GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:16 AM
Original message |
Is there a layman's description of the just passed FISA expansion ? |
|
I would like to understand this better so I can talk about it intelligently
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:18 AM
Response to Original message |
1. OK here's a rundown, anyone correct me if I'm wrong... |
|
Before the bill, FBI or whatever can wiretap anyone involved with foreign communications, that they think will gather information on possible, violent, operations in the United States. After 48 hours, they have to go to a judge to get a warrant for the wiretap, to continue the wiretap and make it admissible in court. This law does away with the second part.
|
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. I listened to some of the debate and there was a lot of talk about modernization... |
|
... they kept saying how the FISA law is from the 70's and does not work as well in the age of email and cell phones. Did this legislation address that?
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. As far as I'm aware of, not really... |
|
As far as the law is concerned, wiretapping laws, including FISA before this law was put in place, applied to any electronic communication. Whether it was phones(cell or not), e-mail, BBS boards(from the 1980s), or Internet chats, I don't think there was a difference. The whole point of FISA was to intercept time sensitive information before it comes to fruitation, like a ticking bomb scenario. FISA courts were put in place so that there would be SOME oversight over the wiretaps, this was partially in response to the COINTELPRO program of the FBI and domestic abuses by the CIA back in the 1950s and 1960s.
The fact of the matter is that the law, as written in the 1970s, was just fine, Bush just wanted the judicial oversight gone, mostly because its an obstacle to illegitimate wiretaps, on political opponents, for instance. The fact that so many Dems went along with this, in addition to trying to justify it as needed for national security, is an insult, to be frank about it.
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |
2. here is a very simple summary: |
|
The legislation that passed would allow for the intelligence agencies to intercept – without a court order – the calls and emails of Americans who are communicating with people abroad, and puts authority for doing so in the hands of the attorney general. No protections exist for Americans whose calls or emails are vacuumed up, leaving it to the executive branch to collect, sort, and use this information as it sees fit. from the ACLU. There is a post from yesterday by tahitinut with more.
|
HiFructosePronSyrup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
So did the democrats make some sort of deal and vote for it knowing full well it's ridiculously unconstitutional and would be stricken by the courts?
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. I have NO idea why they did it. I can't come up with a good reason, or any reason |
|
for that matter. I'm furious. I'm going to start calling senators' offices to ask why, but I have to calm down first.
|
spotbird
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
since the courts are rigged. The Democrats simply made a political decision that this would make them look tough of terror and get them home sooner.
|
htuttle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message |
|
"Now they're allowed to tap your phone, read your mail, track your web browsing and go through your sock drawer for no reason at all."
How's that?
Or this:
"Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants!"
|
lazer47
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Plain and Simple it means "Fuck you,, we'll do what we want" |
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:23 AM
Original message |
Here's what I've got...hope this helps... |
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:34 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Thanks, that looks like good info n/t |
cynatnite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:23 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Aug-06-07 11:23 AM by cynatnite
|
jazzjunkysue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:25 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Remember "Freedom of Speech?" |
|
It was a quaint idea that the Project for A New American Century didn't like all that much.
Now, if the words Allah, Jihad and qaida appear in the same phone call or email, your ass will never see the light of day, again.
Please tell my daughter I love her, and I didn't run away and join the circus.
|
jojo54
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:32 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Are there any DUers from other countries, besides Canada??? |
|
If so, then we'll ALL be under suspicion at some point in time.
Go ahead and let them look at my emails. They'll know for sure, JUST HOW MUCH I HATE THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Gonna arrest me for that??? Huh, Huh???
|
robinlynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
14. I'm from Brasil, and I call and email there a lot, and I am very upset. |
|
Glad you feel defiant, wish I could. I'm sick to my stomach.
|
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Aug-06-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message |
15. A description from CBS from cynatnite's post |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 02:51 AM
Response to Original message |