Abolish FISA & The Patriot Act Now!

[The Original Tree]

Burn it down!

Government corruption is infectious...if left untreated it grows so big you can't fix it....you must treat it from the top down or you are wasting your time....someone needs to begin asking Obama what he knew and when he knew it....

 

[The Original Tree]

Bush was a Globalist and did this country a disservice just like Clinton, like his father and like Obama did.

Abolish it? Yup, Hannity and Lavigne will be saying that here soon to, yet way back when Dubya made this law the line was "we have to give up some privacy for safety". I hope this burns them bad. And I'm thinking it will. Out of all the FISA warrants granted, how many people who had them used against them will get their cases tossed because doubt was cast on the FBI agents who got the warrants? FISA is a compassionate conservative's idea. Hope it keeps burning their ass's.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I am not trying to be mean here, but we had an entire system before FISA and there was accountability. You would know who applied for the warrant and what judge approved it and what The Justification was. And The Standard was much higher to get a surveillance warrant.

Okay, so you abolish FISA. What then? No surveillance at all? Or no control over surveillance at all?

There’s no control now. Who do you trust with this power? Not the FBI that’s for sure. So now what?

So like many things the government does now it was never needed. I agree.

 

[Crixus]

Bush was a Globalist and did this country a disservice just like Clinton, like his father and like Obama did.

Abolish it? Yup, Hannity and Lavigne will be saying that here soon to, yet way back when Dubya made this law the line was "we have to give up some privacy for safety". I hope this burns them bad. And I'm thinking it will. Out of all the FISA warrants granted, how many people who had them used against them will get their cases tossed because doubt was cast on the FBI agents who got the warrants? FISA is a compassionate conservative's idea. Hope it keeps burning their ass's.

He was and is. Screw them both.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

I’m done with this shit.

We are in a Surveillance State, and Secret Courts, Secret Witnesses, Secret Warrants, Secret Testimony, Spying on American Citizens simply because you suspect something are all Unconstitutional

We do not need to be The Soviet Union to protect ourselves. These people and this situation is out of Control!

Burn It Down!

pffft...get fuckin real bud...tooooo far past that...next they are taking your guns...then they are taking your SS and pensions.

Hopefully most of you boomers will be dead by then but as yee sow so shall yee reap.

It's coming home MFers...every last evil bit of it.

Enjoy the suck.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Abolish it? Yup, Hannity and Lavigne will be saying that here soon to, yet way back when Dubya made this law the line was "we have to give up some privacy for safety". I hope this burns them bad. And I'm thinking it will. Out of all the FISA warrants granted, how many people who had them used against them will get their cases tossed because doubt was cast on the FBI agents who got the warrants? FISA is a compassionate conservative's idea. Hope it keeps burning their ass's.

I don't hope it keeps burning their asses, because that means it will keep burning ours.

No thank you. Just keep statist idiots out of office!!!

.

 

[task0778]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

 

[Oddball]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I’m done with this shit.

We are in a Surveillance State, and Secret Courts, Secret Witnesses, Secret Warrants, Secret Testimony, Spying on American Citizens simply because you suspect something are all Unconstitutional

We do not need to be The Soviet Union to protect ourselves. These people and this situation is out of Control!

Burn It Down!

Didn't your god just extend the FISA courts?

And he is about to sign a bill that does nothing about the power of unlimited detention without due process the executive branch holds.

 

[bodecea]

I’m done with this shit.

We are in a Surveillance State, and Secret Courts, Secret Witnesses, Secret Warrants, Secret Testimony, Spying on American Citizens simply because you suspect something are all Unconstitutional

We do not need to be The Soviet Union to protect ourselves. These people and this situation is out of Control!

Burn It Down!

Talking about Mother Russia again, Comrade?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I’m done with this shit.

We are in a Surveillance State, and Secret Courts, Secret Witnesses, Secret Warrants, Secret Testimony, Spying on American Citizens simply because you suspect something are all Unconstitutional

We do not need to be The Soviet Union to protect ourselves. These people and this situation is out of Control!

Burn It Down!

 

[007]

What is Trump doing to stop it?

Shut up.... idiot.

 

[007]

Government corruption is infectious...if left untreated it grows so big you can't fix it....you must treat it from the top down or you are wasting your time....someone needs to begin asking Obama what he knew and when he knew it....

A damn good CIVIL WAR would fix the SHIT otta that crap.

 

[task0778]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

 

[hjmick]

Where were you people when I was railing against this shit eighteen years ago?

 

[Oddball]

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter on 25 October 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources, including law enforcement agencies, to spy on political and activist groups. The law itself was crafted in large part in closed door meetings between legislators and members of the Justice Department. The act was created to provide judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security.
.
.
.
In 1967, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment applied equally to electronic surveillance and to physical searches. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court did not address whether such requirements apply to issues of national security. Shortly after, in 1972, the Court took up the issue again in United States v. United States District Court, Plamondon, where the court held that court approval was required in order for the domestic surveillance to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Justice Powell wrote that the decision did not address this issue that "may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents".

In the time immediately preceding FISA, a number of courts squarely addressed the issue of "warrantless wiretaps". In both United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1973), and United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974), the courts upheld warrantless wiretaps. In Brown, a U.S. citizen's conversation was captured by a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General for foreign intelligence purposes. In Butenko, the court held a wiretap valid if the primary purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence information.
.
.
.
Post-FISA
There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. Two lower court decisions found FISA constitutional. In United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia

So - abolishing FISA means there would be no court approval and therefore domestic surveillance by the US Gov't would be illegal and unconstitutional. Foreign powers could surveil us and we wouldn't know it. Which means Americans would be more vulnerable to future terrorist attacks and espionage. The Russians and the Chinese would be ever so grateful.

Fix it. Or replace it. But with what?

What do you replace cancer with?

You asked me that before. It was a stupid question then, and it's a stupid question now. Domestic surveillance is a needed requirement for our gov't to combat foreign entities that do not have our best interests in mind. So maybe you should answer the fucking question instead of dicking around.

It's not a stupid question....FISA cannot be trusted.

You do know that, prior to 1977, Murica was able to do lots and lots of foreign surveillance without an abusive ex parte "court" working in secret like the Stasi, right?

 

[Lesh]

Abolish FISA and the Patriot Act?

Considering those things were passed BY REPUBLICANS

That's quite a reversal

 

[Lesh]

Where were you people when I was railing against this shit eighteen years ago?

They were being lockstep Republicans...just like they are now

No principles needed.

 

[Oddball]

Abolish FISA and the Patriot Act?

Considering those things were passed BY REPUBLICANS

That's quite a reversal

The idiotic Patriot Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98-1, dope.