politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The FBI routinely uses its authority under FISA Section 702 to get information on Americans without a warrant, ignoring the processes that are supposed to be put in place to protect people. This has nothing to do with the FISA Title III authority that was used to get information about Carter Page, no matter what you and Trump think. If you warrantless surveillance of Americans is good, then by all means you should indeed be cheering this vote -- because they extended the scope of what information they can get at without a warrant.
If on the other hand you think civil liberties are worth protecting, then you might take a moment to stop to think that there was bipartisan support, including progressive Democrats, for introducing reforms like a warrant requirement while still keeping the ability to surveil foreign agents in place. But opinions differ, there are plenty of people in both parties who don't think civil liberties are worth protecting, so if you're one of them you've got a lot of company.
The FISA court provides warrants, it's what they do. If I was a legal compliance officer at a Telcom, I wouldn't move my ass for anything but a warrant. A tap without a warrant is illegal and puts the operating company in jeopardy.
From the article:
OK. There are no laws against the NSA picking up.foreign communications. In fact, that's the reason they exist. So they monitor a phone call originating from Moscow, say, of a person they find of interest. All of a sudden, that guy makes a call to someone in the US. Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it's all about due to a lack of warrant? Also, the technology doesn't make that immediately possible.
The courts have decided that text messages, as well as mobile tracking, do not need lawful warrants. Usually you don't apply for a warrant when you don't need one.
BTW, phone records are actually operating company business records. You don't own them.
Yes.
There, that was easy.
First of all, it's a computer take and no hangups can be done. Nobody is listening real time.
Secondly, what you miss could kill you. But, I guess you know better.
I'm sure as I type this there are men beating their wives and children, maybe to death.
Should the government put cameras in every house to prevent this?
If not, why do you hate women and children and want them to die?
What if they never wrote "bin Laden Determined to Strike US" because they didn't know? Would you still think they were doing their jobs as you sipped your morning coffee atop the WTC?
The Patriot Act* didn't exist before 9/11. Your argument is invalid.
Also, the NSA can get the FBI to get a warrant for the person in the US. We already have mechanisms for monitoring communications in the US.
* It's actually called the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." I prefer the acronym U SAP AT RIOT/
FISA has existed since 1978
Section 702 has only existed since 2008.
They got that information before section 702 was a thing. You're supporting GWB's wiretapping policy.
That's actually not true, but I expect that you only posted so you could downvote further.
The memo gwb ignored before 9/11 was before section 702 existed. 702 didn't go into effect until 2008.
If you don't want me to downvote you, don't lie in support of a gwb policy.
That's it isn't it. You don't understand the program, and the result is its bad.
Section 702 is only the current iteration of a legal problem that has been brought to congress by FISA users since its inception. It really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and more to do with the inability of Congress.
I understand that whenever a centrist is dead wrong about something, they pull this gaslighting horseshit.
HILARIOUS
You centrist! You're gaslighting me with facts!
You pretended that a policy that didn't exist before 2008 provided the intel Bush ignored before 9/11.
You don't understand how linear time works, and have presented no facts.
You don't understand how FISA was implemented. You'd rather be consumed by things you don't know about than become aware of things that are totally out of hand.
For instance, up the string I said that the courts have ruled that mobile location tracking wasn't an issue where a warrant was needed. Not only that, but you don't know mobile location tracking is commercially available. Anyone can buy the data, and that's wrong. Senator Ron Wydon has been working on this for years. Instead of being worried about all the rights you have that are not being taken away, worry about the those that are.
You pretended that section 702 got us the intel Bush ignored prior to 9/11. It couldn't have, as it was implemented almost a decade later.
You lied.
Sigh...if that's the best you can do, I am now bored.
I'm not here to entertain you.
Its worked
Lotta people just don't understand this.