Why did congress pass an anti-constitutional spy bill over a two day period?

Question

You would think that something that important would warrant more discussion. I hate the president and congress for their disdain of my rights AND not taking their jobs seriously. Oh well, such is life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_surveillance

edit: I meant the Senate. Thanks below...

Answer 1

wouldn't you - man i am so disappointed in this royal class of asses i can't stand it.

what are they afraid of another false flag operation - if so they need to cross the border - it opens both ways - send them all to mexico or tim buck two - anywhere but here.

no guts no glory and this has just got to be the most gutless government since this countries creation and the greediess

Answer 2

Exactly what is unconstitutional about it ?

I do believe the constitution says.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now define Reasonable search ?

Is is not reasonable to monitor the phone calls of known terrorist suspects in a foreign country even though they are calling someone in the United States.

I see nothing unreasonable about that, sounds like good policy to me.

But I do agree, I see no reason why they could not inform the FISA courts after the fact sooner.

The senate law requires them to inform the FISA court within 120 days.

Answer 3

Rampant fear and knee-jerk stupidity....

50 USC 1802 -- "the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance ***without a court order*** under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that.... there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party"

Current law. One year, no warrant required, as long as the communication is overseas -- between non-US parties.

And according to the news report the current law "does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas."

Which incorrect -- the current law does allow intercept of **foreign** communications. Without a warrant.

So, exactly what does Bush want?

Because he can already tap foreign communications without a warrant all he wants. So, what more does he want? The ability to tap any domestic communication without a warrant?

Answer 4

I think its funny that people are in an uproar about this. It will not have an effect whatsoever on the average American. The same people who are against this bill saying its unconstitutional are the same people who are for getting rid of guns and that truly would be unconstitutional. Unless your involved in terrorist activity you have nothing to worry about. If you are involved in terrorist activity then well sorry I guess your going to get spyed on. People hear all the political rhetoric and feel threatened I guess. It will not affect you. The government doesnt want to hear your boring phone conversations or mine. Find a real issue to take up.

Answer 5

Probable cause is not Anti-constitutional.

If a person takes a walk everyday and has a meeting with a known drug dealer. The police have ever right to investigate him.

This is the same thing.

My advice to you is not to talk to suspected terrorist overseas.

Would that really be so hard?

Answer 6

The SUpreme court, and congress have upheld this decision. The program is for overseas calls and transactions. Who wouldnt support fighting terrorists?? i know, the liberals.. your rights to privacy over a public phone line, or e mail is severly limited to begin with. I do not think the founding fathers had internet or telephones in mind when they said you have a right to privacy. Your privacy ends when you leave the confines of your home, either physically, or via electronic media.

Answer 7

You know how congress operates. They don't do a f$%& ing thing, then they slap something together, so they can tell the people they represent ( hah!) that they're working in their best interests ( translation- they want to get re-elected.)

Answer 8

I thought it only passed the senate. It needs to pass both houses, you know.

Answer 9

They didn't it fell short of the two thirds majority need to pass.

Answer 10

And you'd think the fact the Congressional approval rating is 3% would make the news too... but alas!