. Just as a Cop needs a warrant to make arrests the government needs this act to pass to go after anybody considered high risks. Its possible few officers will abuse that privelege. Its because of their personalities.

Also note that its easy to sniff anyones computer . Theres plenty of ready made software available outthere.

posted April 09, 2009 04:04 AM         

Its just a game all these type of people plays with each other. And it can be fun if you are not attached to it. That is if you are not a liberal Heheheh...Just kidding.

posted April 09, 2009 08:24 AM         

I only asked for 3 names out of 300,000,000 Americans. Are you telling me you can't find at least 3 Americans who have come forward with allegations their civil rights were violated by Bush?

acoustic, you always validate my opinion and never disappoint me with your faulty arguments. With regard to your arguments, I have adopted the philosophy.."He who expecteth nothing isn't going to be disappointed". Of course we don't ask people to prove something ISN'T true. That's an argument in absurdity. Our entire legal system is based on proving the affirmative, not the negative. We don't ask people...in the United States to prove they didn't do something. The burden of proof always rests on the accusers...those who allege wrongdoing....as you have many times and gotten blown out of the water with your false accusations.

sunshine_lion, I'm not prepared to argue that my posts here haven't been read by NSA personnel...since I've frequently mentioned bomb, bomber, bombing and O'Bomber which rational people would assume are trigger words the NSA would be...and should be looking for.

Sorry you don't understand the scope of the proposed new act to snoop into all Internet user files with NO good faith belief any crime is being committed or intended to be committed. At least with CARNIVORE there were/are key words being searched for which trigger a closer look.

As a Leo, you owe it to all Leos to not make allegations you can't prove or at the least show some collateral proof the allegations are true. Statements like.."everyone knows that" "We all know that's true" don't pass the smell test. Makes the rest of us look bad. That crap being thrown against the wall doesn't pass the smell test either.

Don't overlook the fact I supported Hillary when she was being robbed as a candidate in the Primary. The fact Hillary was robbed of the nomination proves there's nothing democratic about the democrat party.

PS sunshine: Be a good neighbor and keep your cat out of my Petunias.

Welcome to the Global Unity Forum fatinkerbell. I hope you will continue to be entertained.

posted April 09, 2009 09:01 AM         

on the other issue - until i go to law school or have to write a term paper citing 28 refence materials, i can argue as i wish. i totally give props to those who display more tenacity in citing refernces. until i get more time on my hands, and take that class on how to debate properly, you will have to accept the fact that i can be a lazy leo and still make a point.

we do all know certain things. when it rains, do i need to send you a cloud in a plastic baggie to prove it happened?

posted April 09, 2009 10:53 AM         

If this were a court, dear sir, there would be a prosecution (Kat, Sunshine), and a defense (You). Yes, they would have to make their case, but YOU would also have to make your case. You would indeed have to prove that innocent Americans haven't been subjected to wire-tapping. There is nothing remotely unreasonable in asking you to prove the negative, and you're under just as much pressure to do so.

quote:

---

Of more than 50 challenges to warrantless wiretapping, only in the Al-Haramain case has evidence emerged that names U.S. citizens subjected to surveillance.

The case stems from classified documents that the Bush administration accidentally sent to the charity's Oregon chapter. Lawyers Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, who represented the charity when it was being investigated by the Treasury Department, learned that their attorney-client discussions had been subject to eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wiretap28-2009feb28,0,110533.story

---

posted April 09, 2009 12:08 PM         

fatinkerbell and herbert;

repeatedly i have stated that although i voted for obama i am no accolyte. i watch and see what happens. the fact that i voted for obama does not mean he is faultless and should be protected when he steps foul. however herbert of all people should understand how ridiculous his over the top namecalling and witchhunting are...

i am here trying to say, this bill, NOT YET PASSED by the way, is only saying out loud what has been going on since the very early days of the internet. people who poohpooh profiling are kidding themselves, and electronic spying is the EASIEST kind.

no herbert, i don't consider you have won anything. i am not here to testify in a court of law and i will not name private citizens here on the internet especially without their permission. that doesn't make me a liar, and as sunshine pointed out, you can't prove i am. just because you challenge me to jump off a skyscraper doesn't mean i'm a coward if i refuse.

in fact, fatinkerbell, i have been saying all along that this party-line name-calling juvenile style of arguing goes nowhere. i am not defending the democrats, just pointing out fallacies and bigotry. and i don't need to swear any oaths or produce witnesses to do so.

wiretapping of phones was going on before the internet. a warrant was legally required but that doesn't mean there always was one. our information has been culled since before i was born and will continue to be available to the authorities until they decide to govern not rule, which may be a long time coming.

the fact that HAVING all that info is not necessarily useful really doesn't change the fact that they do it. they have more information than they know what to do with so for the most part we are reasonably safe. however, as in a kafka novel, you never know when you will fall into the absurd pit that is created by governmental inefficiency.