Your phone records are *not* protected by 4th Amendment... so stop trippin

KeepItReal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:41 PM
Original message

Your phone records are *not* protected by 4th Amendment... so stop trippin

Edited on Thu May-11-06 09:46 PM by KeepItReal

...so says Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri).

Sen. Bond was *fully* briefed on the NSA programs and said that your phone call info (he calls it business records) is not protected by the 4th Amendment. Thus you don't need a search warrant.

He relayed this on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer over the objections of Senator Patrick Leahy.

On edit:

He also says thet Gen Hayden of NSA executed the orders (didn't originate them) to get phone records *after* the orders had been cleared by Dept. of Justice lawyers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadMaddie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:42 PM
Response to Original message

1. Is he up for election? I hope the people in his state shout this

to every citizen..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peacetheonlyway

(948 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message

2. I've got a great idea..

let's illegally monitor his calls,

isn't it a matter of days before you catch a GOPer with a hooker, drugs or illegal money laundering?

tap his calls and then shove him outta office by the scandal...

that's what he deserves for thinking phone calls are not an extension of our right to privacy nationwide....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

marylanddem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message

3. I stared at Bond, amazed at how ugly he is - in his soul.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KeepItReal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Wow!

:yourock:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KeepItReal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message

5. Just by *talking* about this NSA story, we are inviting another attack

*that* is another Kit Bond quote from the Newshour with Jim Lehrer

This dude needs to leave the drugs alone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

subterranean

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. I knew it wouldn't be long before we heard that

Even asking questions about it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Now the terrorists will stop using their home phones!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KeepItReal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Kit Bond said the Senate should *not* have public hearings on this

It would be sooo dangerous to "National Security"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Myrna Minkoff

(9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #7

9. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KeepItReal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #9

10. Welcome to D.U.

:hi:

wish it could be under better circumstances

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bruden

(109 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:09 PM
Response to Original message

8. Oh OK, now I feel all better.

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Solo_in_MD

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:18 PM
Response to Original message

11. Have to wonder if Pelosi or other knew too

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JDPriestly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message

12. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

Edited on Thu May-11-06 10:21 PM by JDPriestly

6 to 3 decision, the three being Stewart, Brennan and Marshall (Powell not participating). I believe that decision is about to be overturned by public outrage. The argument of the majority was that we have no legitimate expectation of privacy to the information about the numbers we call because we hand that information over to the telephone companies. I think most Americans respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court on that one -- especially here where millions of people's records have been obtained including undoubtedly millions who have not the slightest connection to criminal activity.

"We don't need no *** NSA snooping into our phone records."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gumby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-11-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message

13. Do I have this "right"?

Phone "records" are not protected.
But, phone "conversations" are protected.

Remember when the entire right-wing got itself into an uproar about George Miller(?) "leaking" the intercepted conversation of some right-wing congress-critters (Newt?) talking about their slash-and-burn strategy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 10:36 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.