Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand the operational distinction you've drawn between #2 and #3, but why are my rights restricted more in the former than the latter? If I'm an American citizen, and I'm talking not to Betty in New England but Fred in England, what justifies the different result? If I'm understanding it correctly, the FISA law currently doesn't make that distinction.
|
1) Your rights don't extend beyond the border. I am sure England would have no trouble tapping that same international call. Any government has a right to inspect anything that goes in or out of the country. If you are sending a signal (that is what communication is) then the US government should be able to check it out if it leaves the country or originates outside of the country. It works with letters, I don't see how other forms of communication should be different. It seems as though the Federal Courts don't agree with me.
2) From my perspective 9-11 didn't change the Constitution. Events can't change the Constitution, only the people can. Unless the US passes a constitutional amendment that includes a clause about martial law in time of emergency, nothing has changed. Domestic surveillance without a warrant on US nationals is just illegal. It seems silly to argue about it. Does anyone disagree with what I just said in this paragraph?
