THE ERA OF TRUMP

[GloryofGreece]

What's the over/under on when we (Americans) will have zero privacy or 4th Amendment rights...2025...earlier or later?

10 years ago.

We still have the semblance of Constitutional protections. When will it be totally obliterated, or will we react and course correct at least somewhat before there's no turning back?

[nmoore63]

FISA Section 702 does not authorize the military to target domestic terrorists, it specifically prohibits the military from targeting Americans in the United States, so FISA Section 702 is saying exactly what you're saying, fight the war up to the waterline, where Posse Comitatus comes into effect, at which point, you'll need a specific FISA warrant, so what's your problem again?

Because it is impossible to hold it accountable to its mandate because its to secretive.

It "doesn't target Americans" simply by targeting everyone instead.

Shut it down.

[Smitty-48]

FISA Section 702 does not authorize the military to target domestic terrorists, it specifically prohibits the military from targeting Americans in the United States, so FISA Section 702 is saying exactly what you're saying, fight the war up to the waterline, where Posse Comitatus comes into effect, at which point, you'll need a specific FISA warrant, so what's your problem again?

Because it is impossible to hold it accountable to its mandate because its to secretive.

It "doesn't target Americans" simply by targeting everyone instead.

Shut it down.

The military is not accountable to you, the military is accountable to the Commander-in-Chief, your civilian authority extends only to the legislature, the legislature has not authorized warrantless surveillance of Americans, quite the opposite, the legislature has specifically written into the law, that to intentionally target an American, a FISA warrant will be required.

[nmoore63]

To put it another way.

Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"

Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected.

1980 (the first full year after its inception), it approved 322 warrants. This number has steadily grown to 2,224 warrants in 2006. In the period 1979–2006, a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.

Fuck secret courts, with no one representing the defense, who never turn down anything, who's requirement is only that they think you are working with a foreign person based on some made up story.

Shut it down.

[nmoore63]

FISA Section 702 does not authorize the military to target domestic terrorists, it specifically prohibits the military from targeting Americans in the United States, so FISA Section 702 is saying exactly what you're saying, fight the war up to the waterline, where Posse Comitatus comes into effect, at which point, you'll need a specific FISA warrant, so what's your problem again?

Because it is impossible to hold it accountable to its mandate because its to secretive.

It "doesn't target Americans" simply by targeting everyone instead.

Shut it down.

The military is not accountable to you, the military is accountable to the Commander-in-Chief, your civilian authority extends only to the legislature, the legislature has not authorized warrantless surveillance of Americans, quite the opposite, the legislature has specifically written into the law, that to intentionally target an American, a FISA warrant will be required.

Your attitude is exactly why is must be stopped.

Shut it down.

[pineapplemike]

The parameters for victory is that you carry on with your generally safe and happy existence without being struck in a mass casualty terrorist attack from overseas, what would you prefer, 767 upside the head at 500 knots? IS suicide attack on Monday Night Football?

So it's a perpetual war? My happiness and general safety are my victory? Who is the enemy? Where is the battlefield? I'll grant you that you're the military wizard, and I don't disagree about the lethal effectiveness of warrantless spy capabilities, but how long is it before this war escalates to the homeland? Why can't a domestic terror network carry out a mass casualty attack instead of an overseas terror network? I don't feel very happy or safe knowing that I am vulnerable to a mass casualty suicide attack from within after being promised safety from afar.

I do suppose it's possible that this war is creating more enemies than it's killing, what with that whole blowback and 'you cant defeat an ideology' argument. Nevermind the US support and funding of volatile rebel networks overseas that one day may prove to be a threat to my happiness and safety.

Furthermore why should I trust the military leaders or national security organizations to act in the interest of me, Joe Blow private citizen? God knows they've lied to me before. Doesn't make me feel very safe or happy to surrender power to them.

But that's just me

FISA Section 702 does not authorize the military to target domestic terrorists, it specifically prohibits the military from targeting Americans in the United States, so FISA Section 702 is saying exactly what you're saying, fight the war up to the waterline, where Posse Comitatus comes into effect, at which point, you'll need a specific FISA warrant, so what's your problem again?

I would suppose part of my problem is that it appears the military complex coupled with intel agencies and national security organizations are supporting terrorist networks overseas to partially justify their perpetual war against terrorism, while indirectly undermining my general safety & happiness and using it as leverage to continue their expanding assertion of power that threatens my privacy rights. Generally speaking of course

[Smitty-48]

I would suppose part of my problem is that it appears the military complex coupled with intel agencies and national security organizations are supporting terrorist networks overseas to partially justify their perpetual war against terrorism, while indirectly undermining my general safety & happiness and using it as leverage to continue their expanding assertion of power that threatens my privacy rights. Generally speaking of course

Generally speaking by your definition, George Washington was a terrorist and the Minutemen were a terrorist network, but go ahead and run for congress on that, maybe you can sit next to Ron Wyden and blabber on about it, I'm sure the Executive will take it under advisement, which is actually all the Executive is bound to do, otherwise, George Washington and Co will just carry on fighting the war as they see fit, as per Article II, who knew? /shrugs

[Smitty-48]

Fuck secret courts, with no one representing the defense, who never turn down anything, who's requirement is only that they think you are working with a foreign person based on some made up story.

Even in a criminal court, you're not entitled to have your lawyer present, when the police are seeking a warrant from the bench, that's all done in secret, for obvious reasons, don't know where you got the idea that they have to tell you that you are under surveillance, before the fact, numpsty.

[nmoore63]

Fuck secret courts, with no one representing the defense, who never turn down anything, who's requirement is only that they think you are working with a foreign person based on some made up story.

Even in a criminal court, you're not entitled to have your lawyer present, when the police are seeking a warrant from the bench, that's all done in secret, for obvious reasons, don't know where you got the idea that they have to tell you that you are under surveillance, before the fact, numpsty.

Not nearly so secret.

Not nearly the same approval rate.

Not nearly so powerful means.

Not nearly the threat to my country that was their authorization of wiretapping an active presidential campaign based on made up stories.

[Smitty-48]

Fuck secret courts, with no one representing the defense, who never turn down anything, who's requirement is only that they think you are working with a foreign person based on some made up story.

Even in a criminal court, you're not entitled to have your lawyer present, when the police are seeking a warrant from the bench, that's all done in secret, for obvious reasons, don't know where you got the idea that they have to tell you that you are under surveillance, before the fact, numpsty.

Not nearly so secret.

Not nearly the same approval rate.

Not nearly so powerful means.

Not nearly the threat to my country that was their authorization of wiretapping an active presidential campaign based on made up stories.

Bullshit, totally done in secret, the police use the exact same method as FISA, they have a judge on call, the judge will issue a warrant on the fly if necessary, nobody else is in the loop, police straight to the bench, no lawyers betwixt them, the police are not adversarial to the bench, it's not a trial, so there's no advocates involved for either side.

The police are actually more powerful, as they are not subject to Posse Comitatus, and they're not restricted from intentionally targeting Americans.

Go ahead and poop your lolberg drawers about it, but it doesn't violate the fourth amendment, not at all.