Did the warrentless wiretapping bill ever get passed?
829523
you mean the TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE" directive, don't you?  It is not a bill to listen in to Aunt Martha and steal her chicken recipe, and it's not even for listening in to college professors talk to each other about how to turn America into a socialist state.  It is about listening to INTERNATIONAL phone calls to or from known terrorists so that our leaders can protect us. And it hasn't been "thrown out" yet, but I'm sure it will be when the Dems take over.  Then I can't wait for all the "why didn't they connect the dots?" whiners after we get hit again.
154150
Absolutely. The USA PATRIOT Act violated the amendment. As did Bush's wiretapping.
604666
Unfortunately, I have not heard anything about this act actually passing, but if you are right, then we should avoid it at all costs, including guillotines.  \n\nYes, I do believe that we are comming very near to the mark of the beast, and many religious scholars believe that it will be a very deceptive mark like a bar code that will be imposed on us as some sort of convenience to just "scan & go".  A computer chip would be equally sneaky.  I would say that as long as we have not yet witnessed the peace treaty in Isreal or a one world leader, then we are not there yet.  The thing to remember is that the mark of the beast will be on your right hand or forehead.  If they try to get you to put this chip or anything else in either of those places, "SAY NO!"\n\nBy the way, I was watching an episode of CSI Miami a while back and they had girls with these chips implanted just under the skin in their chest.  It was a new form of credit card.  I have no idea if this is similar to the one you are referring to, but it is an interesting concept.\n\nhttp://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html?tag=st.num\nI just read this article from cnet and it doesn't say anything about this being placed on our bodies.  It is just going to be an ID card like your driver's license, but with more security features.  I think the tracking device will end up being challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, but they have three years to figure that out.  I think that the card itself is pretty harmless, but the database could be a precursor for things to come.
929043
Because it is the only slim thread that holds them some rights.\n\nIt is of course as everyone knows based on no real constitutional grounds, since it has no real relatonship to right to privacy, which is what it is based on.\n\nit was passed because of political pressure, not good legal grounds,  If actually reviewed by legal standard it would never hold up again.
162343
not yet . nothing as such has been etablished so far.
1138420
4th Amendment-"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."\n\nSome would say yes because of the Domestic Wiretapping issue
1007462
here is another link, its also part of the congressional record, it happened yesterday and they also voted down another amendment which would have refused to fund anything that intentionally ignored the law (FISA, specifically). this is the sad state of the repub congress (and how much "liberal media" coverage has either vote gotten? NADA!\nthe link at the top includes a screenshot of the roll call with the vote results. indisputable!
312239
Aboslutely not! Any nation willing to exchange privacy for security deserves and will have neither.That is a rough quote from one of our founding fathers.Franklin or Jefferson,I think.
318926
Actually, the US Supreme Court has NOT addressed warrantless wiretaps as they are being done by Bush. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has said (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) that the current poltiical situation is "not a blank check" for the President to do anything he wants, regardless of existing laws.\n\nIn fact, there are two reasons why warrantless wiretapping is not authorized, and is explicitly illegal under specific laws that were intended to cover this exact situation.\n\nFirst, FISA passed by Congress thirty years ago explicitly states the conditions under which surveillance can be conducted, and was passed specifically to address monitoring of US citizens communicating with people in another country, where one or more were suspected of being a threat. FISA requires that even in an emergency, the wiretapping agency get a warrant from a judge within 72 hours AFTER the tap is initiated. This defeats any argument made about their not being enough time to act within the bounds of law, and Bush has admitted that he's never even applied for the warrants afterwards in an attempt to obey with the law.\n\nInterestingly, some of big names opposing FISA being passed thirty-years ago include Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney. So, they were told, by Congress explicitly, that they ideas about inherent presidential authority were wrong. So, not only is Bush breaking the law, but he's breaking a law that was specifically set up to govern this very action, after his top advisors were told what the law was in this exact situation.\n\nSecond, there is the ridiculous claim that Bush is acting under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the administration argues implicitly allows such actions. However, the AUMF is two paragraphs long, and states only that Bush is authorized to send military troops to Afghanistan, pursuant to the War Powers Act.\n\nWhat does the War Powers Act say? It limits presidential authority to send troops or deploy domestic assets unless authorized by Congress (since only Congress can declare war, and only Congress has jurisdiction for making domestic laws). The War Powers Act also specifically says that the President does not get any implied powers under this law, and that the President must obey all existing laws even when exercising explicit powers.\n\nYou can't claim implied powers based on a law that says "no implied powers". That's basic legal theory 101. It's like trying to argue it doesn't count as treason because the traitor chooses to call it something else. Performing actions that explicitly breaking laws that were intended to cover this exact situation is breaking the law, pure and simple.
344822
Yes, and has been several times. The Bill of Rights are the FIRST 10 amendments. And the last one was passed just a few years ago. But it is not common, because it must pass a 2/3 majority of BOTH house of congress, then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. How long does it take? the last one was proposed in 1790, but didn't make the first cut!    LOOK THEM UP. Learn them. FIGHT FOR THEM!
630958
The first link below shows what has happened so far with the bill.\n\nBased on this link, it doesn't seem like the bill has been shelved because it is currently in the committee stage in the House of Lords.\n\nAlso, the votings on bill took place on April 26, 2006 the House of Lord. This shows that some progress is being made. (The number two links)\n\nThe third link is an article, I thought you might be interested in. It is about the British Association for Shooting and Conservation position on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill about airgun and imitation firearms.\n\nThe fourth link is to the actual text of the bill discussing imitation firearms.\n\nThe fifth link has the entire text of the Violent Crimes Reduction Bill when it was introduced to the House of Commons June 8, 2005.\n\nHope this helps.
474204
According to the Homeland Security Act.... Nothing!\n\n\nYou will not be able to debunk this fact.
360681
IF it is done legally, then no.  As long as the spying is consistant with Constitutional protections against unwarrented intrusions into my private life, then I won't worry.  Let the government agencies get warrents first.
272888
Our constitutional right to privacy was definitely negated in this situation. If the government suspects someone of having terroristic capabilities, I do not think it would be too hard for them to get a warrant to eavesdrop the legal way. Bush is just trying cover his butts, as well as other members of our government are doing likewise. There are many conspiracy theories floating around concerning Bush and a few other members of our government, I think it is time the people of this nation take our government back, too many "actors" in power with selfish intentions!
884794
When congress passes the bill to raise it. It was defeated about 2 months ago. http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
276797
Wiretapping is different from verbal recording.  I can be having a conversation with someone at a meeting and they could record the conversation without my knowledge in some states.  Now if they tapped into my phone/data line then yes there becomes an issue of wiretapping, but I don't believe that's what the person was asking.
127239
Ben Franklin said that "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security."  \n\nI'm not sure if we will end up learning this the hard way, but we are becoming the USSA.  Wiretaps are part of a larger arsenal of tactics they are using to silence dissent.  It is likely that more sinister black ops programs exist that are tracking every one of us to some extent.  Think about every credit card purchase, every rewards card, every post on Yahoo Answers, every search engine search result, every survey, and every Amazon purchase or wish list being compiled and analyzed for keywords and other algorithm triggering events.  It is absolutely possible, and I would bet that it is happening now whether legal or not.  I believe it is completely antithetical to the definition of a "free" society, and I again believe it is to ultimately be used for more sinister purposes.