PDA

View Full Version : Proposal to restrict NSA phone-tracking program defeated



Common
07-24-2013, 08:24 PM
A controversial proposal to restrict how the National Security Agency collects Americans’ telephone records failed to advance in the House by a narrow margin Wednesday, a victory for the Obama administration, which has spent weeks defending the program. Lawmakers voted 217 to 205 to defeat the proposal from an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative members. Those lawmakers had joined forces in response to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, that the agency has collected the phone records of millions of Americans — a practice that critics say goes beyond the kind of collection that has been authorized by Congress.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/proposal-to-restrict-nsa-phone-tracking-program-defeated/2013/07/24/af233280-f47e-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html?hpid=z1

fyrenza
07-24-2013, 09:30 PM
SCREW NSA ~

NEW Plan :

Everyone buys disposables, and actually throws 'em away when they run out of minutes!

jillian
07-24-2013, 10:25 PM
A controversial proposal to restrict how the National Security Agency collects Americans’ telephone records failed to advance in the House by a narrow margin Wednesday, a victory for the Obama administration, which has spent weeks defending the program. Lawmakers voted 217 to 205 to defeat the proposal from an unlikely coalition of liberal and conservative members. Those lawmakers had joined forces in response to revelations by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, that the agency has collected the phone records of millions of Americans — a practice that critics say goes beyond the kind of collection that has been authorized by Congress.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/proposal-to-restrict-nsa-phone-tracking-program-defeated/2013/07/24/af233280-f47e-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html?hpid=z1

They should get rid of the FISA courts and have to get real warrants....

if there was an emergency that required them to act without a warrant, it should have to be under one of the existing exemptions.

fyrenza
07-25-2013, 05:38 AM
Oh, LOOK! Jill agrees with me!

(you get to do ^that,^ right? REwrite whatever an Ignored person posts?
IF no one replies to their blatherings in, oh, say 2 ~ 7.5 hours?)

But, HEY! KEEP your subscription service ~

'cuz YOU'LL never get crosswise with a microscopically in depth look at YOUR life,
since you're carrying the Party Line and all.

REread, ... or perhaps just READ

"1984."

And might as well let ALL of us/US see what you're doing in your bedroom
since even THAT isn't above scrutiny.

Reply, right after me, again! This is FUN!!!

jillian
07-25-2013, 06:01 AM
Oh, LOOK! Jill agrees with me!

(you get to do ^that,^ right? REwrite whatever an Ignored person posts?
IF no one replies to their blatherings in, oh, say 2 ~ 7.5 hours?)

But, HEY! KEEP your subscription service ~

'cuz YOU'LL never get crosswise with a microscopically in depth look at YOUR life,
since you're carrying the Party Line and all.

REread, ... or perhaps just READ

"1984."

And might as well let ALL of us/US see what you're doing in your bedroom
since even THAT isn't above scrutiny.

Reply, right after me, again! This is FUN!!!

what are you talking about? i replied to my friend, @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) when i got on the board.

and if you obsessively respond to every active thread, you might expect all kinds of posters to post after you.

funny how that works.

Common
07-25-2013, 06:10 AM
They should get rid of the FISA courts and have to get real warrants....

if there was an emergency that required them to act without a warrant, it should have to be under one of the existing exemptions.

Democrats and republicans voted against it Jillian

jillian
07-25-2013, 06:23 AM
Democrats and republicans voted against it Jillian

yes... but clearly not enough.

and, frankly, even if they want to keep FISA courts (though I don't see any legitimate reason for them), the FISA judges certainly shouldn't all be chosen by the Chief Justice

Mainecoons
07-25-2013, 06:15 PM
This may help:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/25/a-different-amendment-restricting-nsa-spying-was-passed-overwhelmingly-by-the-house-but-no-one-is-talking-about-it/

Notice the overwhelming bipartisan vote.


Here is the exact phrasing of the Pompeo amendment (emphasis added):
None of funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Security Agency to–
(1) conduct an acquisition pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the purpose of targeting a United States person; or
(2) acquire, monitor, or store the contents (as such term is defined in section 2510(8) of title 18, United States Code) of any electronic communication of a United States person from a provider of electronic communication services to the public pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.