NSA and FBI fight to retain spy powers as surveillance law nears expiration

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...illance-patriot-action-section-215-expiration
Who watches the watchmen? Even if these "powers" were repealed, how can you regulate a clandestine agency? They will continue their operations regardless, expand them as needed, and nobody can do anything about it.

 

I really hope to see this blemish on American civil liberties put to an end. I can't believe this has so much support from conservatives who have so much distrust for government. This should be a bipartisan issue.

 

Those who support such governmental over reach are not really conservatives but mainly GOP dupes.

 

If its a bipartisan issue why only fault one side? Even when you offer up some hope man you still show partianship..

Perhaps instead of attacking Rand Paul you should stand with him

Last week, Senator Rand Paul, the Kentucky civil libertarian and potential Republican presidential contender, said the USA Freedom Act was too weak for him to support. He is instead urging the expiration of certain surveillance authorities under the Patriot Act next year, as he did unsuccessfully in 2011. He voted against cloture on Tuesday night.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/18/usa-freedom-act-republicans-block-bill

While it does seem like most of the support is from the right for this meta spying it has plenty of support from the left as well.. And i dont care what people SAY i care how they vote. Obama said he was against this before and then voted for it.

Again dont listen to what people SAY.

Get behind

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1466/cosponsors?q={%22search%22%3A[%22hr1466%22]}

 

Oh you better believe I'm pissed at democrats about this. But I'm mainly talking about the voters. It's tough to find conservative voters against this outside of libertarian camps. It's VERY easy to find liberal voters against this. For some reason it's difficult to find democrats against this.

 

Well it was renewed in 2009 and 2011 with barely a news story about it. So that tells me that the Democrats and President Obama were for it and didn't want any publicity.

So if it garners a lot of press attention this time then it means that the Democrats are going to want to make a big stink about it.

 

That is my issue with it it just seems like another chance to attack a side. They had chances to end this crap and didnt when it came time to vote we saw what happened....

My issue with this is if the spy agencies are suggesting these changes there probably is going to be plenty of wiggle room/loopholes/exploitable language for them to continue what they are doing.. We dont need feel good bills that give one side a pat on the back and victory dance we need to end this crap once and for all.

 

Well I'm pro surveillance so I'm probably in the minority on this forum, but my issue is that political support for these Patriot Act issues and the media coverage of it, is solely dependent on who's axe is being gored. During the Bush administration, there was pretty constant coverage of the Patriot Act and it's provisions, and lots of self righteous speeches by politicians who ended up voting for it. And of course during the Obama administration, the issue has totally disappeared, in spite of the Snowden revelations. We've had two renewals of the Patriot Act under the Obama administration and it's been hardly covered. So whether it's covered this time is contingent on if the Democrats and the President decide to radically alter it or not renew it.

 

It's frustrating on the conservative side because it's the one issue there isn't outrage about. Liberal voters have been outraged about it for 10+ years. Obama campaigned on it. And it's still one of the biggest letdowns of his presidency.

 

Again.. You wont let it sink it.. Campaigns are meaningless. I dont care how many D's said they were against it they voted for it!

 

Obama never voted for it and spoke against it while he was a state senator. The only other democrat with that record running for president was Kucinich. And he's as cuckoo as Ron Paul.

 

Didn't obama say he wouldn't sign the NDAA?
Didn't he say he would stop all this spying on innocent Americans?
Did he not say that it was only metadata?
Did he not have Holder stand down when clapper lied to congress about spying on Americans?
Did Obama not say he would protect whistle blowers?
Boy his record on civil rights aren't that great now is it?

 

It really is. I was hoping that he really would start dealing with this crap and have a more open government but nope, straight lies. That's why I like Rumsfeld, that guy may be evil but he was direct and to the point. If you said "so Mr. Rumsfeld do you eat children" he would just say "yes", no dancing around.

 

He resigned it into law...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html

Btw..

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s29

YEA for Obama...

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr3199

Seems he voted for it...

Strange that "Cuckoo" was against the Patriot Act.. Obama and Hilary voted for it... Again scream against something but you just wont lose the partisan crap.

 

You're right. I misremembered Obama's vote in 2006. But I never claimed any democrat was good on this issue. That's you making assumptions about me. I vote Green in most elections outside presidential ones. And would vote green in a presidential race if it wasn't a 2 party race. I'm an independent

 

Can we all be honest and just admit that it really doesn't matter if there is a law for or against spying? They are going to do it anyways
Do you live in the USA? Forget about your privacy.
These organizations were created specially for these "good" purposes.
Does anyone honestly believe that they'll stop if it doesn't get renewed?

 

Glad to hear it... We need more independents.

 

Just because an issue isn't being reported in the media every day doesn't suggest to me that it has gone away.

 

The legality and constitutionality of the NSA program has been upheld by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Memorandum Order, American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, Case No. 13 Civ. 9334 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2013). In this case, the court noted NSA metadata collection program was authorized by Congress and was subject to extensive oversight by all three branches of government. Prior to implementation, all members of Congress had classified notice that section 215 of the USA Patriot Act was used to obtain orders that substantially all of the telephone calls handled by telecommunications providers would be disclosed to the government. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Telephone metadata collected by the NSA is data disclosed by callers to a third party (viz., the telecommunications providers), and therefore not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

When the suit was filed, I called Executive Director Anthony Romero in New York and told him that the case was a loser, and suggested that the ACLU voluntarily dismiss the action rather than risk an adverse ruling on the Fourth Amendment; however Romero expressed confidence that the ACLU would prevail. I was surprised that the court did not dismiss the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. (The assertion of standing by the ACLU seemed rather speculative as there was no evidence of compromise of attorney-client communications, and the argument that the collection of the information would have "a chilling effect on people who would otherwise contact Plaintiffs" was tenuous at best.) Nevertheless, Judge Pauley found that the ACLU had standing to sue; but then went on to rule that the NSA surveillance was within the authority granted by Congress under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as amended and expanded under the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Pub.L. 107-56, § 215, 115 Stat. 272, 278 (codified as 50 U.S.C. § 1861). The government’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the motion of the ACLU for a preliminary injunction was denied. The ACLU has appealed this order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; however there is not likely to be a ruling on the appeal prior to Congress voting on the statutory surveillance program. The video recording of the oral argument can be viewed on C-Span at: http://www.c-span.org/video/?321163-1/aclu-v-clapper-oral-argument-phone-record-surveillance

 

In Smith v. Obama, the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief challenging the NSA metadata collection program was dismissed, the court citing Smith v. Maryland. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill suggested that the Supreme Court may be inclined to reconsider the decision in Smith based on Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in U.S. v. Jones and noting the order enjoining the NSA program in Klayman v. Obama. (Judge Leon's order has been stayed pending appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals.)The Memorandum Decision may be read at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-2_13-cv-00257/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-2_13-cv-00257-0.pdf

The plaintiff has appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where it was reviewed with some skepticism as to both the plaintiff's standing to sue, and the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. The televised oral argument can be viewed at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000006844

 

The Select Committee on Intelligence is the watchman.

 

In the US, the news media is the tool of the Democratic party, so they can avoid having some embarrassments covered. The Patriot Act and it's various renewals were massive news stories during the Bush administration. However the Patriot Act has been renewed twice, and signed by the President, twice, during the current Democratic administration; all with barely a mention in the news.

So I predict more of the same this year unless the Democrats switch sides and really try to seriously amend it or do away with it. Then it will get lots of coverage.

 

So....the ACLU helped provide case history that legitimized the NSA program. That's hilarious!

 

"Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties."
That's rich!! There is every expectation that my conversations are confidential and free from obtrusive government eavesdropping. However since we live in a police state where privacy is hard to come by that expectation is moderated by the reality of the ubiquitous NSA.

Perhaps the Supreme Court meant to say, because of our rulings...there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

Yeah, but it's bound to be one tumorous outgrowth of a far deeper-running cancer.