Official: Army Has Authority to Spy on Americans

[AGENDA21]

By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff

“Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on intelligence components collecting U.S. person information,” the U.S.Army’s top intelligence officer said in a 2001 memo that surfaced Tuesday.

Not only that, military intelligence agencies are permitted to “receive” domestic intelligence information, even though they cannot legally “collect” it,” according to the Nov. 5, 2001, memo issued by Lt. Gen. Robert W. Noonan Jr., the deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

http://cqpolitics.com/cq.com/www.cq.com/public/20060131_homeland.html

[CottonBear]

1. Spying on US citizens is unconstitutional. Period. n/t

[thinkingwoman]

2. no ban except...

that pesky U.S. Constitution.

There's no exception for the military included in the 4th amendment.

Nice try Mr. U.S. Army's top intelligence officer.

[Vincardog]

3. When did the Constitution quit being The Law of the Land? 4th Amendment

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.

[rpgamerd00d]

4. permitted to “receive” but not "collect" - translation into English

"We can have Britian spy on Americans and then email us the files."

[hootinholler]

21. Britian? Try ChoicePoint or any other corp. this has been outsourced to.

I contend that receipt is a form of collection.

-Hoot

[elehhhhna]

5. rec'd. beat me to the op! GOOD WORK!

[baldguy]

6. Posse Comitatus

The United States armed forces are prohibited from being used for law enforcement without being specifically authorized by Congress for a specific purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[dogday]

13. If only they would follow the law.......

[tocqueville]

7. "but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.."

is so vague that you'll always find an Alito that finds a "probable cause" somewhere

if they could find that segregation was constitutional up to 1964, they can find anything...

that's the problem when the law is ultimately in the hands of the judiciary and not in the hands of elected bodies


define "unreasonable" btw

[TahitiNut]

8. It's about PRIVACY, folks - just like Roe v. Wade.

This is an all-out assault on privacy rights.

[tocqueville]

9. there are no privacy rights in the US constitution

the claim to privacy is a so called "penumbral right", that is to say the interpretation from some judges from other documents

[shraby]

10. The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I would think this covers privacy rights.

[EFerrari]

11. The fourth 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.

[tocqueville]

14. this is not a privacy right, it's a right to security

DEfinition of privacy :

Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to stop information about themselves from becoming known to people other than those whom they choose to give the information. Privacy is sometimes related to anonymity although it is often most highly valued by people who are publicly known. Privacy can be seen as an aspect of security—one in which trade-offs between the interests of one group and another can become particularly clear.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article 12, states:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Countries such as France protect privacy explicitly in their constitution (France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), while the Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Other countries without constitutions have laws protecting privacy, such as the United Kingdom's Data Protection Act 1984. The European Union requires all member states to legislate to ensure that citizens have a right to privacy, through directives such as Directive 95/46.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy

"There is currently no law in the United States against acquiring and selling another's phone records. These records are openly sold on the Internet and are becoming an increasing concern."

explain above with the "right to privacy" 4th amendment

[TahitiNut]

18. The right to privacy is an inalienable right of all people as ...

The right to privacy is an inalienable right of all people and recognized under the California Constitution. Since governments cannot create or establish an inalienable right and since the Constitution of State of California grants that we have such rights and since the State of Californa is required, under the U.S. Constitution, to maintain a "republican form of government" and since that right is inalienable then, in effect, the U.S. must also be cognizant of that right.

Contorted, I know ... but, in principle, I think it's firmly grounded.

[TahitiNut]

12. Then let's look at Limbaugh's medical records and Enron's banking.

:shrug: IMHO, personal privacy is the core 'right' of all others.

[tocqueville]

16. not really but nearly

in Europe medical records are private and if a doctor outs that you have cancer (even if you are the Prime Minister) he goes to jail. That's why politicians and specially the President have public health records, to avoid speculation, but it is on their free will.

You couldn't take a picture of me, my house or my cat without my permission. If you did and publish them I'll sue your ass an win everytime. Exception : if you are a movie star etc.. a "public person".

Enron's banking is private and it falls under business laws in a normal case (because the market wouldn't work without privacy). But if they do something illegal, it's not private any longer because if alls under a threat to society.

EU:s right to privacy :

Article 8 - right to respect for private life

Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises positive obligations: whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus not to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to do something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced father to his child).

because law is the expression of general will

[TahitiNut]

17. The way I view it (i.e. the paradigm I use) ...

... it's not a "human right" unless an individual, without property, without wealth, without identification of any kind, and without family or friends is able to rely upon the opportunity to exercise of that right (i.e. a civil liberty) without infringement. In essence, that means some firm limit to 'search and seizure' that does not and cannot depend upon some entitlement (i.e. state-established and enforced title to property or leasehold). When for example, the only 'right' to be free of search and seizure is wholly dependent upon some purchase or lease, then that's "rights for sale" (solely an entitlement which, because the state establishes it, the state can legally abolish). Thus, the right to be secure in my "person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures" MUST be grounded in something other than an entitlement, location, or association. It cannot be, for example, based in being in the home of a friend (or anyone else). That would, again, be an entitlement, not a right. Therefore, that right is, for lack of any better term, a right of personal privacy - the heart of the materially-based expression of rights enumerated - enumerated not to establish rights or limit rights, but enumerated sheerly for the purposes of emphasizing limits to government powers most frequently abused at the time the Bill of Rights was written. The Constitution's subject is government and the limits of its derived authority, not human rights or limits to the exercise of those rights.

It's funny. Two of the most frequently used and misunderstood terms in any political discussion are 'rights' and 'entitlements.' Indeed, there are many (even on DU) who'd read the above paragraph and be incapable of mentally distinguishing the two terms. We've been brainwashed into regarding rights as mere entitlements. That's an abomination in any free society.

[tocqueville]

19. sounds like the core of the problem

"a right of personal privacy - the heart of the materially-based expression of rights enumerated - enumerated not to establish rights or limit rights, but enumerated sheerly for the purposes of emphasizing limits to government powers most frequently abused at the time the Bill of Rights was written. The Constitution's subject is government and the limits of its derived authority, not human rights or limits to the exercise of those rights."

personal privacy is always a trade off against security and common rules to live in a society. An ABSOLUTE right to pricacy (by law) would make a lot of measures impossible to enforce : for example collecting tax or letting a fireman break in to save somebody threatened by a fire if that person couldn't for some reason give consent...

[annabanana]

15. warrants warrants warrants warrants

If they have probable cause they can do just about anything. Without it: ILLEGAL

[slay]

20. Who needs a warrant when I've got this here gun

and permission from Lord Emperor Bush to do whatever the fuck I want? This is Bush's world now baby - you whiny little liberals better just shut up and learn to live with it (if we let you)! :eyes:

:sarcasm: