Who's Protecting America? Not Congress

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FFTT, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #1
    "The Protect America Act." [​IMG]
    Another example of a Congressional Bill that does everything exactly opposite of it's noble deceptive title.

    Congress just granted the Bush administration even broader powers
    allowing warrantless surveillance under the control of Alberto Gonzales!!!

    I sure as hell hope all of you take the time to voice your disgust with
    your local representatives.

    I am furious that Jim Webb voted to pass this bill.

    The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal governmentís terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a due process.

    The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

    The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would expand the governmentís authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.

    No Republicans voted against the bill.

    The following Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Carper (Delaware); Bob Casey (Pennsylvania); Kent Conrad (North Dakota); Dianne Feinstein (California); Daniel Inouye (Hawai?i); Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota); Nancy Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Mark Pryor (Arkansas); Ken Salazar (Colorado); Jim Webb (Virginia).

    Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. Joe Lieberman voted ...well, you know how he voted.

    It just keeps getting better don't it?
     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    Yeah, I guess there isn't a thread on this is there?

    Of course it's disgusting. It doesn't protect us at all. All it does is remove the need to bother with an easy to get warrant. Even after the fact. All it does is remove oversight and give more power to people who've proved time and time again that they can't be trusted. Waiting for some one to come in here talking about how we all hate America and want to be blown up, even when confronted with the obvious facts about this. I'm reminded once more of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

    Hopefully, in six months when this is up for review again, they actually grow some spines and do something to stop it... if it isn't too late.
     
  3. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #3
    60 to 28 with a Democrat majority? Sounds like a really contested piece of legislation.

    Don't take calls from terrorists and you won't have anything to worry about. If you think that all our calls aren't already monitored, you'd be fooling yourself.
     
  4. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #4
    I am not really worried about this personally, but I really think there should be some sort of oversight other than the AG. I find it strange that so many democrats actually voted for this. I guess they wanted to go on vacation more than stand up to the president.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    I'd say you're right.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Fear mongering still works. Bunch of spineless wussies we've got on the D side of Congress eh? Mr. 26% says jump, and you do? Seriously, grow a pair. The rabid right isn't going to cut you any slack for voting for this bill. News flash! The right is going to call you soft on terror NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU VOTE.

    And to all the righties supporting this - would you have been fine with Janet Reno reviewing warrantless wiretapping? Be honest...
     
  7. FFTT thread starter macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #7
    Most likely they've re-worded their language to make sure what they have
    already been doing is not illegal.

    Therefore we can't say they were illegally wire tapping people retroactively.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #8
    That reasoning is very...Kremlinesque.

    And that's no excuse. It's a little like arguing because we have corruption in government, we shouldn't get upset by even more corruption.
     
  9. Winterfell macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Location:
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
    #9
    I write and email my representatives fairly often, not that it does any good. Good ol' Oklahoma senators and congressman are pretty useless, and I've no illusions that my letters/emails make any difference.

    Watching Oklahoma congressman/senators debating during election time is like watching them debate which one is more backwards.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    No one is going to argue that the Dems suck.

    With no oversight, you don't worry about abuse? You'd be ok with Hillary doing it? You're ok if we're spying on people who don't have anything to do with terrorism? Without the oversight, how would anyone know?

    As we've already seen, they've abused their power in other similar cases, like what happened with the protestors in NY during the Repub convention and others that had nothing to do with terrorism, yet you honestly say you're not worried they're going to do the same or worse with no oversight?

    Do you even read what you're posting anymore? What was that you said in the other thread about freedom? You really think this is ok? You aren't worried about privacy? Abuse? You really think this is all about terrorism and nothing else?

    If they have nothing to hide, why can't they just get warrants like the Constitution clearly states?
     
  11. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #11
    I take it you support a national gun registry as well? Last time I checked guns tend to be more dangerous than phones. To be even more analogous we should have a registry and tag every gun with a GPS locator so we can tell when you use your gun and who you use it with...

    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear...
     
  12. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #12
    I'll repeat again what I said. The government has been monitoring phone calls for years and will continue to do so whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. IF calls are elevated to "interesting" status then there are procedures for escalating the investigation and if a decision to move forward is made then warrants and such are sought. No prosecution can take place until a warrant is obtained. That doesn't keep the government from trying to establish probable cause.

    By the way, there were several Supreme Court rulings on phone calls and especially on communication that is broadcast over the airways and the bottom line is that now adays you have little expectation of privacy if you can be overheard whether you use a phone or not.

    Of course I'm worried about abuse, but that's never going to prevent it from happening. All you can do is count on your attorney to make sure that the letter of the law is followed if you are ever charged with anything.
     
  13. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #13
    We are trying to discuss what things should be done and you come back and say nothing can be done except count on your attorney. If congress changes the law enough, your attorney wil not be able to do anything to help you. I think something could have been done and congress could have stood up to the presidents demand.
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Exactly-no one should have to have an attorney to protect what is already stated in the constitution- right to privacy. If that's where we're at, then we need to throw in the towel on this government.

    What happens to people who can't afford attorneys and are innocent? Oh- that's right, I forgot. According to some people here, poor (or lower middle class) people are immoral therefore deserve whatever happens to them.
     
  15. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #15
    We're talking about wiretapping here. People kill people. A registry of dangerous people would be more useful than a registry of inanimate objects. How about tagging people convicted of a crime with a GPS locator. I'd rather know where they are.</sarcasm>
     
  16. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #16
    Either investigators got a valid warrant for evidence against you or they didn't. Even the dumbest public defender could work with that.

    Phones, internet, email, text messaging - it's all monitored and if flags are raised then it will be followed up and a proper investigation put together. It's a fact and will continue to be no matter who's in charge.
     
  17. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #17
    And phones are inanimate objects as well. Someone could just as easily break into my house and use my phone or steal my cell phone.

    If we could track the terrorists via GPS great. Why not monitor weapons for signs of illegal usage like you seem to think we should monitor phones. A gun registry would be a start but to be close to wiretapping we'd need the GPS tags. Cell phones can be triangulated and land-lines map to addresses. Knowing what number called what number when/where would be similar to tracking every time a gun was used and where. I fail to see the difference. Yet any sort of gun control is bad, but for phone calls, "if you have nothing to hide, why worry?"

    I'd also be willing to wager that a lot more people have been killed in this country by criminals with guns than by terrorists, so why is it that we are not tracking firearms for signs of criminal activity?
     
  18. Mord macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    UK
  19. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #19
    Good. Really Patriotic.
    NOT.

    Because some men are hijacking the country and leading it into tyranny we should give up and become socialistic slaves- I mean caring employees…

    Yeah, that's how we got America. That's what winners do- throw in the towel.

    REAL men get guns and protect their communities. They stand up to people who come to town looking to oppress us. They kill other men who think that this republic will ever be in the hands of someone other than every free man born here. Real men fight and die for liberty, never giving in to the demands of slaves or BANKERS. Never giving up one speck of the freedom that our ancestors fought for.

    I can guarantee that Bush and all the R's and D's can say they will pass all the laws they want, but if they came to enforce them on my street, there will be the second American civil war.

    Oh, they listen to the calls, how you gonna fight that????
    Don't care what they hear. Let them hear this and tremble in fear of the three hundred million firearms in this country and the 70 million gun owners. Let them hear that me and mine are ready for their martial law and we've got one hell of a response planned. And you know what? None of that response has to do with throwing in the towel. :mad:
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  21. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #21
    Come to my town waving that flag of socialism. No really, I dare you.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Why on earth would I want to go to your town? :confused:
     
  23. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #23
    Jesus Wept! I don't believe you just typed that.

    Incidentally your location is home to two major publishers of socialist material. Should you not be out waving your gun/dick at them.
     
  24. killr_b macrumors 6502a

    killr_b

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Location:
    Suckerfornia
    #24
    Who?
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    SocialistGoogle is your friend.
     

Share This Page