Green Energy

Just as a majority selected more government in 2008, and 12..

Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic
Public Says Investigate Terrorism, Even If It Intrudes on Privacy
A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.
Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

All it takes is public fear, human nature and weakness in the ruling political class, and ONE WEAK JUDGE (who cannot even VIEW the actual results of his supposed FISA warrant) and the Constitution can be circumvented.

It is up to the citizens to resist by every means reasonable and insist the Constitution be enforced. Andrew McCarthy has said in the National Review:

Telephone record information (e.g., the numbers dialed and duration of calls) is not and has never been protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held as much in its 1979 Smith v. Maryland decision. Understand: the phone record information at issue here is very different from the content of telephone conversations. Because the latter involve higher privacy expectations, they are heavily regulated under not only the Fourth Amendment but both Title III of the federal penal code and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

Note the wording, the assumption of SUPERIOR knowledge.

Telephone record information (e.g., the numbers dialed and duration of calls) is not and has never been protected by the Fourth Amendment.

That IS the thinking type of the political class. They come in all ideologies.

As we have seen, however, and I have pointed out several times, the political use of metadata is only the NEXT STEP in the pattern of abuse (IRS muscle) of this administration, and no one should doubt that any motivated administration will simply expand on this regardless, as Obama did to Bush’s efforts. What this means is that just as the Founders could not have imagined this situation, neither could SCOTAS in 1979, and that decision should now be challenged. To claim the 4th amendment supports the 1979 decision is no different than claiming Plessy vs Ferguson or Roger Taney’s stupidities should be eternal

It HAS been abused, and will be seeing EXPANDED abuse.

Who will stop this?

There is only US.

That people as disparate as Bill Maher, John Bolton, and Ari Fleischer SUPPORT Prism does not give the effort more CREDIBILITY, it underlines both how much those either in thrall to the chic political idea of the moment, and also how jaundiced and distant is the view of those IN the Political Class. Neither of these groups recognizes the real danger.

THEM.

We tried to have metadata use to find and kill terrorists, but apparently only Najibullah Zazi is the result. Instead this is ANOTHER chapter of unconstitutional prosecutorial abuse and outright violation of the 4th Amendment. It now has to stop.

Does ANYONE BELIEVE, that the huge center springing up in Utah is needed to store ONLY the origin and destination information of cell calls, and emails? How about the search data linked to the MAC address of YOUR computer?

Looking for avi’s of big boobed teen girls out there during working hours? Or maybe you were joking around with yout pals at work and you search out information on the castor plant?

‘Maybe you should avoid that tea party meeting or center for american progress meeting’ says the helpful govt visitor. Maybe you should revise your contribution priorities. Maybe that church that teaches Darwin is a moron is not advisable for you, or that the orthodox temple telling you the Israelis SHOULD HAVE the West Bank as Judea and Samaria is not for you to promote.

Paranoid?

Both of these classes of abuses have occurred since Obama was elected. But it could be any admin that believes themselves in possession of more PROPER ideology.

We have to find another way to get the killer sons of bitches, or another way to LIMIT this process.

NOW

- The Case Made For A Scotus History Making Decision: Fbi Claims No Warrants Needed To Monitor Calls Via Technology
Why does the FBI need the ability to monitor ALL CALLS, ****** JUST IN CASE???? ****** Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ***PAPERS, AND EFFECTS***, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

- Does The 4th Amendment Guarantee The Right To Be Secure In Your Data And Metadata?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly...

- Obama: We’re Still Going To Collect All The Data, Just May Have Someone Other Than Nsa Store It
From Weasel Zippers: He doesn’t intend to actually pay attention to the Constitution and stop collecting the massive amounts of data. He suggested that someone other than the NSA could store it, to “prevent abuse”.So the answer to unconstitutionally...

- Obama Doj Fights Release Of Secret Court Opinion Finding Domestic Surveillance Is Unconstitutional
They knew it was UnConstitutional and they did it anyway. Why, that's downright FASCIST! From Mother Jones: In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone...

-
Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email From Will at THE OTHER NEWS: Congress, at Last Minute, Drops Requirement to Obtain Warrant to Monitor Email.(AG).By Noel Brinkerhoff.The federal government will continue...

Green Energy