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.
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.
More Democrats in DC voted FOR expanding the powers of the PA than ever before. Go ahead and believe what you want.
BTW, Biden says he drafted the bill in 1995 after Oklahoma City.
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!
And the purpose for keeping the warrants secret, TOP SECRET, is to keep the breadth and depth of the data mining secret from the American people. That's why this is news. What we knew was happening, but couldn't prove, we might be able to prove. And maybe the national security agencies won't have such a merry way, anymore. Maybe they'll actually have to follow the Constitution.
It is called literary license, and you are more than free to respond, correct or rebut. So no, when it can be used to get my point across, I will continue to do as I deem fit and proper.
Quote:
The NSA could ask Congress to pass a law REQUIRING PHONE COMPANIES TO RETAIN RECORDS FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME.
Not much use for an ongoing investigation I would think.
Quote:
Quote:
The Patriot Act doesn't say that the NSA can seize MY phone records or your phone records without cause.
Which is why a warrant was obtained.
The Patriot Act gives the government broad powers, much too broad in my opinion,[/quote]
That was your first valid argument.
Quote:
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.
Then I would suggest that instead of arguing here that you get your fingers flying over your keyboard writing an appropriate objection to your local Congressperson.
There were/are many liberals and many liberal organizations that were/are against the Patriot Act. Ron Paul wasn't nearly close to being the only one.
He was a rarity amongst conservatives, who love the surveillance state and whose voters by overwhelming majorities supported the Patriot Act, but that is not the case for a lot of Democrats and liberals who have been against the Patriot Act since day one.
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.â€
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.â€
The entire idea of the court and a judge having to sign off on search warrants is that the judge is supposed to police the investigators. When a judge is simply a formality, and not a genuine check, then the system is no longer fair and balanced. The entire secretive aspect of the system is not about catching the bad guys, it's about letting the government be the bad guys. And it seems to be working.
This is nothing different than what was done under Bush. The difference is that the Obamahaters accepted it under Bush and now denounce the same exact policy under Obama. I, for one, denounce it regardless of the sitting president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Bricks
Why do you people keep talking about Bush! He's no longer President he hasn't been for FIVE years. We're talking about OBAMA, the guy that was supposed to be different. But I guess if the other guy did it its ok for our guy to do it, right libs? You guys sound like a bunch of cheerleaders at a football game. And for the record I have NEVER supported the patriot act or any other spying on american people under any president.
Why? Because it underscores the utter hypocrisy of the right. Policies that were condoned under Bush by the right are condemned by the right under Obama -- even though Bush never got judicial approval for his actions and Obama did.
Thus, we know it's not the policy they, the right, object to. It's personal. If Bush did it, the right thought it the correct policy to protect the country; when Obama does the same thing, it's an attack on liberty -- even though it's the same policy.
Although people who think like you want to believe that there is never an precedent to actions because it seems that you just woke up on January 20th 2009, there is a history in this country and history matters.
There were/are many liberals and many liberal organizations that were/are against the Patriot Act. Ron Paul wasn't nearly close to being the only one.
He was a rarity amongst conservatives, who love the surveillance state and whose voters by overwhelming majorities supported the Patriot Act, but that is not the case for a lot of Democrats and liberals who have been against the Patriot Act since day one.
There were/are many liberals and many liberal organizations that were/are against the Patriot Act. Ron Paul wasn't nearly close to being the only one.
He was a rarity amongst conservatives, who love the surveillance state and whose voters by overwhelming majorities supported the Patriot Act, but that is not the case for a lot of Democrats and liberals who have been against the Patriot Act since day one.
Doesn't matter how many liberal groups were against this, it was the Dems in Congress whose vote counted.
Paul was Libertarian who ran under the Republican ticket.
Yet you kept sending those Democrats that voted FOR the Patriot Act back to Congress.
Why? Because it underscores the utter hypocrisy of the right. Policies that were condoned under Bush by the right are condemned by the right under Obama -- even though Bush never got judicial approval for his actions and Obama did.
NO, what's utter hypocrisy is Obama expanding the powers and over reach and you guys ignoring that and cheering him on. When he was a senator he was for a bill to limit exactly what he did here. Now that HE is in power it's a different story. Take this up with your masters.
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.
