Protection of Our 4th Amendment Rights and Freedoms

[LiveToShoot]

Each of our Constitutionally protected rights and freedoms is important. They're all interlocked and must be equally defended, to maintain the balanced liberties we enjoy as Americans.

On the floor before the US Senate is the decision to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with a proposed change to the act that will grant immunity to the communications companies.

The Senate will be voting on FISA reform legislation that includes retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that have collaborated with federal agencies in the surveillance of American citizens.

Included below is additional info for you to review. Should you choose to do so, you can get involved and help ensure our Senators don't give amnesty/immunity to the communication companies, to protect them from lawsuits, so that they'll continue to participate with federal government agencies in their illegal activities.

These warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any searches be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant under conditions of probable cause.

The communication companies get paid for their supportive role in warrantless wiretaps on our communications, a role that is in question and which many Americans view as a violation of our 4th Amendment rights and freedoms.

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy...rAction&id=337
Wrangling over intelligence bills delays floor action (12/13/07) -- www.GovernmentExecutive.com
Courage Campaign | Ask Senator Feinstein to support Senator Dodd's filibuster on telecom immunity
Computer & Communications Industry Association Opposes Amnesty for Telecoms | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Take Action: Oppose Telecom Immunity
Dodd's Statement on FISA | Chris Dodd for President
URGENT ACTION NEEDED: Showdown in the Senate! Dem Leader Harry Reid Will Bring Forward FISA Bill That Will Grant Telcos Immunity, Chris Dodd Will Filibuster - onNYTurf
ALERT: Oppose Amnesty for Telecom Companies | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom
International Security - Emerging Threats - Briefing - UPI.com

[troy2000]

I haven't read the particulars on this one, LiveToShoot. But it's in an area where I think the Bush Administration has been pushing the boundaries--remember when Bush assured us in one of his speeches that wiretapping can only be done with a court order, etc? It came out a few months later that at the time he said that, they had been doing it without the court orders for quite a while. He was flat-out lying to us.

I think you're right to be looking hard at it. Unfortunately, everyone's so scared of being accused of being soft on national security that after all the rhetoric, even the Democrats will probably give him what he wants.

[LiveToShoot]

"Pushing the boundaries" (quoted from above post by Troy2000), "pushing the boundaries" that directly challenges and erodes our freedom and choice...yes, that's it.

The message in this thread, and in other threads and posts, is a small and clear example of how some Americans, namely the President and members of his administration, those in high office, are stepping outside the safe boundaries of what they were entrusted with...the sworn obligation for protecting and defending us against enemies foreign and domestic, enemies that are working diligently to take away our freedom and choice.

It is good to see that you're aware of and acknowledge that they are "pushing the boundaries" through their inappropriate choices and actions...in such, they are challenging our freedom and choice.

[Rave]

S.O.S.!

[Windwalker]

Well, as Troy told me in another post that voting out representatives that don't vote as their constituents want is just p------in the wind as their replacements would do the same thing. However I believe that somewhere out there are some honest people who would consider becoming politicians. We just have to find them.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Well, as Troy told me in another post that voting out representatives that don't vote as their constituents want is just p------in the wind as their replacements would do the same thing. However I believe that somewhere out there are some honest people who would consider becoming politicians. We just have to find them.

As far as getting us out of the UN goes, I do think I'm right that replacing every single one of them would just give us a new batch who'd keep us in anyway.

But I certainly don't think that's the case with every issue people care about, Windwalker. We can change a lot of things by who we vote for.

[Lizard]

Originally Posted by Windwalker

Well, as Troy told me in another post that voting out representatives that don't vote as their constituents want is just p------in the wind as their replacements would do the same thing. However I believe that somewhere out there are some honest people who would consider becoming politicians. We just have to find them.

Some thoughts on that:

First, I heard it said and over the years have come to believe it to be true that if a man "desires" the political position, that means he isn't trustworthy. So, I would only vote for someone who won't consider becoming a politician.

Second, here in Oklahoma, we are only allowed to vote for people that are on the ballots (no write-ins allowed at any time) and that means only people that follow the party line.

Third, I think the answer is going to be the abolition of political parties (and campaigns) and the installation of a system of blind run-offs where you go and vote for the people you want, then we have one or maybe 2 run-offs from all of those people.

As long as we have to vote for someone from a political party, whether Dem, Rep, Libertarian or Red Stick, we aren't going to get honest people committed to the job, but rather people that are committed to the party.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Lizard

Some thoughts on that:
First, I heard it said and over the years have come to believe it to be true that if a man "desires" the political position, that means he isn't trustworthy. So, I would only vote for someone who won't consider becoming a politician.
Second, here in Oklahoma, we are only allowed to vote for people that are on the ballots (no write-ins allowed at any time) and that means only people that follow the party line.
Third, I think the answer is going to be the abolition of political parties (and campaigns) and the installation of a system of blind run-offs where you go and vote for the people you want, then we have one or maybe 2 run-offs from all of those people.
As long as we have to vote for someone from a political party, whether Dem, Rep, Libertarian or Red Stick, we aren't going to get honest people committed to the job, but rather people that are committed to the party.

Some interesting thoughts and discussion there, Lizard. But how the heck do you elect someone who doesn't want the job? That hasn't happened since George Washington, and I'm willing to bet even he enjoyed it more than he considered seemly to let on...