Senators sound alarm over Patriot Act extension

Source: Los Angeles Times

Senators sound alarm over Patriot Act extension
"Today the American people do not know how their government interprets the language of the Patriot Act," Wyden said. "Someday they are going to find out, and a lot of them are going to be stunned. Some of them will undoubtedly ask their senators: 'Did you know what this law actually did? Why didn't you know? Wasn't it your job to know, before you voted on it?' "

In an interview, Udall said he wasn't even allowed to discuss details about the government's intelligence-gathering with fellow senators unless they go to a secure room in the Capitol designed to thwart eavesdropping.

But in a statement before the vote, Udall said the law allows the government to "place wide-ranging wiretaps on Americans without even identifying the target or location of such surveillance; target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations, and collect business records on law-abiding Americans, without any connection to terrorism."

Nonetheless, most members of Congress, including others who have received the classified briefings, apparently did not share their concerns. The Senate passed the extension, 72-23, with Wyden and Udall voting "no." The bill cleared the House, 250-153.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-patriot-act-alarm-20110602,0,5848819.story

I think that's the way they would play it.
Off to the privatized prison with you!

The original vote was on a completely manipulated piece of filth that the amBush admin came up then stampeded it through not letting congress read it through even once.

"The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopian novel, a work of science fiction or speculative fiction,<1> written by Canadian author Margaret Atwood<2><3> and first published by McClelland and Stewart in 1985. Set in the near future, in a totalitarian theocracy which has overthrown the United States government, The Handmaid's Tale explores themes of women in subjugation and the various means by which they gain agency. The novel was inspired by Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which is a series of connected stories ("The Merchant's Tale", "The Parson's Tale", etc.).<4>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid%27s_Tale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCQLPzl7ijk&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LulpbAAcQ_E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXAMyKQNmHI

since the patriot act was first passed- and plenty of "democrats" voted for it

Corporatism strikes deep,
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step outta' line, the Man come and take you away!

It's time to stop, children,
What's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

(Adapted from CSN&Y song)

Yay... :sarcasm:

Yet one more tally on this administration's list of "achievements".

It is crucial that civil liberties in this country be preserved otherwise the terrorists will win the battle against American values without firing another shot."
Senator Russ Feingold (D — Wisconsin)

The terrorists won, big time. :(

He accomplished his objective. He has us turning on ourselves. :banghead: We walked right into
that one...head held high and waving the flag all the way. Thanx to the palin generation...and all
those who follow her and her ilk. Goodby Russ...you are missed.

So, yeah, I'd call that a win for them.

So true...

In an interview, Udall said he wasn't even allowed to discuss details about the government's intelligence-gathering with fellow senators unless they go to a secure room in the Capitol designed to thwart eavesdropping.

Elected officials are our representatives -- that's all --

and this government exists at our pleasure -- that's all --

The people have a right to know everything about our government --

Yep. Remember when the word glasnost was cool?

:patriot:

Do you know why the 4th amendment was written?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
was a result of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

I suspect Obama knows this, rather than some modern interpretation.

Also, just FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

A Constitutional scholar would know that the 4th wasn't intended to prevent all searching, as the "unreasonable" word in there was not accidental, and would also know that searching and seizing is only unconstitutional (without a warrant) when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves, or sending international internet traffic, or otherwise doing your business in public, the 4th doesn't apply, as you have surrendered your right to privacy.

"If you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves, or sending international internet traffic, or otherwise doing your business in public, the 4th doesn't apply, as you have surrendered your right to privacy."

It's alarming how absolutely wrong you are, and how absolutely sure you are that you're right.

:wow:

Not even a specific statement about nuance and details I glossed over? No actual argument?

Here, these might help to make a better counter argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._U.S._District_Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978

The controlling factors are whether or not communications are domestic, *and* have a reasonable objective expectation of privacy.

"broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves" Not private.
"sending international internet traffic" Not domestic.
"otherwise doing your business in public" Not private.

Some more background and starting links can also be found in here (though the ACLU lost on standing issues):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._NSA

Although I have no idea why you're citing Katz because it undermines your grossly distorted viewpoint. The Court held that a man using a pay phone (i.e., a public utility connected to a federal communication network) was entitled to protection, i.e., the fact that he was using a publicly available electronic device to communicate did not make his communications "public."

Using the "airwaves" (or the internet for that matter) to conduct private communications does not eliminate the expectation of, or right to, privacy such that the need for a warrant is obviated.

Your authoritarian twist on reality is absolutely frightening coming from a self-proclaimed Democrat. What you clearly aren't, however, is an attorney.

You're disturbed that people could listen? That doesn't make sense, it's like claiming that you have a right to not be listened to.... when you're shouting in the town square.

Oh, and if you don't like the wikipedia links, try the supreme court ruling themselves. (Wikipedia links to them).

You're moving the goal posts. No one would claim that a publicly broadcast radio station is subject to privacy. That doesn't even make sense.

A cell phone call or email, however, is.

Yes, it doesn't make sense, which is why I asked.

Cell phones make for a much more interesting case (less so now, though)... because the older ones broadcast unencrypted, on single bands, in such a way that *anyone* with a radio tuner could listen in to them. They were, in essence, miniature broadcasting radio stations. Over the years, the technology got more complex, and they started broadcasting over multiple frequencies, and encrypting the traffic, for most of the calls (though some default back to analog mode when calling out of network, out of area, or when roaming).

Katz is really important in considering such things, where a public phone booth *with a closed door*, where the call itself was being *paid for*, created an expectation of privacy in the booth... measures were actively taken to by the user to ensure that even though something was being done in public, it could be thought of (by the user) as being considered private.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347

Related to cell phones are similar broadcasting devices such as WiFi, where there are both versions that create a level of privacy (such as password access and WEP), and "open" versions, where anybody with a receiver (such as, oh, a laptop, iPhone, etc.) can listen in... it's a broadcasting radio station, and if you don't "close the door", i.e., use WEP, both ends of WiFi are pumping that unencrypted data out to everybody in the coverage area.

That's SCA/ECPA territory.... third party doctrine holds that an ISP has the records, not the user, so it's *not* covered by the 4th. I know you don't like wikipedia, but it tries to sum up the mess THAT pile of legislation is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act

You get 180 days of privacy, and ISP entities not dealing with the public (universities, businesses) only need a subpoena.

Here's a relevant decision:
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0252p-06.pdf

i have had in a long time

How special we are in the U.S., two Senate Democrats voted no. Of course this will never be used against
a political opponent..nah. That'll never happen.

Along with 18 Democrats, and 4 Republicans, Independent Sanders made 23 No Votes in the Senate.

So we're somewhat special I guess, kind of like when only 32 House Democrats, 12 in the Senate voted yes for the Military Commission Act 2006.

Our numbers are bleak.

Are we trusting our lawmakers to follow our constitution and bill of rights, or are they reneging on our rights and privileges because they get lobbying funds? Is this treasonous? Is the fraud? Is this embezzlement of public funds and the dismantling of our public trust?

We need to fight back. Fire them, for they act like they know not what they are doing? Thank Gopod for whistle-blowers and good lawmakers who stand up.

to speak briefly with Mark Udall. I thanked him for maintaining a voice against the PATRIOT Act. He's concerned that many people have forgotten about it, others have no idea of its dangers. We have to keep adding our voices. We have to.


-

They'll get a nice sternly-worded letter, with a hearty "Fuck You", in their postage paid envelope, instead of a check.

Under the spreading chestnut tree,
I sold you and you sold me,
There lie they and here lie we,
Under the spreading chestnut tree.

That's so bleak. Thanks, I needed the lol. :)

What senator would want to seen voting no for something Patriotic ?
It's all in the merchandising, then you open the box and it's not what you expected.

FTA:

'"There's absolutely nothing in the law that would prevent them from using 215 to do bulk grabs of stored information," said Michelle Richardson, an American Civil Liberties Union lobbyist.

Kevin Bankston, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "I expect that the main concern is that they are obtaining cellphone records in bulk masses, often pertaining to people who have no link to spying or terrorism."'

That's a severe failure of imagination, if not knowledge, right there.

The bulk storage of information, and bulk mining, goes way back. It just wasn't "authorized". PATRIOT gave it additional legal cover, should it be needed in court, but the data collection and data mining itself has been around for 50+ years.

n/t

kills the FREEDOM that used to ours here in the USA. Orwell lives.

:kick:

We've already hit the iceberg and steering away from it now doesn't help any.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BTurGU7vgTE/S9WqLP5_RHI/AAAAAAAACj0/ugWYisRu_ic/s320/01-01-09+-+Barack+Obama+-+Holding+a+hit+from+his+bong.jpg

Not his fault really. Except for George Washington, American Presidents have NEVER given back any power they have taken.

Hillary would have done the same.

Our country has changed, and the change is away from a free, open, democratic republic.

Get used to it.

Wave the flag, Praise Dog, and "SeeSomething, SaySomething"

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: "Report suspicious activity to your local police or sheriff. If you need help ask a Wal-Mart manager for assistance." !!!

Sadly, you can't make this stuff up (http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1291648380371.shtm)

The great experiment is failing: Perhaps next time?

freedom had begun. But not really. Communism had been our mortal enemy. Thousands died fighting it's expansion in Asia. Nuclear arsenals (still with us) threatened human existence on this planet (and still does!). The Soviet bloc fell on the weight of its own rot. We needed a new enemy. Since China was proving itself to be more inclined toward State Capitalism rather than communism, that huge "market" would not make a good "enemy" to justify a huge military industrial complex. Enter Al Qaeda, created in part by the CIA. An ally turned enemy, comprised of several hundred radical Islamists (90s). So dangerous and far reaching, we are told, that it is now time to give up many of our rights to fight them. In spite of the expertise of the KGB, warrants were still required for U.S. government agencies to spy on our own citizens. And, yes, there were abuses during the Vietnam war that led to FISA. Still, is Al Qaeda really that powerful? Or has the campaign against them infused them with a power that they never would have otherwise had?
I'm not buying it. As others have already pointed out, dead or alive, Osama Bin Laden won.
The Patriot Act is absolute proof of his victory. I want my rights back!

It's so wrong that people ever think there is anything remotely okay with this bill.