http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a09lo650.htm

"A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book.""


Unreal. What happened to privacy rights? Do Ameican citizens have the right to read anything they want without being investigated?

I sure am glad we invaded Iraq to ensure the freedom of all the Iraqis. So when is another country going to invade the US to fight for our freedoms, I wonder?

 

It appears that it is not the fact that he requested the book that triggered the visit but the fact he requested it coupled with the time spent abroad. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

There are so many people that have FBI files on them it is pretty standard procedure. I know I have on for the simple fact I own a firearm and have a concealed carry permit.

 

Pretty ironic; spying on citizens for political reasons who have not commited a crime is a classic tactic of Communist dictatorships.

 

When Canada figures out how to shake its dependence on the US and reason for existence [the US].

'Stay away from Das Kapital and guns, citizens!' /Tomtorrow

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...nsa/index.html

 

I think this is a pretty good, pro-active approach to fighting terrorism. It only is used for calls from or to people in the US to other countries and is only for people with suspected strong ties, or known ties to terrorism.

 

If the NSA needs to provision a wiretap, why shouldn't they have to go to court to get a warrant? The unchecked power of the government to spy on citizens this way is very, very dangerous.

 

As I understand it getting a wire tap is difficult to do and this is a much more efficient and speedier way. When you need the information to protect this country you cannot wait...it may be too late at that point.

 

An editorial from cryptome.org, originally posted at http://cryptome.org/small-call.htm



To: cryptography[at]metzdowd.com
Subject: A small editorial about recent events.
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry[at]piermont.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:58:06 -0500

A small editorial from your moderator. I rarely use this list to express a strong political opinion -- you will forgive me in this instance.

This mailing list is putatively about cryptography and cryptography politics, though we do tend to stray quite a bit into security issues of all sorts, and sometimes into the activities of the agency with the biggest crypto and sigint budget in the world, the NSA.

As you may all be aware, the New York Times has reported, and the administration has admitted, that President of the United States apparently ordered the NSA to conduct surveillance operations against US citizens without prior permission of the secret court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISC"). This is in clear contravention of 50 USC 1801 - 50 USC 1811, a portion of the US code that provides for clear criminal penalties for violations. See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...0_36_20_I.html

The President claims he has the prerogative to order such surveillance. The law unambiguously disagrees with him.

There are minor exceptions in the law, but they clearly do not apply in this case. They cover only the 15 days after a declaration of war by congress, a period of 72 hours prior to seeking court authorization (which was never sought), and similar exceptions that clearly are not germane.

There is no room for doubt or question about whether the President has the prerogative to order surveillance without asking the FISC -- even if the FISC is a toothless organization that never turns down requests, it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years imprisonment, to conduct electronic surveillance against US citizens without court authorization.

The FISC may be worthless at defending civil liberties, but in its arrogant disregard for even the fig leaf of the FISC, the administration has actually crossed the line into a crystal clear felony. The government could have legally conducted such wiretaps at any time, but the President chose not to do it legally.

Ours is a government of laws, not of men. That means if the President disagrees with a law or feels that it is insufficient, he still must obey it. Ignoring the law is illegal, even for the President. The President may ask Congress to change the law, but meanwhile he must follow it.

Our President has chosen to declare himself above the law, a dangerous precedent that could do great harm to our country. However, without substantial effort on the part of you, and I mean you, every person reading this, nothing much is going to happen. The rule of law will continue to decay in our country. Future Presidents will claim even greater extralegal authority, and our nation will fall into despotism. I mean that sincerely. For the sake of yourself, your children and your children's children, you cannot allow this to stand.

Call your Senators and your Congressman. Demand a full investigation, both by Congress and by a special prosecutor, of the actions of the Administration and the NSA. Say that the rule of law is all that stands between us and barbarism. Say that we live in a democracy, not a kingdom, and that our elected officials are not above the law. The President is not a King. Even the President cannot participate in a felony and get away with it. Demand that even the President must obey the law.

Tell your friends to do the same. Tell them to tell their friends to do the same. Then, call back next week and the week after and the week after that until something happens. Mark it in your calendar so you don't forget about it. Politicians have short memories, and Congress is about to recess for Christmas, so you must not allow this to be forgotten. Keep at them until something happens.

Perry

 

Sorry Benjamin but I am not buying it. First Congress has never declared war on anyone since WWII so this blows one of his arguments out of the water.

Furthermore the link you posted stated that this can be used against a person that...

So it still looks like these taps on individuals talking about terrorism with foreigners is legal.