quote:

ORIGINAL: Consecrated2God

quote:

I see it as a giant over reach of power (which seems to be the norm for this administration), to track you they will need not reason, no warrant, no possibility of a national security threat; just track you.

Big government/less personal rights is trait of the liberal democrat party.

quote:

The Dems excoriated bush for this type of activity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

This is not to discuss what Bush did, we all know what he did. This to discuss OBAMA'S opinion that we have no reasonable expectation to privacy.

As far as I know, Obama has expressed no opinion on the matter. However, lawyers for the US Department of Justice are certainly fighting to keep these powers.

quote:

the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts

From the posted article

the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts

quote:

There you have it. An Obama supporting quasi-liberal who shares your concerns here and is expressing my official disapproval.

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady

quote:

There you have it. An Obama supporting quasi-liberal who shares your concerns here and is expressing my official disapproval.

And here's another. I thought it was a very bad idea when the Bush administration was doing it, and if the Obama admnistration not only continues, but expands it....well, I'm not gonna support that either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady

quote:

There you have it. An Obama supporting quasi-liberal who shares your concerns here and is expressing my official disapproval.

And here's another. I thought it was a very bad idea when the Bush administration was doing it, and if the Obama admnistration not only continues, but expands it....well, I'm not gonna support that either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
my issue is that those who "thought it was a bad idea" under bush went on a witch hunt but now they are just not going to support it or think it's a bad idea

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
my issue is that those who "thought it was a bad idea" under bush went on a witch hunt but now they are just not going to support it or think it's a bad idea

Probably has something to do whith the Obama Kool-aid they are drinking; you know it dulls the sense of reasoning.

quote:

Were you being facetious when you called the ACLU a conservative group? I think they are anything but. They are pro abortion, pro decriminalizing marijauna and cocaine, anti prayer in school, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

How is it possible to trust anyone in either party anymore? Lying seems to be as natural to them in either campaign promises or once elected as breathing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

I remember shortly after Clinton won his first term, James Carville (Clinton's campaign manager) admitted on a news show that Bubba lied about several campaign promises. Carville wrapped up the discussion with a comment along the lines of "Well, you wouldn't have put him in office if he told the truth."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox

We wouldn't elect an honest politician from any party/movement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarox

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

I remember shortly after Clinton won his first term, James Carville (Clinton's campaign manager) admitted on a news show that Bubba lied about several campaign promises. Carville wrapped up the discussion with a comment along the lines of "Well, you wouldn't have put him in office if he told the truth."

That quote sums up American politics.

We wouldn't elect an honest politician from any party/movement.

quote:

... the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

quote:


President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.

The aim of the program was to rapidly monitor the phone calls and other communications of people in the United States believed to have contact with suspected associates of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups overseas, according to two former senior administration officials. Authorities, including a former NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, were worried thatvital information could be lost in the time it took to secure a warrant from a special surveillance court, sources said.

< Message edited by wing2000 -- 2/20/2010 9:36:26 PM >

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000If I understand correctly, the government is arguing they have a right to track one's location when one is in possesion of an activated cell phone. Is that different than the police placing a tracer on a land line phone call?

btw, I recall the controversy with the Bush Administration was their co-opting of telecommunications companies to actively monitor phone calls of U.S. Citizens without a warrant or otherwise monitored by the courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000If I understand correctly, the government is arguing they have a right to track one's location when one is in possesion of an activated cell phone. Is that different than the police placing a tracer on a land line phone call?

btw, I recall the controversy with the Bush Administration was their co-opting of telecommunications companies to actively monitor phone calls of U.S. Citizens without a warrant or otherwise monitored by the courts.

So it is OK for Obama to advocate WARRANTLESS tracking via use of telecommunications companies technology but it was not OK for Bush to use the telecommunications companies to monitor calls?

quote:



The Court also writes to set forth its reasons for concluding that, while it recognizes the important and sometimes critical crime prevention and law enforcement value of tracking suspected criminals, the Government’s requests for Court Orders mandating a cell phone service provider’s covert disclosure of individual subscribers’ (and possibly others’) physical location information must be accompanied by a showing of probable cause.

The Court emphasizes that the issue is not whether the Government can obtain movement/location information, but only the standard it must meet to obtain a Court Order for such disclosure and the basis of authority.

It emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment standard is not a difficult one, requiring only that the Government support its belief of criminal activity and the probable materiality of the information to be obtained.

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/criminalapplicationorder_finalopinion.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000If I understand correctly, the government is arguing they have a right to track one's location when one is in possesion of an activated cell phone. Is that different than the police placing a tracer on a land line phone call?

btw, I recall the controversy with the Bush Administration was their co-opting of telecommunications companies to actively monitor phone calls of U.S. Citizens without a warrant or otherwise monitored by the courts.

So it is OK for Obama to advocate WARRANTLESS tracking via use of telecommunications companies technology but it was not OK for Bush to use the telecommunications companies to monitor calls?

If the governement is advocating tracking with out a warrant, then yes, I am opposed to that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

I know where jjp and Wing stand on the wiretapping so this is for those who supported Bush when he did this: If these wiretapping strategies were so important under W. for our safety as his supporters have alleged, why be upset when B0 continues it? So what if B0 condemned it, isn't his continuing of it his agreement with it and essentially say this is the right thing to do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



The Bush policy was to moniter calls between known foriegn terrorist, and between known foriegn terroris and someone in the states. It was not about monitering U.S. citizen tallking to U.S. citizen without a court order, or trackiong the movement of U.S. citizens by their cell phome without a court order.

Big difference.

As for me, I want our authorites to moniter any calls from known terrorist to anyone anywhere in the world.

Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
.....known foreign terrorist and some one (including US Citizens) in the states.

And yes, they did that for years (in secret) without any over sight. So who is to say they were not monitoring your phone conversations with friends abroad?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000
.....known foreign terrorist and some one (including US Citizens) in the states.

And yes, they did that for years (in secret) without any over sight. So who is to say they were not monitoring your phone conversations with friends abroad?

Well there you go again with the litany of liberal wishful thinking. I am sure that if Bush was doing anything untowards that the NYT and others would have had it on the front page.

Sorry; but if a known terrorist is talking to someone (anyone) in the USA; I want it monitored by the authorities and quickly.

Thanks
RC