[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Dave Arbogast wrote:
>>>> Yes, we are a nations of laws, and the law is the law.
>>>>
>>>> FISA is for DOMESTIC wiretaps (calls placed within the United
>>>> States to another location within the United States), and is
>>>> a necessary
>>>>
>>>> The current wiretapping in question are calls placed from
>>>> external locations.  As I said before, ALL countries have
>>>> always reserved the right to monitor and even disrupt
>>>> communications between a party within their borders and
>>>> another party outside of their borders.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, a lot of the calls being monitored are
>>>> actually from one foreign location to another foreign
>>>> location, which just happen to be routed through the
>>>> U.S.  This is allowed under the "search and seizure"
>>>> clause of the 4th Amendment -- because sovereign
>>>> country (including the U.S.) has ever considered it to
>>>> be an "unreasonable search" if Customs officers review
>>>> any books, papers, recordings, or other communications
>>>> before allowing them to be brought into the country.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>
>>> Err, it sounds like politics are influencing your reasoning. I don't 
>>> care if it is Bush or Clinton or Mickey Mouse in the White House, please 
>>> look at the law...  The fact that wire taps with an American at one end 
>>> and no FISA or any other court order is the problem. The Law does not 
>>> say both parties must be American. Where did you ever get that idea ? If 
>>> both parties are foreign and the communication crosses US equipment, all 
>>> the more power to who ever wants to intercept it :-)  What I am talking 
>>> about is not following the Constitution because "The law was outdated".  
>>>    
>>>
>> yes, the FISA law is outdated.
>>
>> Monitoring FOREIGN COMMUNICATION is not unconstitutional, and never
>> will be.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> So, if the original Law has no language about spying on Americans. then 
>>>    
>>>
>> Nobody is "SPYING ON AMERICANS"
>>
>> The U.S government reserves the right to intercept foreign
>> communications.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> simply the Forth Amendment is sufficient - a court order is required.
>>>    
>>>
>> The fourth amendment says "no UNREASONABLE" searches or seizures.
>>
>> Monitoring foreign communication is not "unreasonable" -- no court
>> in ANY nation of the world has ever held it to be so.
>>
>>
>> The more the left protests about this sort of thing, the more
>> it makes believe that what they're REALLY worried about is
>> that it's going to lead to the revelation of how much of their
>> own domestic actions are coordinated with foreign organizations
>> who have absolutely no respect for the ideals of the U.S.
>> Constitution.
>>
>> That's what this hysteria is really about -- that so many on
>> the left are, in their hearts...treasonous.
>>
>> It's one thing to protect your rights.
>>
>> It's quite another to use those rights in a quest to overthrow
>> the very system which guarantees your rights.  Leftist ideology
>> is completely at odds with the very notion of individual rights --
>> and yet it is only the left which is complaining about supposed
>> infringements on their individual rights.
>>
>> Since that completely defies logic, the only conclusion one can
>> make is that the left is worried about something else..something
>> which is so damaging, that they cannot openly protest to protect
>> it, therefore, they are trying to use this bogus canard as a
>> stalking horse.
>>  
>>
> Wow. I was in shock to read this. Really. As a right wing conservative 
> who voted for G.W. both times, I could not disagree more with this 
> reasoning. If I had known G.W. was going to trash the Constitution, 
> separation of powers, etc., I would have voted for anyone else the 
> second time. I understand the reasons for Basic Training conditioning 
> the minds of our brave solders, I just did not think it has gone beyond 
> upholding the Constitution, even if the threat is domestic and at the 
> top of the chain of command. Those I know in the Far Right (read 
> Michigan Militia) are more concerned than I am that our civil rights are 
> less important than attempting to protect us from terrorists. Slippery 
> slope is trading freedom for perceived safety. Our founding Fathers 
> understood this.

I'm a very strict Libertarian who actually reads the Constitution.

The government has certain powers.  Searching all that crosses
the borders (both inbound and outbound) is one of those powers.

Suppose the communication in question were not by telephone because
the technology were not available -- is there *ANY* doubt that
the government would be within its Constitutional Powers to
search any envelope with a return address of any person KNOWN
to be at war with the country?

This has NOTHING to do with the rights of citizens, and
EVERYTHING to do with the Government's first and foremost
responsibility of protecting the citizenry's right to life.
("The right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"...
yes, that's in the Declaration of Independance, but the
arguments based on the DoI is accepted by the Supreme Court).

> 
> So did George Orwell. 1984 is a good example.
> 
> "With Liberty and Justice for all."
> 
> That is all I have to say.
>