Blog powered by Typepad
Ma Photo

Lectures récentes

« Le "cloud domestique" ou comment partager et sécuriser les données de le maison | Accueil




“The new FISA legislation does not deal with the NSA’s aitbily to monitor foreign communication, but rather gives the agency more power (without oversight) to monitor domestic communications.”You don’t know what you’re talking about. The first clue is the law’s name: “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” The second clue is to understand what that means: Surveillance of foreign intelligence information between or among foreign powers on territory under United States control. Try Wikipedia for an easy to digest synopsis.Dan, do you have any idea what the crux of the controversy is about? Or is it that you just don’t care? At issue is the surveillance of terrorist related foreign communications that either pass through the US, come to the US, or emanate from the US. Not at issue are non-terrorist foreign communications. You also are ignorant of the US Constitution and what it has to say about presidential powers with regard to foreign communications surveillance. You wish and desire to give foreign terrorists US Constitutional rights is indeed commendable, but the fact of the matter is they don’t have them despite what people may think, and most American’s don’t want to give any such rights to them. Until you learn about the US Constitution and how it affects foreigners in the US, foreigners outside the US, terrorists, unlawful combatants, Presidential war-making authority, and wire-tapping in the age of global communications, you should be a lot more circumspect in expressing you less-than-well-informed opinions.There is no way that FISA, its proposed amendments, or even anybody’s fondest wishes can be used to conduct “warrantless wiretaps” on US citizens with respect to domestic communications. Can’t happen. Why? Because the US Constitution trumps all, that’s why. If there is any danger to the rights of US citizens, that danger exists regardless of any FISA law proposal. Personally, if I were you, I’d worry more about Canadian Constitutional dangers emanating from your anti-free speech fascistic human rights commissions. (There: You’re welcome; I just expressed an un-asked-for American opinion on your lousy laws and loss of unalienable rights.)So, we are left with people like you arguing that the US intelligence agencies must seek a judge’s warrant before monitoring (1) any foreign communication to a foreign terrorist in the US and (2) any foreign communication to a foreign terrorist outside the US if that communication passes through US wires.All the rest is just BS noise. Read: The Democrats’ desire to throw a bone to their greatest source of campaign cash by allowing the lawyer’s tort bar to sue the bejesus out of the telephone companies for actions that most say were perfectly legal, but some say were not (i.e., should the US have gotten FISA warrants for certain terrorist communications or were they exempted under the “lone wolf” or other provisions of FISA or other US law or the Constitution?). I know what most lawyers think. I know what most Americans think. I know that you don’t care, because if you did, your inquiry would end with your answer to these two questions: Do US Constitutional protections apply to foreign terrorists, yes or no? Should US Constitutional protections apply to foreign terrorists, yes or no? Most people answer “no” to both. Most people are right.

L'utilisation des commentaires est désactivée pour cette note.