Can you name a foreign country that uses widespread surveillance of private communications authorized by secret courts using secret evidence to catch suspects that are then incarcerated indefinitely (and frequently tortured) without a legitimate trial that is a desirable place to live?
Did you get that crap from a book?
Even a nun is potentially extremely loose.
So I've heard though most of the nuns I remember from school were pretty uptight. Except sister Mary-Margaret but that's another story. But what do loose nuns have to do with the price of tea in China?
Read more @: U.S. confirms warrantless searches of Americans
A giant collective no **** moment. And hopefully a giant collective "this **** needs to stop ASAP" moment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Of course they're spying on us, it's what Big Brother does.
Your platitude means nothing. The facts are on the table. The requirements are known. The procedures are followed. There are -in fact- warrants for the searches. There are -in fact- additional protocols calling for a full warrant to be obtained without tap information before anything can be used against someone in court.
You claiming 'black helicopters' does not counter this reality. Take off the tin foil and look at the facts.
I am looking at the facts. And the facts I see show a set of requirements that are to all appearances simple to meet and open to abuse and not nearly as stringent as you are making them out to be.
I am looking at the facts. And the facts I see show a set of requirements that are to all appearances simple to meet and open to abuse and not nearly as stringent as you are making them out to be. It isn't even clear to me that the criteria for issuing a FISA warrant rise to level of needed for a criminal warrant.
No tin foil hats. No black helicopters.
So you're going with conspiracy theory instead of the facts. Ok.
What conspiracy theory?
That the strict procedures are being ignored and all of the thousands of people involved are conspiring to hide this from you.
You have communications with someone outside the US and on the Terrorist Watchlist? Who?
Your platitude means nothing. The facts are on the table. The requirements are known. The procedures are followed. There are -in fact- warrants for the searches. There are -in fact- additional protocols calling for a full warrant to be obtained without tap information before anything can be used against someone in court.
You claiming 'black helicopters' does not counter this reality. Take off the tin foil and look at the facts.
Dear Conservatives:
I'm glad you've caught up to liberals in 2001. Glad to have you on board.
Given the fact that although there are procedures, the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections, thus one can argue that it is indeed a rubber stamp.
You're using conspiracy theory to compare the US to North Korea. Let me know when you'd like to join us in reality.
I never saw any suggestion by DemSocialist that North Korea was tapping his phone, bur if it is OK for the USA to tap his phone, then it wuld be OK for North Korea to tap his phone.
The reason that so few FISA warrants are rejected is because of the strict requirements for requesting the FISA warrant in the first place. With one person outside the US and one person on the Terrorist Watchlist, I think the average person can figure this out. I'm sure your "Mother Jones" article blames the Illuminati, but let's be sensible people here.
Stop with the fantasy. Let reality in.
If you call the FISA court offering legitimate warrants then you have to kidding me. FISA Court Has Rejected .03 Percent Of All Government Surveillance Requests | Mother Jones
If anything the FISA court is essentially a rubber stamp.
I think the complaint has been that the warrants were overly broad and gave too much latitude to the investigators.
The system was not designed to have no rejections; that's CT and assigning demonizing motives to others. The system was designed to have strict protocol that leaves little room for doubt. This removes judgement calls by those involved and keeps the system based on facts.
That you have a problem with a system based on facts, and would prefer a system based on judgement calls by people in power, is contrary to good governance. If it was as you would like, I would object to the protocols and I hope you would too. We do not want FISA warrants being decided by whim instead of strict requirements.
I cannot believe you would argue for a softer system, more prone to abuse. What kind of logic and reason could lead you to such desires?
Read what I wrote. I never said that it was designed to have no rejections. I clearly stated that "the system itself is designed to have virtually no rejections", just as you yourself did when you said that the system is "so strict as to virtually eliminate rejections."
Wait...
How can they rubber stamp something that doesn't exist? Since this is "warrantless"?
If they rubber stamped a warrant, then it wasn't warrantless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?