House Approves Extending the Warrantless Wiretapping Act 326
wiedzmin writes "The U.S. House of Representatives voted 301-118 today, in favor of extending the FISA Amendments Act until December 31st, 2017, effectively reauthorizing the broad electronic eavesdropping powers that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program."
Can this be retroactively legalized (Score:5, Insightful)
"that largely legalized the George W. Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program"
Sorry for the tangent, but I have a question. Does the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws prevent the legalization of illegal activity as a means to annul the culpability of preexisting perpetrators? In other words, should the people involved in warrantless wiretapping before our hideously evil overlords legalized this rape of our rights be culpable for their crimes?
Also, someone do us the favor of linking to a list of the despicable scum in the House who voted in favor of further rape today.
4 years later... (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats, Republicans: enemies of freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
We need a workers party that fights for a workers government! Down with the "war on terror" racist police state! Mobilize the power of the international working class to defeat U.S. imperialist war & drive the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Iraq & everywhere! For international socialist revolution to smash imperialist barbarism before it's too late!
Obama = Bush III (Score:3, Insightful)
And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....
Pathetic.
Re:4 years later... (Score:5, Insightful)
and still managing to blame Bush. Wow.
Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well. It would be more appropriate to blame 'despicable politicians'.
The only difference between Bush and Obama is the latter has signed off on exponentially more debt. Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.
Re:Obama = Bush III (Score:4, Insightful)
And the progressives, not to mention the rest of the dems just rolled over. Evil Bush! Evil Evil! We believe in civil liberties. Ha. What a joke. All you believe in is that your guy is in the white house. Not only has Obama and Dems (don't forget the house was Nancy's) failed to roll back anything of Bush/Cheney, they expanded the powers. And we won't even go down that war on drugs road....
Pathetic.
Why are you trying to confuse people with facts?
Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'm glad for this extension. There are still evildoers, particularly Islamic terrorists that are bent on harming America. Just wittness the latest attack in Libya.
Wait, how would warrantless wiretaps have prevented THAT? You planning to tap phones in Libya?
And don't we have warrantless wiretaps today and yet we still have THAT?
And if there is a risk that can be averted with a wiretap, why not get a warrant?
Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (Score:3, Insightful)
Do enjoy your essential security. Others will see to you having neither in the end, rest assured.
Re:It Has Kept Us Safe (Score:5, Insightful)
My freedom is worth nothing if I am dead.
Your life is worth nothing if you are not free.
If you are not free, you are merely a commodity. A resource to be used in the furtherance of your controller's desires.
Re:4 years later... (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither gives or gave a shit about our rights.
Nobody demands that they do. Oh, there's lots of pissing and moaning about it in some groups, but then they all go and reelect the same old bastards.
Re:Always happens with "Sunset" laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4 years later... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, seeing as how Obama will happily sign it as well.
Even if Obama WANTED to veto it (which, granted, he probably doesn't), what would be the point of doing that? The bill has enough majority to override the veto.
So I would mostly blame the representatives here.
Re:4 years later... (Score:5, Insightful)
what would be the point of doing that?
To show that he's against it? To do... something? Trying to stop it is far better than just allowing it to pass with no resistance.
Third party doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me we need to work to get the third party doctrine changed. It has no relevancy in anyones lives in the 21st century.
If successfull the governement will begin to loose court cases on constitutional grounds and be forced to stop.
Read it and weep:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:4 years later... (Score:5, Insightful)
74 democrats voted yes... The only difference between the 'sides' is that one is dramatically more unified than the other. Regardless the content of their thought, that's a sign of strength!
Most of the voters do too - there lies the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the votes tab: Roll no. 569.. Might not be there long
They have nothing to fear from this. They see it as a plus, and most of the voters do, too.
I really like America and I really hate to say this ---
America is no longer the land of the free
It has become the land of the free to be wiretapped, without warrant, without due process, without any valid reason
The government, the terrorist... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama = Bush III (Score:3, Insightful)
For a Republican congress to pass anything, all they need is a simple majority.
301 to 118 is hardly "a simple majority".
For a Democratic congress to pass anything requires a super-majority.
For the existing Senate, all it took to block passage of this extension was one person. One person is hardly a super-majority. I don't need to bother looking up whether the Senate is Democrat or Republican controlled, if all it takes is one it doesn't matter.
That's a pretty strong clue that one person could have stopped this before, and not a single Democrat could muster up the ability. Your rants about those awful Republicans are ignoring a large number of other, non-Republican guilty parties.
Obama is another story, though.
Obama is the same old story, rewarmed and rehashed and doing the same things, under the banner "Hope and Change". How could anyone see his pick for VP and not know that it would be four more years of the same old politics? And now the banner "You Hope we can Change what we didn't Change during our first four years."
Re:4 years later... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, most Democrats voted against this bill while an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it, and somehow you've concluded that the Democrats are just as bad. This logic is really pretty twisted.
Re:Obama = Bush III (Score:2, Insightful)
The Obama administration has been using these wiretaps, Obama is going to sign the law, and he is going to continue to implement it. If the Democratic party thought this act was wrong or bad, it could put a stop to it tomorrow. So don't tell us that Democrats are any better on these issues than Republicans.
The fact that some nominally Democratic representatives in the House voted against it (in order to appease some more liberal voters, knowing full well that it would pass anyway) doesn't change that one iota.
Re:I'm probably being tapped as we speak. (Score:3, Insightful)
What a warm, kind, and endearing person you are. I'm so very sorry that I live far, far away from your town of Hancock, Michigan. It must be a great place, with you living there.
But like other Americans, I'll defend your right to free speech vehemently, until it becomes sedition itself. Then you're on your own.
Re:Can this be retroactively legalized (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Most of the voters do too - there lies the prob (Score:5, Insightful)
which countries, on this planet, are not currently being tapped by their governments?
How is your question remotely relevant? You appare to be making the same kind of argument that Newt Gingrich did when he said we shouldn't permit the building of the "911 mosque" until Saudia Arabia permits christian churchs in their country.
In other words, you are saying that we should be judged in comparison to the worst countries out there rather than how well we live up to our own expectations for ourselves.
the odds are very low that people will resist the temptation to spy. it seems to be in our nature and it surely seems to be in the nature of those that aspire to country and state leadership roles.
That does not mean we should accept it. The people to which we entrust the reigns of power must be held to the highest possible standard. Abuse under the cloak of authority has been with us since the first human civilization -- the great thing about modern civilizations is that we have laws to punish that abuse. Now is not the time to go roll back modern life to a pre-magna carta standing..
Re:Nice strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no point in bring up a limitation such as threats against the president, as so many people are actually OK with freedom of speech being limited in that way. To reach the undecided, the uninformed, and any share of those people who have 'good hearts' but not a lot of on the street political education, you need to mention a limit more people would disagree with, such as the loss of freedom to carry more than $500 cash while travelling. My own favorite is, "if America is the land of the free, why do we have such a high perecentage of people in prison?" For people who appreciate numbers and hard facts, try "Why are there 17 different civilan agencies that have agents trained to used assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, and Claymore Mines? ". Try putting things in a context that involves the person you're speaking to. For example, it's amazing how many older people rethink their position on the Fed acting against medical marijuana dispensaries in CA, when they find out the avarage person considering marijuana for pain is about their age, and often wants it for a common disease of people their age (There's quite a number of medical pot users who have lost a foot or leg to type 2 diabetes, and want relief from phantom limb pain. Mention that to a 50 year old pro drug war conservative who has type 2 and fears they might be in the same situation some day, and watch the cognative dissonance at work.).