So most of us now agree, so why isn't it stopping? We don't control
congress, money does.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTairnaut,At least my numbers
weren't in the tens of thousands when there are only 535 people in both
Houses combined.Anybody who can post tens of thousands of votes and
not even realize their numbers are WAY off before posting it... has no room to
criticize others for "posting gibberish".====== I said - and repeat -- The DN comment box did not paste the format as
written at 2:06 pm, so I RE-posted at 2:27 when I discovered the format
error.Besides -- Even with your Assumed "both" Houses
-- The Republicans voted FOR the spying extension and expansion by over a
2 to 1 ratio over Democrats.Even in the Senate - Nearly ALL
Republicans voted FOR it, along with the few exception rouge Democrats.Give it up, and just admit when you are clearly wrong - and also that the GOP
is primarily to blame for it.
The Real Maverick,I don't know if Rebubs blame Obama for
"Everything". But I know SOME people who would like to give Obama a
PASS on everything.You have to admit that Obama has to own at least
HIS role in the Patriot Act being renewed into law, and HIS
administration's use of the Patriot Act. I mean you have to admit that HE
authorized these surveillance programs... Don't you?OK.
That's all I'm saying.I don't like it. Didn't
like it in the beginning (because of it's potential for abuse).
Don't like what Obama is doing with it now. At least I'm consistent.
How about you?
airnaut,I gave you the roll call from both the Senate and the HOR. Read
the whole thing before ranting. When I say "Congress" I
mean both the Senate and the House of Representatives. But you can't just
combine them. I give the numbers and comments verbatim as they appeared in the
"Senate and House roll call" site. At least my numbers
weren't in the tens of thousands when there are only 535 people in both
Houses combined.Anybody who can post tens of thousands of votes and
not even realize their numbers are WAY off before posting it... has no room to
criticize others for "posting gibberish".
Great letter, Mr. Rodier!
Mike, your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment ignores a long string of
SCOTUS cases involving the Third Party Doctrine, including:Katz v.
US (1967) ("What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own
home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.")US v. Miller (1970) (Sharing financial transaction records with a bank loses
privacy protections of Fourth Amendment.)Smith v. Maryland (1979)
(Dialing phone numbers "assumed the risk that the [phone] company would
reveal to police the numbers he dialed.")Plus a lower court
decision in US v. Choate (1978)(The Fourth Amendment does not preclude the
Government from copying information on a posted letter's envelope.)This is well-settled law. The Government must still obtain a warrant
based on probable cause to actually read the contents of records rather than
analyze their surrounding metadata as NSA does. But nothing in Snowden's
allegations suggests that this isn't happening indeed, *that* should be
more frightening to people than if there were laws being broken.These facts are not an endorsement of NSA's program. However, Mike, the
Fourth Amendment needs buttressing to preserve the meaning you believe it does.
This partisan finger-pointing is ridiculous. What we have is the outcome of
decades of building up a national security apparatus to win the Cold War, kicked
into overdrive by the aftermath of 9/11. Both parties own this.
@SEYSandy, UTSo tell me, you defenders of Obama: are you ok
with what he and his administration are doing with regard to this issue? ======= 1. I'm not a defender of Obama on this matter
of the Bush and Republican Patriot Act, and subsequent NSA spying.2.
I'm disappointing watching Barrack Obama morph into a GW Obama.3. I am a man of integrity, and have fought against it everyday for the past
12 years - while the ultra-conservatives posting have called me [a Veteran] a
traitor, un-Patriotic, and un-American for crying foul.4. Who's
crying now? [hypocrites]
So tell me, you defenders of Obama: are you ok with what he and his
administration are doing with regard to this issue? Please correct me if
I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're just fine with it. I hear
no criticism of anything they're doing. Where do you stand on the issue
Repubs continue to blame Obama on everything. Yet, they forget that the hundreds
of repubs in DC which have voted to renew he patriot act. Had Obama vetoed it,
repubs would have overruled him. Not only that, but these same posters blasting
him for signing it would have blasted him for going "too easy" on
terrorism and not protecting us.Kind of a catch 22 for Obama. It's these types of hypocrisies which only hurt the GOP. We see
through the smoke and mirrors and recognize that the GOP has no answers to
today's problems. They merely wish to play games.
From the Huffington Post: "WASHINGTON — Minutes before a midnight
deadline, President Barack Obama signed into law a four-year extension of
post-Sept. 11 powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of
terrorists."It's an important tool for us to continue
dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat," Obama said Friday after a meeting
with French President Nicolas Sarkozy."We have government
intrusion into our lives, including recording to whom we speak and (some say)
the contents of those telephone calls and emails because Obama extended the
Patriot Act. He cannot blame George Bush. He cannot blame Ronald Reagan. HE
signed the bill. HE extended the act. It is under HIS watch that our 4th
Amendment rights are being violated.If he chose, he could NOT
enforce that act, just like he has chosen to NOT enforce DOMA and just like he
has chosen to NOT prosecute and deport illegal aliens.His actions
tell us that he wants to spy on us and that he has nothing but comtempt for the
"I used to think the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping were good
ideas..."then a Democrat started doing it.
Will the last person to leave NSA HQ; please type Lucius Fox into the main
control to shut it all down.
@2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTairnaut,Where did you get
those numbers? There aren't even that many people in Congress!====== I can't quote the website, but it ended had the key
words United States and Congress with .govBTW - You said - and
I quote you - "Congress", and then ran off on the Senate.I
don't know HOW you can sit there and argue REALITY, but it seems you
and Mr. RedShirt are cut from the same cloth of lost reality.I gave
the numbers - twice - and you both sit there and argue pure gibberish.
Moderate,Please explain to us how a clause in a cell-phone contract
eliminates the protection of the 4th Amendment. Have you given away your right
to speak freely against the government because you may have signed a piece of
paper at sometime in your past stating that you have "nothing to complain
about"? Please explain how any clause unrelated to any specific
"crime" ever allows the government to abridge our 4th Amendment
rights.We are United States Citizens. We, not the government,
dictate what we allow. We, not the government, dictate how we can be
"searched". We, not the government, have set the boundary for ANY
search of our personal records.If you want the government to enter
your home at any time for any reason because you signed something totally
unrelated to GOVERNMENT INTRUSION into your life, then that is between you and
the government. No court in America would allow an obscure clause
in an obscure contract to allow the government to set aside our 4th Amendment
rights unrelated to any specific "crime, even if four of five supreme court
To "airnaut" since you are now in rant mode, lets look at the facts.Fact #1, the Patriot Act was not expanded or extended in 2001, that is
when it was created. Please try and respond to what I actually wrote, not what
you think I wrote.Fact #2, there are more than just those bills that
extended the Patriot Act, and the many clauses that have been expanded under
Obama. It is nice that you found that the numerically the Democrat Senators
liked it, while the Representatives didn't. But that is just the tip of
the iceberg. There are acts like the National Defense Act and the Library
Provision of Patriot Act, among all sorts of other laws that didn't contain
the word Patriot Act in the title, yet extended the time and scope of the
patriot act.Now that you bring Obama into it, if he opposed the
Patriot Act extension, why didn't he veto it. That is his job you know, to
veto legislation that he thinks would be bad. According to Canidate Obama from
2008, the Patriot Act was horrible and wrong. Why the change?
airnaut,Where did you get those numbers? There aren't even that
many people in Congress!These are the real numbers (google
"Senate and House Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006" to
verify them)And I quote..."These are the 98 U.S. senators
for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did
not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted
against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001"So... only ONE
Senator voted against it.In the House it was to 357 for, 66
against---When it came up again in 2006...89 of
100 U.S. senators voted in favor of the March 2, 2006 Patriot Act Reauthorizing
Act In the house... 280 for, 138 against, 14 no voteNeither party was against it. The majority of BOTH parties voted FOR it in
2001 and 2006. And in 2010 a Democrat President with a Democrat SUPER-Majority
in both houses campaigned FOR it, and a Democrat President could have vetoed it
but signed it into law. So you really can't just blame Repugs.
RE: Mike Richards "They completely ignore whether the government violated
our rights."You sign up with a service provider. You skim over (but
probably skip reading) the End User License Agreement, and check "I
agree" so that you can start using the service.In the EULA, it
says the provider may share data that it collects. The provider shares the data
with the government, which stores and analyzes its copy of the data.You agreed to all of this. How does the 4th Amendment apply?
Sorry - my comment did not format as expected:To "RedShirt"
did you do know that numerically, your argument falls completely flat? Patriot Act 2001 ...........Yeas...NaysRepublican 211.....3
Democratic 145....62 Independent........1 TOTALS
....357....66Re-Authorization 2006..........Yeas...NaysRepublican 214....13Democratic .66...124Independent .......1TOTALS ....280...138Re-Re-Authorization
Extension and Expansion 2011 .............Yeas.. NaysRepublican ...210....27Democratic ....65...117Independent TOTALS .......275...144Doesn't matter anyway, your
world doesn't rely on facts or reality.
The foolish argue whether the government was "justified". They
completely ignore whether the government violated our rights.The 4th
Amendment says: "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."Before
the foolish continue to tell us that the government was "justified, perhaps
they should show us when and where the "warrants" based on "probable
cause" were issued. Perhaps they should cite those warrants, the name of
the judge, the name of the prosecutor, and exactly what that "probable
cause" was.We are Americans. The Constitutiton protects us from
the government. The Constitution protects us from "surveillance" by the
"government. The "Patriot Act" does not replace the 4th Amendment.
No Amendments have been ratified giving the government the authority to record
the numbers or the conversations that we make via telephone, cell-phone or
computer.Either stand up for your rights or sit still while those
rights are violated.
When we are small we believe making the right decision is a choice between good
and bad. As we get older most (some talk show hosts excepted) come to realize
making the right decision is often a little more complex. For example sometimes
choosing the right involves a decision between bad and worse.Government monitoring who we call = badBombs exploding in grocery
stores = worse
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "airnaut" you do know
that numerically, more Democrats voted to expand and extend the Patriot Act.12:15 p.m. June 12, 2013======== To "RedShirt"
did you do know that numerically, your argument falls completely flat? Patriot Act 2001 Yeas NaysRepublican 2113 Democratic 14562 Independent 11 TOTALS 35766Re-Authorization 2006 Yeas NaysRepublican
21413Democratic 66124Independent 1TOTALS 280138Re-Re-Authorization Extension and Expansion 2011
Yeas NaysRepublican 21027Democratic 65117Independent TOTALS 275144If it makes you feel any better -- Rep.
Rob Bishop committed political suicide by siding with the DEMOCRATS the last 2
times in opposing it. I applaud him for voting for Freedom and the Constitution,
...as opposed to Bennett, Hatch, Chris Cannon, and Jason Chaffetz
who vote FOR it, under both Bush AND Obama.But go ahead and blame Obama
for signing what our representatives in Utah gave him.
@lost in DCThose words came from Admiral David Farragut during the
Battle of Mobile Bay. I have adopted them to use in the Battle of America
against conservative and republicans.
atl134you mean the bill would have renewed by itself if BO had not signed
it?I think you need to retake your US government class.
To "one old man" I can get around having the merchants track my
purchases by going cash only. Explain how a person can do anything in this
modern world without using the telephone or email. The NSA is not only
listening in on your phone conversations, but is also recording them along with
your email.So, imagine that in the future you say something to a
high ranking politician. They now have the ability to look through all of the
records they have on you and dig up anything that is questionable, and arrest
you for it.To "airnaut" you do know that numerically, more
Democrats voted to expand and extend the Patriot Act.
I used to think the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping were good ideas, but
in light of the massive abuses of power such as wiretapping of innocents'
cellular phone conversations, Internet surveillance and spying on the press, I
have changed my mind. =======In other words...I liked Bush and the Republicans passing the Patriot Act, I don't
like Obama and the Republicans expanding and extending the Patriot Act.FYI -- When I call baloney on this 12 years ago - I was told to sit down
and be quiet, I was also told I was NOT Patriotic.He who has
the laughs last, laughs best.HaHaHa!
Sorry but the NSA, Booz Allen, or the Carlyle group couldn't care less what
your say on Facebook or even on the DN opinion page. All these groups are in
cahoots to drain your pocket book. Edward Snowden was an employee of Booz Allen
which is a subsidiary of Carlyle. The current Director of National Intelligence
is an ex employee and a Bush 43 DNI is a current employee of Booz Allen. Bush Sr
was on the Board of Directors for Carlyle after he left office. Dick Cheney is a
former CEO for Halliburton another No-Bid contractor that is responsible for
electrocuting GI's in Iraq. Do you a trend here? Mitch McConnell has
increased his personal wealth from 4 mill to 25 mill on a salary of less the
200k. How does that happen? All of this and more because we were convinced we
need to be in a constant state of fear over something that has less of chance to
happen than killing ourselves in the bathtub. Let's fix the system that has
overpopulated our leadership with Flim Flam men.
Used to be if you complained about government surveillance you were told to take
off your tinfoil hat. Now it doesn't seem so crazy.I was
concerned and voiced my concern about the broad nature of the Patriot Act when
it was originally proposed (Bush Admin) and when it was reneued (when we had a
Super-Majority of Democrats during the Obama Administration).The
Real MaverickYour stereotype inspired claim that it's all
Republican's fault is not proven true by the voting record in Congress.
Look it up.Many conservatives (not necessarily
"Republicans") including most Tea-Party people loudly voiced concern
about this when it was originally proposed and again when it was renewed.All Republicans don't LOVE the Patriot Act. And all Democrats
don't like it. It's not just another partisan thing. Blaming it all
on "Republicans" just doesn't work when you look at the
Congressional voting records.I've always been against it. Not
it's goals... but it's tactics. But I realize why many politicians
think we need it. I know current administrations may not abuse it... but there
could be administrations in the future that would.
@lost in DC"The Patriot act would be history if BO (D), had not signed
the bill authorizing its extension. "Yeah how dare he sign that
bill your party got through Congress.
Open? mindedThe court that oversees this was first informally put in place
by Ford, but Carter (D) made it law.But go ahead, repeat your mantra
(dem good, repub bad) if it makes you feel better.Old man,You
have a choice whether or not to swipe your card. You could pay by cash and some
places still accept checks. And as SEY said, can private merchants put you in
prison?Ultra Bob,I think Patrick Henry would have disagreed
with your final statement.Maverick,The Patriot act would be
history if BO (D), had not signed the bill authorizing its extension. Leave it
to BO to turn the NSA into the Stasi
If those who complain most about government survelliance of our lives really
want to back up their words with action, then they must elect more democrats NOT
republicans. Republicans love the Patriot Act. As we have seen with how it is
renewed, republicans all support it while Democrats do not. So will repubs like
this letter writer, red skirt, and Michael Richards vote for Democrats this next
election? Don't hold your breath.In other words, these folks
will complain but won't do anything to fix the problem. Typical of the GOP
At the beginning of WWII many people thought that the way to fight a war was
with massive ships with big guns. Fortunately we were able to realize that the
era of big ships was gone and had been replaced by the airplane. Today we are engaged in a new war that has new weapons. Yet we are still
expecting to defend ourselves with aircraft and submarines. Today’s war is a war for the minds of men rather than conquest of
physical lands and oceans. We are being attacked by little bits of electricity
and have yet to find a war to defend against them. We have built huge
monstrosities of inter connected networks and don’t have a good way to
defend them. Electronic surveillance may not be the answer, but if
it has a possibility of helping to defend our nation, Dam the torpedoes, full
How are you going to know that these surveillance programs ended?They'd probably just get renamed and made even more secretive.
We live in a world where everyone voluntarily provides an incredible amount of
personal information about themselves in the name of 'social media'.
The metadata collected isn't nearly as intrusive. Don't get me wrong,
I am a huge advocate of privacy, but this is kind of what we signed up for when
we accepted the patriot act.
Res Novae: do you believe everything your government tells you?One
old man: Google isn't going to use that information to go on a fishing
expedition that can find me in prison for whatever reason. I'll trust
Google before I'll trust government. Government has guns and prisons,
Google has spam.
No, Open Minded Mormon, Bush bad & Obama bad. He's just figuring it out
12 years too late.
For the sake of informed discussion, I note that the letter is misinformed: the
program in question does not involve wiretapping, but gathers and aggregrates
metadata. There is a distinct legal difference. The Supreme Court
ruled in Smith v. Maryland (1979) that use of phone numbers obtained without a
warrant from phone records doesn't violate the 4th Amendment's
expectation of privacy, and therefore is constitutional. I don't see a
difference between that and the data being collected here, except as a matter of
scale. This is an important issue, and we are long overdue for a
robust discussion on collective security versus individual privacy rights. But
that conversation has to start with facts and understanding of what is or
isn't legal in this country. At this point, I don't consider Snowden
a whistleblower because there was nothing to blow the whistle against. The
executive is executing a law with legislative oversight, and running it through
the judiciary (albeit a s secretive body). Everything is legal, no matter how
much discomfort it causes. If we don't like it, we need to tell our
elected leaders to change the laws in favor of greater transparency.
I have news for all those who are screaming about the evil NSA.Aren't you aware WHO really has volumes of information about virtually
every aspect of our lives? Don't you know who collects your personal
information EVERY DAY?They are called merchandisers -- the vaunted
free market that drives our economic lives.Every time you swipe your
debit card, every time you make a purchase at a Smith's Marketplace or
almost any other retail store, any time to take out an insurance policy or open
an account or seek a loan at your bank or credit union, your personal
information is sucked up by an enormous corporate vacuum sweeper.And
is that information secure?Well, I can use Google to instantly find
dozens of sites willing to provide me with everything known about you -- for a
small fee, of course.I can learn your date and place of birth, your
SSN number, your favorite dish at your favorite restaurant, what size pants you
wear, and probably all sorts of embarrassing stuff that you can't
imagine.So who do we really need to be worrying about?But all that is the Free Enterprise system. Not the NSA.