|
Post by soulflower on Apr 10, 2024 8:02:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 10, 2024 8:26:53 GMT -5
There is part of me that thinks the FISA statutes are fine. The other part of me, the more realistic part, knows that them being fine relies upon law enforcement using the FISA authority appropriately all the time. By coincidence, that part also recognizes that the one thing those with power seem to want most is more power. Hopefully, this thing goes away.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 10, 2024 8:34:47 GMT -5
There is part of me that thinks the FISA statutes are fine. The other part of me, the more realistic part, knows that them being fine relies upon law enforcement using the FISA authority appropriately all the time. By coincidence, that part also recognizes that the one thing those with power seem to want most is more power. Hopefully, this thing goes away. The Feds have abused their surveillance powers in the past. They'll do it again if they aren't checked.
|
|
|
Post by michiganjoe on Apr 10, 2024 8:45:50 GMT -5
The cult leader has spoken!
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 10, 2024 8:53:28 GMT -5
The cult leader has spoken! Trump is a threat to democracy but so too is the expansion of the national security state. Do you agree or disagree with the protests against the bill?
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 10, 2024 10:27:43 GMT -5
Looking like the Bill in it's current form is DOA
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 10, 2024 13:20:40 GMT -5
It's dead for now
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Apr 11, 2024 7:49:01 GMT -5
The cult leader has spoken! But if it isn't killed and he regains the presidency he would use it early, often and continuously against his "enemies"!
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 11, 2024 8:03:17 GMT -5
The cult leader has spoken! But if it isn't killed and he regains the presidency he would use it early, often and continuously against his "enemies"! I wouldn't rule it out. Also, he approved the last FISA extension when he was President.
|
|
|
Post by grindelwald on Apr 11, 2024 8:19:42 GMT -5
But if it isn't killed and he regains the presidency he would use it early, often and continuously against his "enemies"! I wouldn't rule it out. Also, he approved the last FISA extension when he was President. Wouldn’t rule it out? It’s basically guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 11, 2024 16:10:57 GMT -5
Great explainer of the controversy
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 11, 2024 16:40:20 GMT -5
It's only about section 702. It has nothing to do with FISA generally. 702 allows us to surveil foreigners. Fighting for foreigner's having the same rights as Americans is a loser.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 11, 2024 16:46:57 GMT -5
It's only about section 702. It has nothing to do with FISA generally. 702 allows us to surveil foreigners. Fighting for foreigner's having the same rights as Americans is a loser. I don’t think you read the article. The loophole is that they don’t need a warrant if Americans communicate with foreigners who are under warrantless surveillance. 99% of requests for FISA warrants on Americans are approved. Why is requiring a warrant to close the loophole a problem?
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 11, 2024 16:56:03 GMT -5
I don’t think you read the article. The loophole is that they don’t need a warrant if Americans communicate with foreigners who are under warrantless surveillance. 99% of requests for FISA warrants on Americans are approved. Why is requiring a warrant to close the loophole a problem? Can't be any more plain than this: “This is surveillance of foreigners who are abroad. We are not surveilling foreigners in the United States,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, defending Section 702. “We’re not surveilling Americans in the United States.” -- Mike Turner
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 11, 2024 17:34:55 GMT -5
I don’t think you read the article. The loophole is that they don’t need a warrant if Americans communicate with foreigners who are under warrantless surveillance. 99% of requests for FISA warrants on Americans are approved. Why is requiring a warrant to close the loophole a problem? Can't be any more plain than this: “This is surveillance of foreigners who are abroad. We are not surveilling foreigners in the United States,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, defending Section 702. “We’re not surveilling Americans in the United States.” -- Mike Turner Turner is lying again. If he’s telling the truth, why is Congress trying to exempt themselves from the no warrant policy? Under the current law: American to American comms = Warrant required for surveillance Foreigner to foreigner comms = No warrant required American to Foreigner comms = No warrant required The efforts to get the law amended are about requiring a warrant for all communications that involve American citizens…
|
|
|
Post by michiganjoe on Apr 12, 2024 7:05:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 7:17:58 GMT -5
Ignore Trump. He’s a moron.
There are much better people to follow on this issue
|
|
|
Post by michiganjoe on Apr 12, 2024 8:50:26 GMT -5
Change appears to be only the length.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 8:58:09 GMT -5
The Andy Biggs amendment would require the Feds to get a warrant for spying on Americans in all circumstances. Hopefully that passes.
There’s a separate amendment that would expand the surveillance powers. Hopefully that fails.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 9:52:04 GMT -5
The WH opposes the warrant requirement for closing the surveillance loophole
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 12, 2024 10:21:30 GMT -5
Can't be any more plain than this: “This is surveillance of foreigners who are abroad. We are not surveilling foreigners in the United States,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, defending Section 702. “We’re not surveilling Americans in the United States.” -- Mike Turner Turner is lying again. If he’s telling the truth, why is Congress trying to exempt themselves from the no warrant policy? Under the current law: American to American comms = Warrant required for surveillance Foreigner to foreigner comms = No warrant required American to Foreigner comms = No warrant required The efforts to get the law amended are about requiring a warrant for all communications that involve American citizens… Congress or at least the trumpier parts of it don't want their conspiracies with the Russians exposed. I'm surprised you ask this question.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 11:03:35 GMT -5
Turner is lying again. If he’s telling the truth, why is Congress trying to exempt themselves from the no warrant policy? Under the current law: American to American comms = Warrant required for surveillance Foreigner to foreigner comms = No warrant required American to Foreigner comms = No warrant required The efforts to get the law amended are about requiring a warrant for all communications that involve American citizens… Congress or at least the trumpier parts of it don't want their conspiracies with the Russians exposed. I'm surprised you ask this question. The Bill of Rights is more important than Trump. In principle, the government doesn't need anymore power to violate our privacy.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 12, 2024 11:33:36 GMT -5
Congress or at least the trumpier parts of it don't want their conspiracies with the Russians exposed. I'm surprised you ask this question. The Bill of Rights is more important than Trump. In principle, the government doesn't need anymore power to violate our privacy. National security demands we follow up on who the Russians are running in Congress. If repubs are talking to Russians legitimately what do they have to hide? It's like trump wanting to avoid a trial when common sense tells you an innocent man would be clamoring for his day in court. The GOP's reluctance to re-up this section of the law speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 11:37:39 GMT -5
The Bill of Rights is more important than Trump. In principle, the government doesn't need anymore power to violate our privacy. National security demands we follow up on who the Russians are running in Congress. If repubs are talking to Russians legitimately what do they have to hide? It's like trump wanting to avoid a trial when common sense tells you an innocent man would be clamoring for his day in court. The GOP's reluctance to re-up this section of the law speaks for itself. Rep. Jaypal is a Democrat. Sen. Wyden is a Democrat. Support for closing the surveillance loophole is bi-partisan. Defending our privacy rights isn’t a partisan issue. It’s about principles…
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 11:45:23 GMT -5
The Andy Biggs amendment would require the Feds to get a warrant for spying on Americans in all circumstances. Hopefully that passes. There’s a separate amendment that would expand the surveillance powers. Hopefully that fails. The Biggs amendment failed by ONE VOTE. Sad day for the Constitution
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 12, 2024 11:51:06 GMT -5
National security demands we follow up on who the Russians are running in Congress. If repubs are talking to Russians legitimately what do they have to hide? It's like trump wanting to avoid a trial when common sense tells you an innocent man would be clamoring for his day in court. The GOP's reluctance to re-up this section of the law speaks for itself. Rep. Jaypal is a Democrat. Sen. Wyden is a Democrat. Support for closing the surveillance loophole is bi-partisan. Defending our privacy rights isn’t a partisan issue. It’s about principles… It's not going to happen. Cable is already reporting there's movement by the repubs flipping their votes on this. You don't want to be hauled up in a dragnet don't become a Russian useful idiot or worse.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 12:53:14 GMT -5
Rep. Jaypal is a Democrat. Sen. Wyden is a Democrat. Support for closing the surveillance loophole is bi-partisan. Defending our privacy rights isn’t a partisan issue. It’s about principles… It's not going to happen. Cable is already reporting there's movement by the repubs flipping their votes on this. You don't want to be hauled up in a dragnet don't become a Russian useful idiot or worse. Democrats won't control the White House forever. Hope you're happy when a Republican President has the power to spy on political opponents without a warrant.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 12, 2024 13:38:09 GMT -5
Congress or at least the trumpier parts of it don't want their conspiracies with the Russians exposed. I'm surprised you ask this question. The Bill of Rights is more important than Trump. In principle, the government doesn't need anymore power to violate our privacy. I expect Jayapal wants it closed because she knows she would be one of the legitimate targets.
|
|
|
Post by summer23 on Apr 12, 2024 13:55:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 12, 2024 14:01:09 GMT -5
The Bill of Rights is more important than Trump. In principle, the government doesn't need anymore power to violate our privacy. I expect Jayapal wants it closed because she knows she would be one of the legitimate targets. I think she simply believes in respecting the Fourth Amendment. Americans who care about the Bill of Rights seem to be a dying breed. Again, this isn't a partisan issue. The vote today on requiring a warrant, didn't split along partisan lines like most Bills in the House.
|
|