Senate votes to extended evesdropping

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Very very scary:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fisa13feb13,1,2620594.story?track=rss

If this passes then be careful when you want to talk dirty with your significant other, a government stooge might be listening in and he doesnt wont need a warrant.
Privacy! silly concept.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Very very scary:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fisa13feb13,1,2620594.story?track=rss

If this passes then be careful when you want to talk dirty with your significant other, a government stooge might be listening in and he doesnt wont need a warrant.
Privacy! silly concept.

lovely, let's extend the violation of our constitutional rights

 

[SteveAtheist]

What happened to the Democrats who railed against this bill when it orignally passed during the Republican controlled Senate? This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 29, which means a number of Democrats approved this bill. Is this is issue not as important as it was when first approved?

 

[Meshavrischika]

What happened to the Democrats who railed against this bill when it orignally passed during the Republican controlled Senate? This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 29, which means a number of Democrats approved this bill. Is this is issue not as important as it was when first approved?

obviously they're too busy (all of them) kissing butt for elections to come

 

[IisJustMe]

What happened to the Democrats who railed against this bill when it orignally passed during the Republican controlled Senate? This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 29, which means a number of Democrats approved this bill. Is this is issue not as important as it was when first approved?

It wasn't important then, and it's not important now. It does not affect US citizens, only foreign nationals receiving international phone calls, and then only if there is other compelling evidence they may be more than just students or business people. They must have some connection to terrorism in order to be targeted, and their calls to numbers outside the US (that is, originating within US borders) do not fall under the law. This is about spying on those who mean us harm, period.

 

[eldermike]

What happened to the Democrats who railed against this bill when it orignally passed during the Republican controlled Senate? This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 29, which means a number of Democrats approved this bill. Is this is issue not as important as it was when first approved?

Is there some more important thing than the victory itself? I mean, they took control based on this issue and some others which have yet to be raised.
I think there is, but I also know they think there is not.

We get what we deserve when we put our trust in people who make promises they will never keep.

I actually agree that we need the law. But again, no one will notice the dishonesty in politics, when promises are broken so eaisly right out front for all to see.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It wasn't important then, and it's not important now. It does not affect US citizens, only foreign nationals receiving international phone calls, and then only if there is other compelling evidence they may be more than just students or business people. They must have some connection to terrorism in order to be targeted, and their calls to numbers outside the US (that is, originating within US borders) do not fall under the law. This is about spying on those who mean us harm, period.

Do you care about the 4th amendment? the 14th? what ever happened to due process and since when are warrents unnecessary? Do you believe in the values upon which this country is based, freedom and liberty?

Remember, when they say warrents no longer matter that's when big brother nears.

 

[IisJustMe]

Do you care about the 4th amendment? the 14th? what ever happened to due process and since when are warrents unnecessary? Do you believe in the values upon which this country is based, freedom and liberty?

Do you realize this was not an issue during the Clinton years? They did the exact same thing. Except Clinton "de-budgeted" all the human intelligence analysts and there was no one to determine what the recordings actually said. As a result, there were three million pieces of intel laying around the CIA unexamined when President Bush took office. Let's play a game. Imagine they hadn't been bumped out of the payroll and they'd been around to examine all those phone calls and intercepted communications. You see, that's what used to happen. We used to spy on our enemies so we could keep them from destroying us. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have no say over our spying. Nor should they. Had Clinton been more worried about having someone analyze what the computer technology was getting us instead of thinking with another part of his body, or when he wasn't, playing footsie with the Chinese, we might not have experienced 9/11.

 

[pgp_protector]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

qANQR1DDDQQJAwKOrd4j8Io8b6DSaQFiAkwK0PGDj1588B/5nKffhLq5l64Wq3CL
+pCeACiIOFZpywz5ziJDH+bnMnL2GnlssmpGGLZyLmTFaXlpESlMxxQeVWomyuVE
d5/R7Y5oIEYxUuiYkvq6Hkl9BI0vZiebNFrI+TRqCw==
=gPAT
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

 

[IisJustMe]

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

qANQR1DDDQQJAwKOrd4j8Io8b6DSaQFiAkwK0PGDj1588B/5nKffhLq5l64Wq3CL
+pCeACiIOFZpywz5ziJDH+bnMnL2GnlssmpGGLZyLmTFaXlpESlMxxQeVWomyuVE
d5/R7Y5oIEYxUuiYkvq6Hkl9BI0vZiebNFrI+TRqCw==
=gPAT
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Well, that's one way to bring the discussion to a screeching halt.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well, that's one way to bring the discussion to a screeching halt.

Works wonders for keeping ears out of conversations though

After all you don't send private info through the mail on the back of a postcard do ya

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Do you realize this was not an issue during the Clinton years? They did the exact same thing. Except Clinton "de-budgeted" all the human intelligence analysts and there was no one to determine what the recordings actually said. As a result, there were three million pieces of intel laying around the CIA unexamined when President Bush took office. Let's play a game. Imagine they hadn't been bumped out of the payroll and they'd been around to examine all those phone calls and intercepted communications. You see, that's what used to happen. We used to spy on our enemies so we could keep them from destroying us. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments have no say over our spying. Nor should they. Had Clinton been more worried about having someone analyze what the computer technology was getting us instead of thinking with another part of his body, or when he wasn't, playing footsie with the Chinese, we might not have experienced 9/11.

You still need cause. thats what warrents and due process ensure. that people dont just have their freedom or privacy infringed because they feel like it. i dont care what administration is allowing this stuff, its still wrong.

 

[SteveAtheist]

It wasn't important then, and it's not important now. It does not affect US citizens, only foreign nationals receiving international phone calls, and then only if there is other compelling evidence they may be more than just students or business people. They must have some connection to terrorism in order to be targeted, and their calls to numbers outside the US (that is, originating within US borders) do not fall under the law. This is about spying on those who mean us harm, period.

What you said is not true. It does affect US citizens and it does give the goverment the right to listen to calls originating within the US. If you think they 'must have some connection to terrorism' then why not use the system that has been in place for years, in which the goverment has to aquire a warrant to intercept communication.

This bill allows the goverment to intercept any international communication that takes place within the US. It is a breach of privacy. If there is sufficient reason to intercept the communication, as you have suggested, then I see no problem with the feds obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.

 

[IisJustMe]

What you said is not true. It does affect US citizens and it does give the goverment the right to listen to calls originating within the US. If you think they 'must have some connection to terrorism' then why not use the system that has been in place for years, in which the goverment has to aquire a warrant to intercept communication.

Where's your source material?

This bill allows the goverment to intercept any international communication that takes place within the US.

Providing it originates from outside the US.

It is a breach of privacy.

Dang right it is. You actually want terrorists to have privacy? You really don't understand the concept of spying, I guess.

If there is sufficient reason to intercept the communication, as you have suggested, then I see no problem with the feds obtaining a warrant from the FISA court.

That's what they have to do.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You actually want terrorists to have privacy? You really don't understand the concept of spying, I guess.

even when we spy we still need a reason. having a reason = warrent.

 

[IisJustMe]

even when we spy we still need a reason. having a reason = warrent.

Wrong. You think covert operatives have warrants authorizing their activity? That's two of you who don't understand the spying game.

 

[SteveAtheist]

Where's your source material?

The article in the orignal post is the source. It says:
The 68-29 vote was a victory for the White House, which has battled Congress for two years over the legality of an eavesdropping operation -- launched by President Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that involved intercepting calls in the United States without court warrants.

I am ok with intercepted communication, provided there is a warrant.

Providing it originates from outside the US.

The article doesn't stipulate that, but even if that were the case, this bill would allow for the spying on US citizens. If I were to call my mother from Italy and talk about her cancer treatment, this bill would allow the goverment to listen to the call. If you called your wife from Mexico and talked dirty to her, they could listen to that too.

Dang right it is.
You actually want terrorists to have privacy? You really don't understand the concept of spying, I guess.That's what they have to do.

I want my privacy. Privacy is a fundamental right in this country. This bill would take away that privacy from normal citizens like me. I don't understand why our goverment cannot obtain warrants to intercept communications. If there is a good reason, a judge will provide a warrant.

 

[Maren]

Wrong. You think covert operatives have warrants authorizing their activity? That's two of you who don't understand the spying game.

Wrong,the CIA and covert agents are prohibited by the National Security Act from operating inside the United States. Instead, it is the responsibility of the FBI to operate inside the US and they are (or at least were) required to get warrants.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Where's your source material?Providing it originates from outside the US.Dang right it is. You actually want terrorists to have privacy? You really don't understand the concept of spying, I guess.That's what they have to do.

If they are terrorists, you could easily get a warrant. Why would you need to spy without a warrant unless you need to perform some abuse of power.