What the Dems Don't Want You to Remember
Please read this article and allow it to sink in.
Dialing and the Democrats
I've said this before, I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face, the root meaning of knowledge is NOT FORGETTING. A democratically controled House and Senate overwhelmingly passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It's not a bad law, given what the U.S. was facing then, you know, Osama binLadin, the Trade Center bombing, stuff like that.
Well now, since 9/11, you'd think the stakes are greater, right? Who's complaining about the phone survellance program now? Democrats. Gee, did they forget why they voted for the CALEA? A great majority of Americans didn't. They have knowledge.
posted by Underground Logician @ 11:43 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
What is CALEA?
In October 1994, Congress took action to protect public safety and national security by enacting the Communications Assistance for law enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279. The law further defines the existing statutory obligation of telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement in executing electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization and requires carriers to design or modify their systems to ensure that lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance can be performed.
The provisions of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as amended, continue to govern the U.S. procedures for obtaining legal authority for initiating and conducting lawful interceptions of wire, oral, and electronic communications.
Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?
No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI's most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law.
Source: http://www.askcalea.net/faqs.html#03
UL, you completely ignore the fact that BushCo. did not get a court order to pursue the data mining. That is called breaking the law.
Wire tapping and data mining is permissable with A COURT ORDER AND REVIEW BY AN APPROVING JUDGE.
The Bush Administration has not followed the law.
That is a felony. You're defending a criminal administration.
Gee, like Bush is wanting to do surveillance on U.S. citizens just because. You sound like Leaky Leahy!
Your citation is immaterial, since the NSA is trolling phone records, not electronic surveillance. You must be listening to CNN. There's no illegal wiretapping going on Shaw. Let me repeat, not for your sake, but for those who read this post need to see it. I doubt you will absorb this. THERE IS NO ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING GOING ON.
Secondly, when the President of the United States is conducting a war, seems to me that that fits under "other lawful authorization." Are you suggesting that you want to hog-tie ANY president in the future from conducting this kind of information gathering during war? If so, then you've got a constitutional problem, Shaw. Have you thought through the implications of this, or haven't you got past you negative emotions against Bush.
You may want to limit Bush's power for whatever personal reasons you hold, but then you'd have to re-enact them once a Democrat becomes president. Then you have in your estimation, a competent president who needs her power back. You, Shaw, have been absorbed into the personal vendetta the Democrats have against Bush.
So, to conclude. You misinterpreted this old news as a wiretapping scandal, which it is not. And, two, you want to limit the constitutional powers of the presidency that have absolutely no merit, other than you and millions of other libs, who as a minorty, hate Bush.
Post a Comment
<< Home