Skip to main content

View Diary: House panel slams NSA, administration spying program (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So now we depend on Republicans for our rights (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ScienceMom, Shockwave

    Boy are we screwed!

    •  And what a devastating thing to have to say (6+ / 0-)

      about Democrats.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:30:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No Democrat I know would blithely trust (0+ / 0-)

        or depend on a Republican.

        In fact, I don't know any Democrat who would so readily defend any Republican vote.

        •  Well, *you're* obviously not (3+ / 0-)

          the President of the United States.  He depends on and trusts in lots of them.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:13:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of Democrats (3+ / 0-)

          had no problem with Republican votes to bring about Obamacare or the stimulus either.

          A 'Democrat' should decide their support based on the merits of the legislation not which party it came from.

          We are not Republicans afterall.

          •  Alan Grayson has just offered an Amendment to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Words In Action, CroneWit

            the defense authorization bill that would re-establish the 4th Amendment.

            Per Digby:

            "Amendment to H.R. 2397

            Sec. 10002.  None of the funds made available by this
            Act may be used to obtain or seek to obtain information
            relating to an individual or group of individuals held by
            a third party in a system of records unless the individual
            whose name or identification information the Federal Gov-
            enment is using to access the information provides express
            and informed consent to the specific search, directly
            to the Government and not as a term of service, or the
            Federal Government obtains a warrant, upon probable
            cause,  supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
            describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
            things to be seized."

            •  Alan Grayson (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              is one of the few Democrats I could count on one hand who consistently acts like the Democrat he campaigned to be. The rest are cowards, charlatans and imposters. That class includes the President and many of his appointees.

              Security state zombies are everywhere. ☮ ♥ ☺
              Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue

              by Words In Action on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:29:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The NSA 90 day order to Verizon expires today. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Words In Action

                Will the the White Houserenew the court order ?

                The Obama administration is refusing to say whether it will seek to renew a court order that permits the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records on millions of Verizon customers when it expires at the end of this week.

                Officials declined to discuss what action they intend to take about the order at the center of the current surveillance scandal, which formally expires at 5pm Friday.
                Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, asked if he thought Obama should let the Verizon order expire, said: "Yes. This type of secret bulk data collection is an outrageous breach of Americans' privacy. If the administration feels this program is vital to our national security, it should declassify the secret court interpretations that justify broad data collection so Congress and the American public can debate it in the light of day."

    •  I will never make that mistake again. (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans protecting our rights has never happened and never will.  

      Therefor that's not what they are doing.  It doesn't matter what they say, how they say it or how many different ways they say it, and it doesn't matter how many times they say it, if Republicans claim they are voting to protect our rights, they are lying.

      •  Thats just silly (5+ / 0-)

        this whole conversation was about NOT VOTING to reauthorize, not some new legislation that we should be wary of. A 'real Democrat' should support any no-vote on the re authorization of the Patriot Act. Especially the man who originally voted against it because:

        The December 14, 2005 letter was passed around in the Senate to gather support for specific changes to the Patriot Act. Sen. Obama was particularly concerned about sections 215 and 505, which give the government two legal means to collect extensive business records (the FISA court and national security letters, respectively). Sen. Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter argues that the requirements for making these requests need to be tightened:


        The conference report would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records and other sensitive personal information under Section 215 of the Patriot Act on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. As business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have argued, this would allow government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans. We believe the government should be required to convince a judge that the records they are seeking have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, as the three-part standard in the Senate bill would mandate.
        •  Perhaps it is. There's something I believe that's (0+ / 0-)

          Even sillier.  All of these Obama supporters who voted for him because Republicans told lies, started wars and passed the Patriot act suddenly distrust him because he doesn't refuse the power and authority bequeathed to him from Republicans.

          Never mind that President Obama hasn't been found to be misusing that power like the Bush Administration has.  Never mind that the only instances of surveillance seem to be regarding true security leaks.  Never mind that Republicans are suddenly concerned about the legality of the patriot act.  Never mind that the very concerns Obama worried about in 2005 were addressed and tightened in July 2008, just months before Obama was elected.  The only thing that matters now is for Republicans to find a way to make Obama's use of the patriot act illegal but maintain the legality of their own use.

          It's ironic that Obama's concern about the patriot act as Senator is now under suspicion as President but Republicans who passed the legislation when they were in power and now are criticizing their own legislation under Obama are being hailed as protectors of American rights.  No suspicion at all about the reversal of their position.

          Why is everyone demanding that Obama stop utilizing the Patriot act instead of telling him to use it for what it was intended for.

    •  they still oppose right to privacy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ender, eztempo

      because that would protect abortions and reduce profits of data mining companies.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site