Print 50 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Mar 1 at 5:53 PM

"I am your judge, executioner, jury, executioner, jailer, and if necessary, your executioner." -Judge Dredd

While President Barack Obama (D) and the "conservative" majority of the Supreme Court of the United States -- Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito -- have at times disagreed, they hummed a happy tune of harmony on Tuesday, silencing the voices of the President’s "liberal" court colleagues.  The conservative majority held ranks, voting 5-4 to strike down [PDF] a challenge to warrantless wiretaps.

I. Due Process?  Not Always, Argues Supreme Court

Both President Obama and his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, argue that warrantless wiretaps are a critical tool to fighting the ever-present, nebulous threat of terrorism.  They argue that in the modern era due process is a defunct relic that needs to be tossed aside to counter the grim face of modern reality.

[Image Source: Djibnet]
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency (NSA) both use warrantless wiretaps and other warrantless information requests to spy on Americans. The agencies have not published clear rules regarding when and how warrantless wiretaps are approved.

Normally the government needs a warrant to snoop on citizens, but now federal agents -- sometimes a single agent -- can arbitrarily file to monitors citizens’ communications.

II. Yet Another Lawsuit Fails to Halt Warrantless Police State

There have been numerous lawsuits against warrantless wiretaps by civil liberties groups, which argue that the Constitution should not be tossed aside in the name of fighting "terrorism".  However, these lawsuits have virtually all failed.  The government has additionally granted immunity from lawsuits to telecoms who cooperate with its shadowy, Orwellian tactics.

In the latest lawsuit, brought by Amnesty International USA, Judge Alito dealt critics a harsh blow, writing in the majority opinion "[The plaintiffs] cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending."

This Phone is tapped
The conservative majority tossed an anti-wiretapping case. [Image Source: Flickr]

Justice Stephen Breyer blasted Judge Alito and President Obama's rhetoric, commenting, "[The harm] is not speculative. Indeed it is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen."

The U.S. Department of Justice Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues that citizens have nothing to worry about in losing their privacy if they have nothing to hide.  He counters Amnesty International and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticism that the wiretaps could adversely affect journalists and lawyers by making them fearful of prosecution.

He argues, "[If a journalist or lawyer] took precautions, it would be because of a belief that (he or she) had to comply with an ethics rule, and the ethics rule would be the cause of (him or her) taking those precautions."

III. Bush, Obama, Romney, are All United on Warrantless Monitoring

Formally under the latest FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012 (H.R. 5949) the government must suspect a U.S. citizen is talking with a foreigner in order to wiretap the conversation without warrant.  Of course, such a claim could be made about virtually any conversation, as there's really no way of proving an agent didn't suspect you might be talking with a foreign citizen.

Marking the increasingly similar appearance of America's two ruling parties, both President Obama and his former presidential elections rival Mitt Romney supported warrantless wiretaps.  Most Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress have also voted in favor of nullifying Constitutional protections and allowing the practice.  Increasingly both parties are finding they have much more in common than they have to disagree about.

Bush and Obama
President Obama and his predecessor President Bush agree on many things, including that the federal government should be granted unregulated spying on its citizens.
[Image Source:]

Mr. Romney expressed a viewpoint narrowly in line with President Obama's plugging warrantless wiretaps in a recent interview (see below), stating, "If it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we are gonna go, because we are going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

In other words whoever won the White House, the outcome on warrantless wiretaps -- like many other issues -- was predetermined.  The President would support the push to keep law enforcement activities unaccountable and unregulated.  Both parties argue that citizens should just be happy the government is allowing them to live, as Mr. Romney puts it, by fighting "terrorism".

IV. Original FISA Aimed to Stop What Current Bill Does

The FISA mess, like many in the government is an interesting historical lesson in how the government can take what seems like a good idea and twist it to accomplish the exact thing that it was originally intended to prevent -- non-transparent and unaccountable wiretapping.

The FISA was designed to eliminate Fourth Amendment violations, and was put in place in the wake of accusations that President Richard Nixon had used wiretaps to spy on political rivals.  The act only allowed for warrantless wiretaps if one of the parties was "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S.

Nixon Watchmen
The original FISA aimed to stop wanton warrantless wiretapping used by people like President Nixon to (allegedly) spy on his political enemies. [Image Source: DC Comics]

While well intentioned, perhaps the FISA left open the door to abuse by putting domestic surveillance mechanisms in place.  While the bill criminalized abuse, with a penalty of up to five years in jail, it has been difficult to prove abuse allegations against ranking federal officials. 

But for its flaws FISA did offer some protections for a while.  But those protections were replaced with the precise thing the original measure was designed to block via the PATRIOT Act of 2001, which dramatically expanded warrantless wiretaps, and the "Protect America Act" of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-55S. 1927).

And now the best challenge to that ubiquitous surveillance has been struck down before the Supreme Court.

Sources: SCOTUS, CNN

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

More Info
By tng on 2/26/2013 5:58:41 PM , Rating: 5
Just today read a good article on this that basically shows that there is no difference between D and R in this country. I think I am going to retire somewhere in South America...

RE: More Info
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: More Info
By tng on 2/26/2013 6:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
And for all the "two party" haters out there. Uhh if Romney's form of pseudo-Conservatism didn't get it done, how do you think the people are going to react to full-blown Libertarianism?
I don't really hate the 2 party system, it is just that nowdays, it is hard to tell them apart without looking at the little R or D at the end of their names.

I do have great respect for Liberman who told the Dems to shove it and went independent and won.

Full blown Libertarianism is a little crazy, even for me.

RE: More Info
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 6:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agree. But if your parties message can't win any elections, you're only faced with a few options.

Now don't get me wrong. I feel the Republican party leadership has done a horrible job under Obama. Free thinking is great, but there appears to be NO unified voice at all. Half the party is throwing the other half under the bus to keep their jobs, and the other half looks like complete dumbasses when they make themselves Obama's personal punching bag.

Full blown Libertarianism is a little crazy, even for me.

Considering the alternatives, I'll take it. But you'll just NEVER sell it to these voters today. We've lost the battle.

RE: More Info
By maugrimtr on 2/27/2013 9:20:30 AM , Rating: 1
Let's stereotype Republicans:

1. They don't like poor people.
2. They don't like gay people.
3. They don't like immigrants.
4. They don't like sick people.
5. They don't like non-Christians.
6. They don't like liberals.
7. They don't like scientists.
8. They don't like women.

Basically, all of those groups don't like Republicans in turn...

The problem with conservatism is that it has invested so much time and energy into demonizing people and basic realities we take for granted in order to preserve their existing votes. The democrats, on the other hand, just have to offer "reforms" that show they want to help all of these groups.

If I were gay, I'd be a democrat. I wouldn't associate with a bunch of hypocritical bigoted assholes unless I found a conservative representative with a brain. Many on the above list have a similar attitude.

It not that conservatism is losing, it's always going to be an appealing political view, it's that the people being elected are idiots in a race for the The Most Extreme Republican title which leaves moderates facing nuclear winter (i.e. having to elect a Democrat as the lesser of two evils). How can you then compete against a party willing to swing from left to near-right when it suits them? Reworking your "messaging" and pandering to groups you were demonizing just a few months ago won't cut it. Finding intelligent people might.

RE: More Info
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2013 11:19:10 AM , Rating: 1
That's another problem with the party. They've allowed those stereotypes, invented up by smear campaigns, to go unchallenged for the most part.

RE: More Info
By Florinator on 2/27/2013 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 1
Invented by smear up campaigns??? So people like Mourdock, Akin and even Marco Rubio (the Earth is 6,000 years old) didn't put their foot in their mouth because they are catering to the "base"?

RE: More Info
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: More Info
By RufusM on 2/27/2013 2:10:49 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, they are stereotypes, but they are perpetuated by the Republican leadership and spokespeople who has long-since been co-opted by the Religious Right and their intolerance of social changes.

It doesn't help when people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are spreading the message through their self-absorbed personalities.

When a Republican gets into power they spend money like drunken sailors on crack, just slightly less then a Democrat.

The US has two parties: The party of Spend and the party of Spend More. The really sad thing is they both have the public addicted to government handouts through direct or indirect means.

Given that, the American public has no appetite for a message of fiscal restraint of any kind. Just look at the average American household's credit card debt. In 2012, that number was $15,257. They would rather go broke than go without.

RE: More Info
By MrBlastman on 2/26/2013 11:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm what you call a true moderate. I've come to find that neither mainstream party, be it Republican or Democrat, satisfactorily align with my beliefs. Believe it or not, I used to vote mainly Republican (okay, it probably isn't hard to believe) but even they have moved way off target from where I feel comfortable. They don't represent the majority of my beliefs.

It all changed back in the 90's when I voted Ross Perot. Yeah, I'm one of THOSE people that caused Dole to lose. Whatever. Something about him stunk and I couldn't allow myself to vote for the guy. Since then, I've come to realization that voting straight ticket, be it one party or the other... is a BAD thing. I voted Zell Miller for Congress once... yeah, a Democrat. Zell was the only good one left and is a damn fine patriot.

But, I draw the line at calling myself a Libertarian, either. Yes, I've voted for several including for Governor in our last State election but, even myself, a moderate, realize that the Libertarian Party also embraces some extreme points of view that I'm once again... not comfortable with.

So, what to do? Give up voting? Hardly. That's the worst thing anyone can do. How about reviewing my choices and speaking out for what I believe in and voting with my mind instead of my ears?

Yeah. That's a good start. So that's what I've done.

And I've discovered something too along this experimental journey I've embarked upon to improve my patriotism: Just because I vote for one of these independents doesn't mean I'm turning my back on America, nor embracing and condoning all their extreme viewpoints. In actuality, if my vote were to succeed and they get elected... it would soften up entrenched politics in Washington (or even my State) and add variety and process back to the system.

This variety... this process, these are precisely what we need to prescribe to our politicians in Washington. Hard line views have gotten us nowhere. It has lead to gridlock and complacency--both dangerous enemies of our Constitution.

So, give it a chance. Stand up and be a true patriot as I have done. Everyone in America will be better off if we do it.

RE: More Info
By DrApop on 2/27/2013 8:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
No disrespect intended, but we are NOT a two party system like you claim.

The two parties in power have propagandized this concept by pushing the idea that multiparty participation in government doesn't work and that the only viable ideologies are either republican or democrat. Plus they both will do their darndest to beat down any attempt from a third part to gain any type of power....even to the point to having them join their party (ala the teaparty).

Are government was meant to be a government of idea. Instead we have two near identical ideologies that fight against each other just to remain in power.

OK, off my soapbox now.

RE: More Info
By JediJeb on 2/27/2013 11:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
George Washington had it right when he said there should never be any political parties in the government.

Somehow politicians back then managed to respect his belief right up until he left office, then right away they began forming the parties.

If we had not political parties, then politicians would be more free to band together temporarily on certain subjects when needed but then to change affiliations when the time came to do so without worry of reprisals.

When I registered to vote I had to register as a member of the Independent Party because I had to choose a party, why could I not just register to vote with no party affiliation? Why should I be forced to declare a party? So maybe with our closed primary system here I could not vote in a primary election but having no party should not preclude me from voting in the main fall election. What is funny is that judges here who are elected have to run with no party affiliation by law.

I also wish they would outlaw the little D and R beside politicians names when they are displayed on TV and in print. Make them stand or fall in their own merits not on how viewers feel about a political party. Seeing a party affiliation there makes most people tune then out if they are not from their preferred party even if they are saying something that person would like to hear. Predefining someones perception on a topic removes logical public debate on issues that really need to be honestly debated among all constituents.

RE: More Info
By MadMan007 on 2/26/2013 7:43:20 PM , Rating: 1
It's not 'watered down' Conservatism that lacks pull with the electorate, it's Neocon garbage trying to pass off as Conservative that does.

RE: More Info
By EricMartello on 3/1/2013 5:53:01 PM , Rating: 1
Conservatism, even watered down Conservatism, just doesn't jive with the people anymore. Hell look at the last election, it's mind boggling.

On political issues I tend to agree with most conservatives' viewpoints. I part ways with them quite abruptly when it comes to lifestyle choices - they are very adamant about imposing christian/catholic values on people which I find to be annoying and out of place. If they would stop injecting their personal views and lifestyle preferences into their political platform they may stand a better chance of winning over more people.

Until the voters become better educated, and some form of personal accountability and self reliance is injected into the majority of the people, don't look for a big difference between the parties.

I don't think that the parties need to be diametrically opposed; after all they still need to work together so there should be a fair bit of common ground. Where they should differ is on key issues and, for the most part, they do.

The republican party is fractured right now and this is causing them to lose political ground in the public eye. They need to sort their sh1t out and go back to the basics.

The fundamental tenets of what it means to be a republican are what appeal to me even if the party is not doing a great job of representing these principles right now.

RE: More Info
By MechanicalTechie on 2/26/2013 6:36:57 PM , Rating: 1
Umm news to the unwise.. if you move country then you'll get even less privacy and respect from the US Gov. You'd been seens as worthless and totally expendable.

It's actually quite amusing to see US citizens finally getting a taste of what the rest of the world has had to put up with... ahhh i love karma

RE: More Info
By tng on 2/26/2013 6:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
I really see it as a retirement issue. There are several South American countries that are basically at the level of what could be compared to the US in the 60's as far as the level of police state is concerned. Given the fact that money saved for retirement goes allot furher there than it will here makes it very attractive to many people here.

Also if I don't live here in the US anymore, I don't care if they are suspicious or not of me, not like I would move back.

RE: More Info
By MechanicalTechie on 2/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: More Info
By Uncle on 2/26/2013 10:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
In the last twenty five years attack ads are the norm. If the incumbent party had done anything for the people, they could get reelected by bragging rights. As it is both parties do nothing for the people, so all they have left is to cut the other people down with personal attacks and negative ads.

RE: More Info
By Omega215D on 2/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: More Info
By Rukkian on 2/27/2013 2:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't part of you other conversation, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

As for you comment, if numbnuts (ala trump, and several on Faux News) would stop spouting off about stupid things (birth certificate, communism, etc), it may help the democrats not feel the need to be so defensive.

I know they are just blowhards, and trying to get attention, but it does get alot of attention and takes away from the real messages. Add to that there are unfortunately still alot of bigots in this country, and it can be a touchy subject unless you stay on point. Several people seem to just want to do personal attacks and rhetoric instead of talking facts.

Just my $0.02

RE: More Info
By tng on 2/28/2013 12:59:55 PM , Rating: 2
...if numbnuts (ala trump, and several on Faux News) would stop spouting off about stupid things... may help the democrats not feel the need to be so defensive.
Same could be said for MSNBC if you are on the Conservative side.

Like I said, just a matter of perspective, looking in from the outside, it is hard to see a difference.

Conservative Majority?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 4:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
Umm where? Isn't this the same Supreme Court who said Obamacare was legal?

RE: Conservative Majority?
By Keeir on 2/26/2013 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2

Thats makes 5 nominated by Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 that are "conservative" supposedly.

RE: Conservative Majority?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 6:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
Bush wouldn't know "Conservatism" if it punched him in the face.

Roberts? I don't think he'll be able to wear the 'Conservative' title anymore after his ACA debacle.

I know we've gone so far to the left that even moderates appear "Conservative", but most of those are not.

RE: Conservative Majority?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/26/2013 6:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh actually as I recall, the Bush's never got their first choices for Justices. They were browbeat for trying to get true Conservative judges in, and had to compromise with moderate choices.

Too bad Obama didn't have to do the same thing...

RE: Conservative Majority?
By RufusM on 2/27/2013 2:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
President Bush first appointed Roberts who, after the usual challenges, was approved.

President Bush also later appointed Miers, who was clearly a Texas crony. She stepped aside under the heat and Alito took her place.

RE: Conservative Majority?
By room200 on 2/26/2013 10:36:28 PM , Rating: 3
That's EXACTLY the problem with people like you. You are all about party; it has nothing to do with country. If a conservative does ONE thing that you don't agree with or takes ONE vote you don't agree with, all of a sudden they are not "pure" enough to be a conservative. That's why your party is in the tank right now and will eventually go the way of the Whigs.

Skynet goes active
By Fastyle on 2/26/2013 7:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Judgment Day!

What's that clicking noise on the phone Vira?

I don't know Dorothy, what's all that noise over your way and.... ooh my can you see that bright orange glow to?


Dorothy! ...are you their?

RE: Skynet goes active
By Dorkyman on 2/26/2013 8:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your comments will go a lot further if you spell correctly.

Sorry, but it's true.

RE: Skynet goes active
By Fastyle on 2/26/2013 10:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
OK "Dork" know anyony named
Eric or Erick
Tod or Todd
Greg or Gregg
My baby doll spells her name Cyndi!

Thanx < for your input on the topic!
It went pretty far! Any other trolls?

RE: Skynet goes active
By futrtrubl on 2/26/2013 10:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wait... you think he was talking about you misspelling their NAMES? LOL.

RE: Skynet goes active
By ritualm on 2/27/2013 3:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Smuggler: Why did you come back? UNATCO has every boy going after you.

JC Denton: Unfinished business.

Smuggler: So you finally decided to join the NSF?

JC Denton: Not sure if I joined the movement, maybe the people.

Smuggler: Good. You know where you stand. That's because most people don't know they can pick a side where the government has so much power.

Used to be in the old days.
By Misty Dingos on 2/26/2013 4:34:42 PM , Rating: 3
Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
I think I just threw up in my mouth.

RE: Used to be in the old days.
By ppardee on 2/26/2013 5:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
The old days weren't so good. Japanese internment camps, slavery, the government telling people they can't grow food on their own land for their own consumption because it affects interstate pricing... The country has always faced threats to their liberties from day 1. It's our job to push back... All of these things are tolerated because they are 'good for the country' even though they are bad for select individuals.

The government likes to pick on minorities. That's why taxes are 'reasonable' for all but the top 5% of earners.

Land of the free...
You want to hear another joke? "Equal protection under the law." Not laughing? Yeah, me neither.

RE: Used to be in the old days.
By Omega215D on 2/26/2013 11:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Still one of the better countries to live in nowadays, sadly enough.

People that short sighted as to not see stuff like this is occurring in many other 1st and 2nd world countries?

There are also plenty of Europeans hating on immigrants. Throwing it out there to show the rest of the world isn't always so rosie.

By SAN-Man on 2/26/2013 6:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
We've had a liberal-Democrat Senate for 7 since since 2006. They could repeal the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II any time they want and end all this nonsense but for 7 years they have not.

If fact, they voted to re-up the Patriot Act and passed the Patriot Act II.

This faux-outrage by the left is hilarious.

The Senate could also pass a law forbidding the President from any wiretapping of any kind if it really bothered them. They have all the REAL power, not the President.

By tng on 2/26/2013 6:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
This faux-outrage by the left is hilarious.
Yeah, I loved the fact that everybody came out to protest the Patriot Act when it was on Bush, but when Obama extended it, I heard not one word, saw not one march or protest from the left.

By Bad-Karma on 2/27/2013 1:08:20 AM , Rating: 3
After the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 Good ol Joe Biden put forth anti-terror legislation that was ultimately defeated. However, Even Biden has claimed numerous times that the Patriot Act was taken almost verbatim from that original anti-terror bill.

So why would the Liberals want to take it out, when their people got it put in in the first place.

By Ammohunt on 2/26/2013 4:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
This has been hashed over many times; Domestic endpoint wire taps != to international endpoint wire taps.

That being said if anyone believes that this ruling if it would have went the other way would somehow protect your privacy let me be the first to tell you those days are long gone right to privacy is a myth.

By Indianapolis on 2/26/2013 11:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Cut it out. You're going to ruin the hysteria.

By Danger D on 3/1/2013 4:16:53 PM , Rating: 3
And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

Hello America. Meet the only argument a politician will ever need to take anything and everything you love from you.

Find a Victim who is clean
By TheEinstein on 2/26/2013 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Thatishow you will crush this.

Then publicize this.

The courts will not end it.. border related issues (even over the net and phone) will always default this way otherwise. FIND A CLEAN VICTIM!

As you might expect...
By Beenthere on 2/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: As you might expect...
By MechanicalTechie on 2/27/2013 1:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... your a propagandist wet dream.

Your amazing!!

Gosh, imagine that...
By WinstonSmith on 2/27/2013 9:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
"Bush, Obama, Romney, are All United on Warrantless Monitoring"

And they should all have been impeached and the lawyers who fabricated the illegal justifications disbarred.

"an interesting historical lesson in how the government can take what seems like a good idea and twist it to accomplish the exact thing that it was original intended to prevent"

Which is why anyone with a knowledge of history demands to nip that kind of crap in the bud before it's allowed. But most Americans only know last weekends sports scores or who is winning on American Idol.

"While the bill criminalized abuse, with a penalty of up to five years in jail, it has been difficult to prove abuse allegations against ranking federal officials"

Gosh, imagine that, the impossibility of successfully taking governments to court over things they do in secret which aren't compromised by whistle-blowers in sufficient detail. "Oh, you want evidence of our illegal acts? So sorry, that's classified. Conveniently."

By kenyee on 2/27/2013 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Talk to any young people growing up and ask them to name them. They think they have a right to a cell phone...or a right to text...or a right to drive.

Romney is even dumb enough to say "I have a right to live".

None of these are listed in the Bill of Rights which warrantless wiretapping clearly violates :-P

By FormerDemocrat on 2/27/2013 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
The government can listen in if and only if two conditions apply
1. At least one side of the conversation is outside the US
2. At least one side of the conversation has been linked to a terrorists

Those conditions are completely reasonable and responsible. Only condition 1 is mentioned by the article, and by one commenter. The terrorists are laughing their asses off.

To be fair...
By KPOM1 on 2/27/2013 11:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
SCOTUS kicked this out on a technicality (the plaintiffs had no standing). Alito ruled that if evidence obtained from one of these wiretaps were actually admitted in court, they could challenge the validity wiretaps. But since they couldn't demonstrate that they were targeted or that they were about to be, they had no standing.

I'm a fiscal conservative who was disappointed with Roberts' vote last year on Obamacare, though I had a lot of sympathy for the "liberals" on this one. I've read articles on both sides, and think that this issue isn't fully decided yet.

Mills Lane "I'll allow it"
By xtort107 on 2/28/2013 1:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
Really gotta say, unless your ultra paranoid or involved in an ongoing crime terrorism considered the highest priority, why is anyone concerned?

Anyone feel like this has never existed prior to these "laws"? Cold War spying bent or broke every law in existence to counteract the Russians, spying on Americans who are involved in ongoing criminal activity will always be watched no matter the cost or political smokescreen used to carry out such actions. Freedom is only as free as you wanna be, you cross the line and not so much.

By Neil_Sandage on 2/27/2013 1:48:33 AM , Rating: 1
Warrantless wiretaps need to stop. My family has had private conversations with other people in the United States played back to us. ~ Technology allows the Government to limit the wiretap to numbers with foreign National codes, if they wanted to be honest and patriotic to other Americans. But the police abuse this illegal permission, and violate the rights and reputations of private citizens by spreading Gossip worse and more intimidating than any neighbor or person at church ever could.

What is a private citizen supposed to think, when a police officer gossips to them, "You should stay away from that person. We have their phone tapped."?

Seriously? You lose friends because the police are scaring the people around you. This is a social violation. Truth, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? ~ Well, I am not happy. And the police do not have the right to actively contact people without a warrant But thanks to this, they do contact people I meet, and they scare the shit out of them, by not giving them a reason other than an uninvited warning not to talk about, just know you have been advised not to talk to them.

This is happening with,
Jacksonville Sheriff's Office; Jacksonville, Florida.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki