152
submitted 7 months ago by thenexusofprivacy to c/politics@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

That's it isn't it. You don't understand the program, and the result is its bad.

Section 702 is only the current iteration of a legal problem that has been brought to congress by FISA users since its inception. It really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and more to do with the inability of Congress.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

You don’t understand the program

I understand that whenever a centrist is dead wrong about something, they pull this gaslighting horseshit.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

HILARIOUS

You centrist! You're gaslighting me with facts!

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You pretended that a policy that didn't exist before 2008 provided the intel Bush ignored before 9/11.

You don't understand how linear time works, and have presented no facts.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

You don't understand how FISA was implemented. You'd rather be consumed by things you don't know about than become aware of things that are totally out of hand.

For instance, up the string I said that the courts have ruled that mobile location tracking wasn't an issue where a warrant was needed. Not only that, but you don't know mobile location tracking is commercially available. Anyone can buy the data, and that's wrong. Senator Ron Wydon has been working on this for years. Instead of being worried about all the rights you have that are not being taken away, worry about the those that are.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

You pretended that section 702 got us the intel Bush ignored prior to 9/11. It couldn't have, as it was implemented almost a decade later.

You lied.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

Sigh...if that's the best you can do, I am now bored.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

I'm not here to entertain you.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
152 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1987 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS