About the NSA-the issue not IF they spy but WHAT they do AFTER

[liveoaktx]

I was reading this article from the LA times and part jumps out at me. It appears the issue is shifting to assuming, without knowing precisely what the NSA is doing, that they can continue their program and IF they find a terrorist, THEN they have to get a warrant. I object to this, I don't think the NSA ought to be collecting data and collating it through telecomm switches, etc and chunking the data when it involves domestic surveillance at one end... PERIOD. I believe we must have a debate about whether the NSA should be doing this in the first place.

<snip>
Republican senators reported progress Wednesday toward developing legislation that would impose stricter congressional and judicial oversight on the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program.

Senators who took part in an ad hoc working group said there was agreement that Congress should permit such National Security Agency intercepts as long as the administration would be required to seek a court warrant at some point after a terrorist suspect had been identified. The legislation also would increase the number of members of Congress who are kept informed about the surveillance activities, probably through a special subcommittee in each chamber.
</snip>

[Marie26]

1. Bad, bad idea

So they can just sift through all the info about completely innocent people, but once they find a guilty one - boom, they get a warrant for the search they've already done? :crazy: Warrants sre supposed to protect innocent people by requiring "probable cause" of a crime before they can search your stuff. This puts that completely on it's head to allow searches of anybody, w/a search warrant issued only after incriminating evidence is found. It's completely backwards. The gov. used to need "probable cause" first to search private property; now they can search private property first to find probable cause! It makes the warrant requirement utterly useless & nothing more than a rubber-stamp.

[liveoaktx]

2. When I was listening to the Judiciary Comm hearing the other day

Fein made a pretty good analogy. Imagine a town of about 7000 people that the police break and enter in everyone's home in order to see IF someone has broken the law. There are bound to be a few that are, so they'd be bound to find some evidence and THEN could go get a warrant to arrest those people... Like you said, it turns probable cause on its head and exchanges it for, as the Republicans said "reasonable suspicion".

There needs to be a huge loud, vocal stink about this RIGHT NOW to Congress. In the article, above, it sounds like they're discussing it privately and then they'll bring it to the floor as a compromised, decided deal, which will get pushed through.

[Marie26]

3. If this bill goes through, it'd be even worse

than the NSA program as it exists now. Right now, the program is completely illegal, because they're eavesdropping on comm. w/o a warrant. But there is an upside. None of that info they gather right now can be used to obtain a warrant, or at trial. Under the law, evidence gathered from illegal searches is tossed & cannot be used. (That's why they can't find any convictions from this program - none of the NSA info. can be used because the searches were done w/o probable cause). But if they pass a bill legalizing this program, the NSA spying info CAN be used to issue arrest warrants, or convict someone at trial.

SO, the NSA eavesdrops randomly on all conversations, hits something incriminating, gets a retroactive search warrant, & the person is arrested & convicted based on the NSA evidence. This new legal regime would have really serious consequences. We would have to be careful of anything we write or say, because the gov. is truly always listening. The whole concept of "freedom of speech" would dissapear. The whole concept of "privacy" would disappear. We would truly become a police state. I almost prefer the NSA program to remain illegal, over it becoming used in the criminal justice system.