babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » U.S. Congress gives Executive branch broad spying powers

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: U.S. Congress gives Executive branch broad spying powers
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2007 06:55 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

[T]he new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

. . . .

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

. . . .

The new law, which is intended as a stopgap and expires in six months, also represents a power shift in terms of the oversight and regulation of government surveillance.

The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?hp

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 06:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which executive broad are they giving the power to?

(Sorry, but that title made me laugh out loud!)

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 August 2007 07:12 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not another spelling frame.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2007 07:18 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Spelling is fine. It's the way your reading it that's the problem. Perhaps for a mostly Canadian audience I should have said president instead of executive. But that would be not quite accurate since the executive branch consists of more than just the president. So, I'll add the word "branch" to perhaps clarify the matter.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 07:21 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
At first I thought you meant to write "Executive Board" and misspelled it as "broad" because I wasn't thinking. Then I thought, wait a minute, what's an "executive board"? Then I realized you didn't actually make a spelling mistake, but the sentence could still be read two ways.

Anyhow, sorry. I'm a bad moderator, starting drift in the second post of the thread. Please continue.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 07:23 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On topic: just out of curiosity, what's the point of having a Democratic Congress?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 06 August 2007 07:27 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Michelle: ... just out of curiosity, what's the point of having a Democratic Congress?

The point is to give another group from the richest 5% of the US population a chance to mis-govern their country and keep up the pretense of democracy. Get with the program!


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 06 August 2007 07:28 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, that's been a topic of discussion on some sites over the weekend. Although over 80% of Democrats in congress voted against it, that's no excuse. Those that didn't tend to represent more conservative districts, and live in fear that they will be blamed in attack ads for voting against it. And really blamed should there be some sort of attack.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 07:32 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All they would have to do is grow a pair (of balls, or ovaries, really doesn't matter) and run a strong counter-campaign, telling people that if they go running scared and destroying Americans' civil liberties, then the terrorists have ALREADY won!

What American patriot wouldn't respond to the idea that they're not going to let terrorists dictate the domestic agenda in the US, and that we're not going to turn the US into a police state like Iran or Soviet Russia out of fear?

Wouldn't that ring true to even the most tough-guy law-and-order type in the US?

What the hell ever happened to fearless Americans? I'd take them any day over the gutless, whiny wimps that Dubya has turned so many American citizens into. Live free or die!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca