Leaked Senate Talking Points Say Internet Surveillance Warrants Would Force FBI To Let Terrorists Bomb Things (gizmodo.com) 126
Requiring federal agents to have "probable cause" to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to national security and would force the FBI to stand by while terrorist plots unfold on U.S. soil, according to a leaked copy of talking points distributed to Senate lawmakers this month. From a report: The talking points, which were distributed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, seek to provide a communications guide for promoting an amendment floated by McConnell this year that would have expanded the U.S. Justice Department's use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The document was circulated on Capitol Hill ahead of a Senate vote this month to reinstate three key FBI surveillance authorities under the USA FREEDOM Authorization Act, including Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which expired March 15. A draft being circulated in the Senate reportedly contained an "alarming expansion of Attorney General Bill Barr's powers under FISA" and "explicitly permits" the warrantless collection of Americans' internet search and browser data by the FBI.
This claim doesn't seem credible (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This claim doesn't seem credible (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It is not a problem of too little data or too little access. It is a problem of incompetence and arrogance. The absolute _last_ thing to do in this situation is give them more power and more access.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem as I see it is that the fearsome terriers are not what we're being told. If al Qaeda/Daesh/MS13/boogieman-of-the-day were what they say then we'd be without electricity three days a week. Terrorism isn't rocket science, nor does it require much in the way of training or funding, and doesn't need suicide bombers.
A dozen guys enter the country illegally, scatter around the country, each settles into a quiet life washing dishes or mowing lawns, like any illegal, acquire a used car like any illega
"shall not" is a limitation, but oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government "shall not" do. By its plain terms it lists rights that the government "shall not infringe". It's all about limiting what the federal government can do.
Is it easier to do a job if you didn't have a list of limitations on you, things you shall not do? Of course it is. Of course FBI agents could use more techniques to get the job done if they weren't limited by Constitutional rights. Oh fucking well. Yep you and I having rights they aren't allowed to infringe it makes their job harder. We as a nation have decided that's a price we're willing to pay in order for the US to not be like North Korea or China.
To go with your example, the Arizona FBI office became aware that some middle eastern men were taking flight training. (None of them were 9-11 hijackers, by the way). What is the FBI going to do about when they hear middle eastern men are taking flying lessons? Arrest everyone who took flight lessons, including me, and put them in prison the rest of their lives? Yeah that would have included arresting Mohamed Atta, so maybe it would have been effective. The Constitution says they can't do that and I'm glad I'm not in prison for having taken flight lessons.
Maybe they could have required that all passengers be handcuffed to the seat in every aircraft? I'm not sure how they'd even come up with that idea since the memo was about people training to be pilots, not passengers, but I guess it would have worked. We don't do that kind of thing here though.
Singapore DOES have a very low crime rate, so it's a losing argument to say that style of government doesn't reduce crime. We just value human rights enough that we aren't willing to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other ways to reduce crime besides murding and throwing people in jail.
You try removing a few laws now and then, like the ones that let you put 3 million Americans in prison for non-violent fucking weed "crimes".
The plethora of laws are not about reducing crime. They're about INCREASING crime, by the creation of crimes, which can then be applied for control purposes. Racism, sexism, and fueling class warfare have proven extremely effective tools to get, exert, and maintain control.
For fucks sake,
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how it only gets called class warfare when the poor fight back. Nobody ever calls out lower taxes on the rich, repealing worker protections, etc. class warfare, and yet that's exactly what it is - a continuous ongoing assault on the lower classes by the upper classes for pretty much the entire history of the country. But when people point it out and start complaining, saying we need to push back - suddenly it becomes class warfare. Funny that...
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, and people get this backwards all the time (and those who want to take power from the people and give it to themselves, [including: the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch], always try to say it is the opposite): the Constitution IS NOT a document that tells the people what rights they have, it is a document that tells the government what RIGHTS THE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO CEDE TO THE GOVERNMENT IN A LIMITED FASHION.
The "Bill of Rights" is redundant. Any right not EXPLICITLY ce
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
I will point out the distinction between powers and rights.
The states delegated certain powers to the federal government.
We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.
Inalienable means the rights can not leave us, they are part of being human. These rights can be violated, but cannot be taken away, and not given away.
This is important because a majority could vote that the government may hang Catholics and that gives them the *power* to do so. That would still violate the rights o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"Saudi hijackers led by Bin Laden & Al Qaeda on 9/11" is the official conspiracy theory put forth by the Bush administration and his so-called 911 Commission. It is this disingenuous rubbish (The 9/11 Commission Report) that has brought America and the world ever closer to fascism and authoritarian rule.
The science [ae911truth.org] behind the 9/11 attacks suggests (essentially proves) that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and the Saud
Re: (Score:2)
With stated objectives such as these:
The objectives of the hearings were:
To present evidence that the U.S. government’s official investigation into the events of September 11, 2001, as pursued by various government and government-appointed agencies, is seriously flawed and has failed to describe and account for the 9/11 events.
To single out the most weighty evidence of the inadequacy of the U.S. government’s investigation; to organize and classify that evidence; to preserve that evidence; to make that evidence widely known to the public and to governmental, non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations.
it isn't surprising that you would conclude "that Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and the Saudi's had nothing to do with the attacks, save being "patsies"".
Re: (Score:2)
I would but I've already reached my conspiracy theories limit for the month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least one agent wanted to step in. Muller's [sic] FBI ignored the reports
False. The one agent you refer to was FBI liaison to NSA, and it was NSA that had the reports and did nothing, not FBI. The "one agent" desperately wanted to inform FBI, but he was not permitted to do so by Federal law, would have been arrested for treason or something. FBI and Director Robert Mueller knew nothing, or next to it. FBI had intelligence that two of the would-be attackers were involved in the US Cole incident, but NSA was actively tracking most of the hijackers right up to the week of the attac
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, Robert Muller became director of the FBI exactly one week before the 9/11 attacks occurred. The intelligence you're referring to came weeks, maybe even months, before that. And the FBI and CIA made numerous attempts to bring this intelligence to Bush and his staff and every time they were rebuffed. Bush even famously quipped to a CIA briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." That was five weeks before
disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
What is really needed is a modification to this bill:
Allow the feds access to any part of the internet (stream/data) that is unencrypted. THink of a postcard that is in the open. Technically, anybody can read it while going through USPS. However, if both Data/Stream are encrypted, require a warrant, though allow them to follow anywhere for 1 week. At the end of the week, warrant is over, unless applied for again. And all results (where and why searched and what was found) MUST BE TURNED OVER to the FISA court.
This simple modification will fix everything quickly.
Re:disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
If that part goes through, their next step will be to make encryption illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just do that anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Because King Canute can no more ban mathematics than he can stop the tides.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that if we allow the feds access to the plaintext part of the internet, and we then have them ban encryption, we can stop the tide?
Re: (Score:2)
Build a better mouse trap, create a smarter mouse. Obfuscating encrypted data in ordinary-looking data streams is hardly a new thing. The irony is, of course, that the people most like to use these methods will be criminals. The dumb crooks and terrorists will get weeded out, but the smarter ones will simply find new ways to encrypt their data.
You can't kill encryption any more than you can kill Pi or the Planck constants. They are fundamental mathematical constants and constructs.
What a number of governmen
Re: (Score:1)
If that part goes through, their next step will be to make encryption illegal.
Why even bother with that? ... just install a cranial implant in all citizens (except the deserving rich of course) that detects 'wrongthink' and automatically alerts he NSA.
Re: disgusting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barr has proven that he is a constant liar. The idea of him having expanded capabilities is just plain SCARY.
This is a systemic problem. It shouldn't be possible for one person to scare you this much, there should not be that concentration of power or lack of balances.
Re: (Score:2)
Barr has proven that he is a constant liar. The idea of him having expanded capabilities is just plain SCARY.
This is a systemic problem. It shouldn't be possible for one person to scare you this much, there should not be that concentration of power or lack of balances.
You have no idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Cognitive dissonance makes more compliant citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
USA FREEDOM Authorization Act
Continuing Congress' tradition of naming laws as the exact opposite of what they contain.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the title never specified whose freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
"USA FREEDOM Authorization Act
Continuing Congress' tradition of naming laws as the exact opposite of what they contain."
French Fries?
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is perfect, actually. It authorizes you to be free! Kafka would be jealous.
Ben Franklin said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Does this apply to Covid-19 lock-down orders too?
Re: (Score:3)
The saying? Yes. The common sense application of an extraordinary measure in a single extraordinary case? No.
Here's another great saying: "Stop fucking generalising"
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get any temporary safety. (And that quote is from a different context, so not applicable.)
If you don't even have probable cause to check what is going on, you don't actually know there is even a plot. If you knew there was an active plot, you'd already have probably cause to search anything remotely related to what information you already had.
Their "talking point" is just flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, before we even weigh that choice, we had better figure out whether the proposed course of action would have any beneficial effect whatsoever. People who do a job often conflate something that makes the job easier with something that is essential.
As for tradeoffs, we do them all the time. In fact that's what search warrant is, a tradeoff between liberty and security. That tradeoff is not so apparent because we're used to warrants, perhaps a little *too* used to them. They are a potent source of govern
The constitution is indeed a suicide pact (Score:3)
Specifically, it’s the implementation of the suicide pact first envisioned in the Declaration of Independence. A declaration that ends with “For support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
You know what? (Score:2)
They should also send at least one FBI agent to live with the people in every house in the country, just to make sure everyone is safe and is not planning anything nefarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the argument here would be that since your web browsing history is not a secret (from the sites you are visiting, from the web browser, and from the computer OS), that you do not expect the hist
Re: (Score:1)
As did every other congress critter and FBI agent. This is a systemic problem in any government that is grown too large. And this has very little to do with Barr, who is upholding due process and the like but with the FBI, which has recently become a rogue agency.
The Police & surveillance state .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Law enforcement is part of the government.
Stop giving them shit. They're the stormtroopers, the footsoldiers, the assholes who murder your friends in broad daylight, murdering 2 innocent people every single day, according to the DoJ statistics published.
These are the real terrorists. Who uses fear and violence (rather than an actual application of the law) to get what they or their masters want? The cops. Who murders casually, in cold blood, on video, and gets paid for it? The cops. Who enforces the bullshi
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement is part of the executive branch at all levels of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people mistake Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as being "liberal", they're completely wrong. One does not have a meteoric rise in Chicago Machine politics without having proved you're dirty and can stay bought.
Utter bullshit to the extreme... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sick of the "I have to have the power to oppress you in order to protect you" folks.
Dear Senate... you are becoming a greater threat to our "National Security" than the terrorists! Nix that... you are becoming Terrorists yourselves! People are living in fear of your shoot first and CYA later militarized police!
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Senate... you are becoming a greater threat to our "National Security" than the terrorists! Nix that... you are becoming Terrorists yourselves! People are living in fear of your shoot first and CYA later militarized police!
Congress, actually.
There is a possible solution that may have a chance, but only if 3/4ths of the States do it:
https://conventionofstates.com... [conventionofstates.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get Specific it would be Dear Legislature which comprises the House of Representatives and Senate.
The States themselves should indeed call a convention, however do remember that they themselves are guilty of doing nothing against the shoot first CYA later militarized police as well. The most important part of proper policing starts with your Sheriff. Sheriffs must be kept in check by State Government and the voters State Government must be kept in check by the Federal Government and the vot
Re: (Score:1)
Although I like the prospect of a convention of states, the states with the most legislative power are also the ones most in debt and highly dependent on the Federal government. If you really think NY or CA or MI will suddenly want the government(s) to become fiscally responsible (conservative) then you wholly misunderstand the Democrat platform.
So many live with the concept (Score:2)
That "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about?"
It is this thought process that needs to be addressed and corrected or we WILL end up in a police state.
Re: (Score:3)
That "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about?"
It is this thought process that needs to be addressed and corrected or we WILL end up in a police state.
While I agree with you that comment is at least 30 years too late. We are already in a police state, the issue that confronts us today is how to roll that back.
Re: (Score:1)
seize upon the revelations of the fisa court related to Carter Page, jump on the bandwagon with the republicans, and shove this reality down Democrat's throats.
under the last administration, an undercover CIA 'source' happened to 'volunteer' for a political campaign, and then the FBI 'accidentally' investigated his cover story for 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much a police state as a corporate state.
Our decline began with allowing corps individual rights.
Actually our decline began when we took this land from it's native occupants! :^)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am well aware of this, and looking for an argument perspective that will get these folks attention.
Without a hook to get their attention they often stick their head in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this just a problem.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The same argument could be said for monitoring anyone's activities, or needing "probable cause" to search someone's private home.
My point being that if you are going to create a law enforcement framework that needs anything resembling probable cause to invade someone's privacy under the notion of guilty until proven innocent, then this should not even be a matter for discussion. Of *course* you should need a warrant, and it shouldn't matter what the nature of the privacy is that is being invaded.
And similarly, if you are going to decide that probable cause is not needed for internet surveillance, then it should similarly not be needed for any of the numerous other things that ordinarily would require a warrant either, because contrary to what these apparently clueless idjits seem to think, privacy isn't somehow magically different just because it happens to be in a virtual space.
Re:Why is this just a problem.... (Score:4, Informative)
Not ALL LEOs, but *some* LEOs, and too many Congresscritters who listen to them, are so anal-retentive and obsessive-compulsive about wanting to control every aspect of everything around them, that they feel like they're going to piss their pants if they can't know everything about everyone, all the time. So they want more and more control, and to hell with peoples' so-called 'rights'. Have you ever had a cop tell you 'you have no rights'? I have. More than once. And they MEAN IT when they say it; they somehow forget that there is such a thing as The Constitution and Human Rights. They have the badge and the gun, so THEY are the LAW and THEY are the only ones who have any 'rights' -- and those 'rights' are the 'right' to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want, and maybe you get beaten, maybe you get SHOT if you try to stop them, or even argue with them about it.
No, I'm not making this up. In the hearts of some of them, they think this way, even if they're not so brave as to say it all out loud.
This is what they want for this country: Police in charge of everything, *YOU* have no 'right' to privacy whatsoever, and if you don't like it, have the nerve to actually protest against them, then maybe you need to be 'investigated', because one way or another they'll find something they can arrest and convict you for (even if they have to get 'creative' to do it).
Surveilling every last mouse click and keystroke you make on the Internet is just the beginning.
You give these people license to do whatever they want, and they'll have cameras and microphones in every room of your house, by law, 'for your protection', of course.
Oh and by the way: 'smart speakers', 'digital assistants', 'smartphones', 'smart TVs (with a camera and microphone and internet access)', and so on. We're already halfway there.
No, no tinfoil hats here. We're not to the Police State stage just yet, but the stage is being set for that to happen. The tech is already in place. All they're waiting for now is license to turn it all on whenever they want.
So what we all have to do is fight against Congress voting away our rights to privacy for the illusion of security. 'Warrantless searches' of any kind, digital or otherwise, cannot be allowed. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt, but it is very telling that the very same people who would say this are, in fact, most likely very protective of their own privacy...
There is simply no world in which you can adopt the innocent until proven guilty mindset while simultaneously disregarding privacy, and if you cannot presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, then it follows that the very people who are suggesting these sort of changes must be guilty until proven innocent, and I would
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it it's Alexandria Ocasio, but I really don't want see McConnell naked.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither do I, particularly.... at least it wouldn't make the person a hypocrite for proposing it.
My point is that I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who has ever proposed this kind of legislation in front of lawmakers or politicians did so while clothed, and that by being so clothed, they are hiding parts of their body from public view. This means that even while they are actively advocating the notion that privacy should not matter to people who are not doing anything wrong, they are simultaneousl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of Scott McNealy's (CEO of database server company Sun Microsystems) statement in 1998: "You have no privacy. Get over it." Anyone who thinks they have any privacy online 22 years later is living in Fantasyland.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm betting he was wearing clothes while he said it.
Hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've posted under my own name and email address since the late '90s. I've had the gmail address since they were still invite-only. Other than getting put on a couple of spam lists by the losers at Free Republic and having gotten a couple of death threats nothing has ever happened even though I don't hide that I live in the Seattle area and until last year (when we finally canceled the land line) was listed in the Seattle phone book. I've actually gotten several emails from people who support my views, mo
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and by the way why bother having an alias for your account name here when your (ostensibl
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that I didn't get spam, back before filters were good the jackasses at Free Republic put my email on a bunch of them. It was a nuisance for a while, but Google's filters eventually reduced it to almost nothing.
I post as Cusco because CuscoF2 was my screen name all over the Internet when I first signed up for a SlashDot account in the late '90s. I eventually lost that password and had to create a new account so dropped the F2 (was part of our address when we lived in Peru).
With your userID you
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet is getting worse not better, and idiots on it are getting more and more wound up. If you're easy to find in real life then someone will eventually try to ruin you -- or kil you.
Crimes should come first (Score:4)
No surprise. (Score:4, Interesting)
We let known nut cases amass private arsenals and don't arrest them until after they shoot up a school or shopping mall. So what is different here?
I know this will be modded Troll because people will have to defend what they imagine the 2nd amendment to be and they think that's the way to do it.
But still -- the question is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have guns and do awful things to innocent people with them,
therefore all people with guns will eventually do awful things to innocent people with them,
therefore we should ban all guns (except for military and police). That'll fix everything!
'Inductive reasoning' is probably the biggest, nastiest logical fallacy of them all. Please knock that off.
Do you want to live in an out-and-out Police State? Because that's how you get a Police State!
This is why I cant vote Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
Now don't get me wrong here, there are probably plenty of Democrats who will vote for this but the fact that it's Republicans pushing this bill is yet another example of why I can't vote Republican. Reining in government overreach is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of the Republican party but in reality it only involves programs pushed by Democrats, everything else is fair game including slowly turning our country into a surveillance state.
Debt? Let the money flow!
illegal immigration? Your best solution to this problem is to waste billions on a wall? Get back to me when you have a ladder proof idea that might actually make a meaningful impact
Government Overreach? No such thing if it's a bill proposed by us!
National Security? We havent had such poor relations with our allies in my lifetime.
Pretty much every value the Republican party espouses to have that has any overlap with my own political beliefs is all talk. To give them some credit though, their social conservative wing does at least seem to have the integrity to walk their talk but they'll never get my vote advocating for the policies they do.
On the other hand, the dems are far from perfect but they do occasionally do things to meaningfully improve our country like make health insurance affordable for millions of Americans. Even with that, Obama Care doesn't go after our system's core problem (cost) like Socialized Medicine would but it did in fact actually do something to help a problem our country is having.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is why I cant vote Republican (Score:4, Informative)
If you look at the trends over time insurance costs have continued increasing, but after the initial spike in premiums when the act passed the rate of increase has been pretty constant, which is really the issue with health care over the last 40 years. Premiums and cost of service continue rising year over year with no end in sight. The ACA's main goal was to increase coverage, it was mostly successful in that regard. When the public option got stripped from the plan any hope of it driving down costs went out the window. A larger reform of the system and how we treat and pay for health care will be necessary to make any change to costs.
Re: (Score:2)
No you certainly are not sure if I'm "old enough" but I am an age where I am open to learningand would be interested to read how Medicare/Medicaid had these direct results.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also quite curios as I've never heard this claim made before. Please justify it.
Re: This is why I cant vote Republican (Score:2)
Two sides of the same coin. Remember all the executive orders Obama used? He set some serious precedents for the expansion of Presidential power. Trump is building on that, of course.
The Democrats occasionally, accidentally do something good, no question. But they're right there expanding government power. Same for the Republicans.
Yhe huge expansion in emergency powers brought in by COVID? Both parties will keep and expand on those, and use them ever more frequently, for ever more trivial reasons.
The frog i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm under no delusions in regards to the Democrats and the high likelihood of government growing under them and while I think more could be said on the subject I do ultimately agree that Obama set very bad precedent with the volume of his executive orders. On the other side though I'm not at all anti government and I very strongly believe there are things the government can and should do for us so (for me at least) a growing government is not inherently bad, just something to be kept an eye on.
I also thi
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, when they were re-authorizing Section 215 back in March, the majority of "aye" votes in the House were Democrats. They have the overall majority, of course, so it's not surprising - but even looking at proportions, they were identical across both parties.
Unfortunately, this is not one of the issues on which the parties meaningfully differ. They know that "tough on crime" brings more political dividends than any downsides from those laws, so the only time they oppose them is when one of their own is spe
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here though is that Republicans are the ones that advertise themselves as being apposed to things like this. The Democrats are at least honest enough to not make fiscal responsibility a plank. They even sometimes put the money they collect towards us, the people, rather than trying to find new ways to shovel money at the affluent.
Maybe look at the root cause instead (Score:5, Informative)
Requiring federal agents to have "probable cause" to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to national security and would force the FBI to stand by while terrorist plots unfold on U.S. soil
Maybe, just maybe, should start looking at the root causes of terrorism instead - like bad policies where the U.S. interferes with the affairs of other nations/people affecting them negatively. I mean, there's a reason the reputation of the U.S. isn't that stellar around the globe.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
China spreading their influence and enforcing their agenda with little to no opposition
Do you know why China's 'New Silk Road' initiative is so enthusiastically received in the Third World? Because they're tired of a century of abuse by the US and seven decades of USAID/IMF/World Bank policies designed to rip the guts out of their economies and leave them in perpetual debt. The deals that China are offering are at least less one-sided, and build needed infrastructure that will benefit the country as a whole rather than just the foreign extractive companies.
Re: Maybe look at the root cause instead (Score:2)
Let me just say, that's very true for the US government and certain agencies, but I for one like Americans just fine. Thanks to Slashdot and similar places, I actually understand quite a bit of how Americans tick... Yes, even the ones that vote for trump. This is not met with a lot of understanding of my fellow Europeans though...
screw this, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Requiring federal agents to have "probable cause" to eavesdrop on the internet activities of American citizens poses a direct threat to national security and would force the FBI to stand by while terrorist plots unfold on U.S. soil, according to a leaked copy of talking points distributed to Senate lawmakers this month. From a report:
Right after 9/11, as a Republican then, I was sympathetic to this line of argument, and I lent support to it (although with hesitation.)
It has been one of the greatest political fuck-ups I've ever made. This argument holds no water, and with the current administration, it is being done maliciously.
Democrat or Republican or independent, or I dunno, fucking Klingon, we got to oppose such arguments. I seldom consider slippery-slope arguments. I make an exception to this.
Who cares about terrorists. What I want to know (Score:1)
is how we're stopping the pedophiles!
Re: (Score:2)
You've seen the average age of a senator or congressman? They're not threatened by pedos.
United States Surveillance Republic (Score:2)
That's what some of these brown-nosed assholes want to turn this country into. ARE WE GOING TO LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that happened long ago and the Reds had nothing to do with it at all, other than being a Wookie to point at.
Fear-mongering is the root of terrorism (Score:2)
Each time a politician exploits people's fear of terrorism to gain more power, I swear, I can hear a little baby-terrorist being born somewhere.
May I propose a law? (Score:2)
Make it unlawful to give laws misleading and suggestive names.
Re: (Score:2)
Like 'Opportunist'? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, crap. Missed the word "laws" in your post.
Lies (Score:2)
This is a lie. FISA explicitly allows going to get the warrant after the fact in an emergency, precisely to avoid the problem they are lying about.
Every president does this, and sometimes gets reversed. It is not unusual. Presumbly said info queers the court case at that point, but it is not held up during the emergency.
In summary, this is a lie.
Not this again! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that regular, random warrantless searches of all FBI agents should be conducted to ensure they aren't setting up a terrorist plot.
It's the only way.
Re: (Score:2)
We should give our government total access to our lives. Cameras be put in every room of our homes by law with full access by the state without a warrant. If someone has nothing to hide why should anyone care? ...
Here in the UK do we have plenty of surveillance cameras and while I'm fine with it and I don't mind more, does it not help that much, because now every teenager hides their face and wears a hoody, even though they're not criminals. Video evidence then ends up being used to document crimes, but often fails to identify the criminals and only once they've been caught and have been identified by eye witnesses does police know what to look for in the video evidence.
Fighting crime remains an endless battle. When