Excuse me....

This is another case of the MSM getting wind of something and running off at the mouth before they got their facts all lined up. No law was broken (may want to read this little jewel).

I'll quote some of it here....

Again.. This is a NON issue. The threat is foreign, and the president has the authority to authorize the NSA to eavesdrop electronically. As I stated earlier. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Just the MSM making a mountain out of another mole hill.

 

See, here is a question, how is the random monitoring of communications inside the US between US citizens "foregin"?
To quote from the same article....which by the way is an editorial, published in teh "OPINIONS" section......
FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

 

(Deeeeeep breath )

I believe that what makes the monitoring of US citizens within the US fall under foreign monitoring, is the fact that the foreign enemy is so woven into our citizen fabric ... that we really don't have an accurate way of picking and choosing who is in fact a "safe" target. When we can't identify something tangible ... it is considered foreign. It used to be easy to define whe the bad guys were ... Cuban = BAD, Russian = BAD, Japanese = BAD, Canadian or Mexican .... neighbors !!! The lines are pretty blurry these days.

In the "World According to Pistol", it's my opinion that it sure would have been a lot easier if we slowed down the turnstile at the borders when these folks come to this country so we can truly establish who they are, why they are here and to make them understand that under NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, they will be monitored very closely until they become citizens. They can earn their privacy when they earn their freedom ... and that should be a long, arduous process.
US Citizenry 101 needs to be taught to all of our children from the day they walk into Kindegarten till the day they graduate college. Education of our citizens will help ferret out the ones that aren't here for the right reasons.

Still the "Land of the Free" ... it just might better define what Freedom actually means to everyone involved. It doesn't mean the freedom to spy, terrorize, corrupt or let those kind of things slide.

.... and Chris, I did understand what you meant earlier ... I just didn't word my reply the way it formed in my head . I get a little fired up at times and tend to shotgun my frustrations. Sorry if you got caught in the crossfire.
I totally agree that everyone should protect their civil liberties ... they are what makes this the best country to live.

Nuff said,
PISTOL

 

Ok, I agree with all you said, BUT....
Once a foregin national becomes a citizen? Or citizens by birth?
My fear, yes, fear is the right word for this, is that the erosion of civil liberty is never a fast or suden process, but begins with small steps. Little bites out of the pie that go un-noticed or unchallenged. if its Ok to accept this infringement on the constitution, how much easier will it be to accept the next, and the one after , or the one after that?
I am not trying to be an alarmist, and I strongly agree with the idea of a goverments role in protecting its citizenry( spent most my life as a cop remember) BUT not at the costs of constitutionaly gauranteed freedoms.
At what point do we draw that fine line?
Not a question that should be decided by ANY one person, president or no....

 

Did you see who wrote the article??

Even if there was an issue with FISA, the piece also states the courts have ruled that it doesn't over rule the President's constitutional powers. This is a non issue and it boggles my mind that so many people are jumping through hoops to make it one.

 

I was talking about the foriegn nationals that come here. I think they should be thoroughly checked out so we know what they are about.

Not real sure what to do if they happen to have a kid while they are over here ... that's another bag of worms.

PISTOL

 

You are so right about that. I can remember, it wasn't event THAT long ago that a thorough scrutiny was made of persons wanting to come here. There were interviews, questionaires, etc. I know, I went through it almost thirty years ago, and while then it seemed "unnecesary" to me, little did I know. Now I know better, a lot better.

 

The sad part is that most folks coming to America and gaining their citizenship (legally) know more about being an American than those of us born here. I know that they are required to learn quite a bit. However, I am willing to bet that the more the numbers of immigrants file through the door ... the more "watered down" the process gets just to get them through.
In our PC society, we wouldn't want to appear like we were discriminating against anyone wanting to gain citizenship.
*** I have no first hand proof of this ... merely my opinion ***


MCMLV (from your perspective).... if things were tightened up to the point that you, as a new person coming to America, were told that you were definately going to be monitored for your first couple years in the states until you completed your requirements for citizenship ... would that have made you change your mind to become an American or would you have pushed through (like you obviously did ) ? If you knew that once you got your papers you would also gain the same rights and privacies that other Americans had ?


PISTOL

 

I have no arguement against teh monitoring of "new arrivals" or forigen nationals in teh US. What i question, and I think has made this an issue, is the monitoring of US citizens by thier goverment, secretly and without warrant.
That I can not see justification for and beleive our Pres. has overstepped his bounds in doing so.
The FISA soley authorizes the monitoring, WITH APPROVAL OF THE FISA COURT. And it states that once teh US citizen involved is identified, a warrant is required for further monitoring.
Clearly random monitoring of US citizens is not what FISA allows or was intended for.

 

I just have one question how are we gonna catch these fools otherwise?

Imagine if we had Mc Veighs wire tapped or Kuzminski's?!!!

And those are just some of the locals!!!

Where do you draw the line??

FYI you must be pc on a public communicating device bar none!!!

Course I'd never know anything about that!!!

If you do not want them tracking you turn off your cell phone!!!

Rick

 

And you're forgetting that the 2002 Court of Review ruled that FISA can NOT take precedence over the President's constitutional powers. Therefore, FISA is not the sole governing authority on authorizing electronic monitoring.

 

From my perspective: First the disclaimer: At this point in life many of my views have changed from those way back then. At that time being young, naive selfish even, many of the important thing were not fully realized by me. Now I know better, well at least I think...

Having said that: According to our laws one becomes American (citizen) only after a waiting period of 5 years from the time one becomes a permanent LEGAL resident of our country. It is only after becoming a US citizen and after HAVING TAKEN AN OATH, that one can truly enjoy all the rights and benefits of being an AMERICAN. Until then we as a country ans society have the right and the obligation to ensure that those who want to share in our piece of the pie do it for the right reasons. What are the right reasons? First and foremost believing in AMERICA, in its ideals, principles, goals. Then wanting to preserve those ideals etc, even at the cost of any sacrifice that the country may ask of you. So how to "ensure" all of this. By monitoring, to the extent that the results of that monitoring make it necessary. For instance I had to fill out every January a form and send it to the INS about address, occupation, and some additional info. Would i do it again? YES, because I still want to be an American, just as much as I wanted back then.

You see, I do not think that "wanting a better life" is enough justification to accept an immigrant. To me that translates in just sucking financial gain out of our country the going back to wherever and live on easy street. To be part of any country for that matter one should want to be PART of it not just benefit from it. And YES, people who come here SHOULD LEARN ENGLISH !!!

 

Couldn't have said it better myself !!!

By the way, where did you come to America from ??

PISTOL

 

Transylvania... err...Romania...

 

The way I understand it is they are and have been for years listening to calls outside this country. If a known terrorist calls a number over here while being monitored should the angency listening just hang up because the call is to a number in the US? I wonder what outrage there would be if three thousand people were killed and the FBI, NSA or whoever hung up on the call that could have saved them. Oh I forgot that already happened, has anyone heard of "Able Danger".
I do wonder why House and Senate leaders are outraged now when they have known about this program for years? Oh yeah 2006 elections, glad they have their priorities straight. If this is such a huge issue maybe they should have expressed their concerns when the president consulted with them before it started. No that wouldn't have given them any cards to play later.
Gotta love American politics.