Unbelievable- US government secretly collecting phone records of millions of Americans (terror, leader)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Go ahead and smack yourself, you're the one contradicting yourself. If this was the law there would be no need for a judge to sign anything. That's what you said right? Them collecting this data is the law right? Did you not say that?
Yes, a lot of Democrats do support this stuff and obviously President Obama and Eric Holder are using this Act, but it is too much for me to take from these conservative hypocrites.
Oh, by all means don't think that I was trying to stand in your way because that certainly wasn't my intention.
Please don't do that. Calling people you disagree with derogatory names like "sheep" is how you end conversations. This is an important conversation, and sharing your views, explaining to those you disagree with why you disagree with them, is how we should be conducting our debates. I don't dismiss the people I disagree with, I welcome their rebuttals. I want them to explain to me why I'm wrong. And in return I offer a vigorous defense of my point of view.
You cannot have freedom without privacy. In a world where others are always watching, always judging, and always pressuring conformity, it is only in privacy that we can truly be ourselves. The Founding Fathers lived in a world where privacy was a matter of closing doors and drawing curtains. Which is why they made it a part of the Constitution that no one could enter your home without your permission or a warrant that showed they had explained to an objective third party the reasons for invading your privacy, and that the third party thought the reasons were compelling.
We now live in a world where we are having to redraw the boundaries that define our privacy. When a roommate leaves his webcam on, to digitally record a college student's dates, when a couple installs nanny-cams to monitor the activities of their children and their babysitters, where retail stores film us shopping, and traffic cams film us driving, and we are constantly monitored, we have a need to redraw the boundaries that define our privacy. Where our public lives end and where our private lives begin.
I think our personal phone calls fall well within the private sphere. And I think the majority of Americans think that. So the government keeping a record of all my phone calls and how long those calls lasted, that's personal and private. Their argument, that they aren't actually listening to my calls, is like someone coming into my house and eating all the food in my refrigerator, but, dude, we left you the food in the freezer. A boundary is violated. And that shouldn't happen.
It was not about disagreement. It was about people who didn't know the information and dismissed this story as "old news" dating back to 2007. They thought this was the same story as the AT&T lawsuit about NSA spying from back in 2007.
See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Im still wondering why this is news. Didnt this come out back in 2007 or 2008 ? Is there a different element to it this time or is it just like the IRS training conference thing where everyone has just forgotten it had already been on the news ?
There is also a list at the end of the article that shows names and how the person voted on the Patriot Act and it's subsequent extensions:
The PATRIOT Act
Total current members who voted: 153 Total current members who supported the bill: 118
No sitting Republicans who were in Congress in 2001 voted against the PATRIOT Act. More sitting Democrats supported it than opposed.
PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, 2005
Total current members who voted: 260 Total current members who supported the bill: 151
Currently sitting Democrats were more likely to oppose the extension than to approve it. Several Republican House members opposed the extension, but no Senators did.
FISA Amendments, 2008
Total current members who voted: 304 Total current members who supported the bill: 191
Only one Republican voted against the amendments, which authorized the government to conduct sweeps like the one in the Verizon case.
PATRIOT Act Extension, 2011
Total current members who voted: 430 Total current members who supported the bill: 265
A larger number of sitting Republicans opposed the extension than any of the other three. That includes Senators Murkowski, Paul, Heller, and Lee. Nineteen Democrats who opposed the FISA amendments in 2008 voted in support of it under the new president.
FISA Extension, 2012
Total current members who voted: 437 Total current members who supported the bill: 303
Three Republican senators opposed extending FISA: Lee, Murkowski, and Paul.
You DO know that Joe Biden authored the PA don't you? LMAO!
Huh? Multiple people, multiple agencies were involved in writing the Patriot, they changed existing laws, changed stuff for the FBI, CIA, etc.
Joe Biden didn't do all of that.
There is no question that some Democrats supported the bill, but it is also true that almost all of the opposition to the Patriot Act comes from the Democratic party.
It is also true Democratic voters don't support the Patriot Act. It is also true that huge majorities of conservative voters do support the Patriot act. This has been true for over a decade.
conservatives love the Patriot Act, conservatives supported the idea of pre-emptive war in Iraq, they supported the whole idea of a war on terror(which is really a call for perpetual war), they supported torturing people, they supported the US government holding people for years without chagring them with a crime, and they don't want GITMO closed.
The idea that conservatives are outraged by this is a big freaking joke.
Unless you have been living under a rock for since September 11, 2001 that is precisely what two successive Presidents did and that is what the Congress enacted.
That doesn't say that I approve or disapprove of the law but it is the law.
Please don't edit my remarks to make your point.
If you want to challenge my points, then do so.
The NSA could ask Congress to pass a law REQUIRING PHONE COMPANIES TO RETAIN RECORDS FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME.
The Patriot Act doesn't say that the NSA can seize MY phone records or your phone records without cause. The Patriot Act gives the government broad powers, much too broad in my opinion, and I certainly don't agree with this law, but again, in this specific, the NSA demanding Verizon's records of EVERY phone call, domestic and international, made on their system, is overreach. And having a court order, physical, tangible evidence of that overreach, could give people opposed to the Patriot Act an opportunity to rein in the government.
Go ahead and smack yourself, you're the one contradicting yourself. If this was the law there would be no need for a judge to sign anything. That's what you said right? Them collecting this data is the law right? Did you not say that?
Let's try this... what is the purpose of surveillance?
Do we announce to suspects that they are under surveillance? Do we call up drug dealers, mafia bosses, and say, "Hey we have wire taps on your phones, just thought you should know?"
The issue here is that the law allows under FISA and the by extension the Patriot Act to use data mining for the purpose of s-u-r-v-e-i-l-l-a-n-c-e! A warrant is sought, the select committees on intelligence are informed and the national security agencies go on their merry way collecting that information authorized by the warrant. Duh!
The law DID NOT say that they can do what they are doing. If this was law, why was this to be kept secret for so long? What you are saying is one huge contradiction. If it was law, they wouldn't need a judge to sign anything and it wouldn't be kept secret. Secret laws???? What?
You don't know what you are talking about. They used a judge because that is what is required in the Patriot Act, also, not letting people know they are being investigated in also apart of the Patriot Act.
Here is the section of the patriot that was used with an explanation and support for the Act from the Heritage Foundation.
I highlighted the parts that deal with your questions. Please deal with reality. This has been the law for over a decade.
2. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act: Business Record Orders under FISA. Domestic prosecutors routinely rely on business records and other concrete evidence to prove a wide variety of criminal charges from simple theft to homicide. Law enforcement, working with local prosecutors, acquires this evidence throughout the course of an investigation, often through the use of a subpoena. However, national security agents did not have the same authority to acquire similar evidence prior to the passage of Section 215. They had to obtain a court order and were limited to those records held by a business that was a “common carrier, public accommodation facility, physical storage facility or vehicle rental facility.”
Section 215 eliminated those arbitrary, dangerously narrow and self-limiting provisions but required that the records sought are relevant to an authorized investigation. However, unlike a standard prosecutor-issued subpoena, or even a grand jury subpoena, an order issued under Section 215 requires FISA court approval. In other words, Congress inserted a federal judge between investigators and potential suspects. Furthermore, the law requires substantial congressional oversight. This provision allows law enforcement, with approval from the FISA court, to require disclosure of documents and other records from businesses and other institutions without a suspect’s knowledge. Third-party recipients of Section 215 orders can appeal the order to the FISA court.
Section 215 further protects civil liberties by requiring additional approval for document requests that might have the slightest relation to freedom of speech and expression, such as library records.
As Wainstein testified, “There is no reason to return to the days when it is easier for prosecutors to secure records in a simple assault prosecution than for national security investigators to obtain records that may help prevent the next 9/11.”
Let's try this... what is the purpose of surveillance?
Do we announce to suspects that they are under surveillance? Do we call up drug dealers, mafia bosses, and say, "Hey we have wire taps on your phones, just thought you should know?"
The issue here is that the law allows under FISA and the by extension the Patriot Act to use data mining for the purpose of s-u-r-v-e-i-l-l-a-n-c-e! A warrant is sought, the select committees on intelligence are informed and the national security agencies go on their merry way collecting that information authorized by the warrant. Duh!
Actually NO. The government agencies are supposed to provide good reason to a judge for going after phone records. "All Verizon subscribers because we need to look for terrorists" is what this now amounts to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
