Congress gives Access to Citizens’ Private Communication

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Congress Passes Bill Giving Police Unlimited Access to Citizens’ Private Communications
Waiting for a more reputable source, but this warrants some addition discussion.

Rep. Justin Amash sent a letter to his colleagues urginf a no vote because of the inclusion of a provision called Article 309 of HR 4681.
Rep. Justin Amash said:
Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations.
Worth some debate, one would think.
 
Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
here is how your congress person voted, to save you time all of Alabama's voted for this

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2014/h558
As opposed to looking into Justin Beeber's wardrobe choices or whether Lebron James touched the Princess of Wales, I wish our "journalists" would look into who exactly requested the insertion of this obnoxious provision into an unrelated bill, and who exactly allowed the insertion. Those jerks needs to be exposed for who they are and what they did.
This is such a momentous and controversial provision, it deserves (needs?) to be debated fully and publicly in its own bill, not inserted into a funding bill at the 11th hour when nobody has the time to actually read it and voting it down means shutting down the government and having "journalists" from the boot-licking media screaming "Rep. So-and-so shut down the government! He is a legislative arsonist! A fiscal terrorist! Oh, what a world, what a world," when in fact, Rep. So-and-so may have only been objecting to the warrantless intercepting of private communications.
Perhaps Bama in Boston could enlighten us as to who inserted the obnoxious provision.

John Randolph of Roanoke said:
I have always regarded Union as the means of liberty and safety; in other words of happiness, and not as an end, to which these are to be sacrificed.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,648
12,576
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
As opposed to looking into Justin Beeber's wardrobe choices or whether Lebron James touched the Princess of Wales, I wish our "journalists" would look into who exactly requested the insertion of this obnoxious provision into an unrelated bill, and who exactly allowed the insertion. Those jerks needs to be exposed for who they are and what they did.
This is such a momentous and controversial provision, it deserves (needs?) to be debated fully and publicly in its own bill, not inserted into a funding bill at the 11th hour when nobody has the time to actually read it and voting it down means shutting down the government and having "journalists" from the boot-licking media screaming "Rep. So-and-so shut down the government! He is a legislative arsonist! A fiscal terrorist! Oh, what a world, what a world," when in fact, Rep. So-and-so may have only been objecting to the warrantless intercepting of private communications.
Perhaps Bama in Boston could enlighten us as to who inserted the obnoxious provision.
here is the bill sponsor, no idea if he added section 309 or someone else did

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mike_rogers/400342
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
This is the codification of a 33 year old executive order. Practically speaking, nothing changes.
EO 12333 was foreign. This is domestic, because it blurs the distinction between the two.

EO 12333 said:
2.3 Collection of Information. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:
(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned;
(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;
(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;
(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations;
(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure.
EO 12333.

Sec. 309. Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired communications said:
The procedures required by paragraph (1)* shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or certification issued by a court established under subsection (a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a United States person and shall permit the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject to the limitation in subparagraph (B).
HR 4681.

* Para 1. The term covered communication means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired without the consent of a person who is a party to the communication, including communications in electronic storage.

In my training, US intelligence activities are prohibited from collecting information on US citizens. If an intelligence officer comes across or realizes that the communications he is reading or listening to involves a US citizen, he stops immediately, backs off and and refers the case to higher who hands it off to the FBI if appropriate for law enforcement purposes. Anyone who violates that runs the risk of prosecution himself. This bill allows the intelligence community retain and disseminate info on US citizens as long as the intelligence community asserts the info was gathered incidentally.

That is a fairly significant change and I wonder why that was adopted late at night without any serious debate of the provisions. "Just vote for the appropriations bill, man. We don't have time to read the whole dang thing. Get with the program."
How'd that "don't read it before you pass it" thing work out for us last time?
 
Last edited:

HartselleTider

Suspended
Jan 11, 2012
538
0
0
That's what happens when you have a liberal government.

The government has to spy on us because the government lets the one's they're concerned with live and exist right here among us. Makes complete sense.

They'll gladly take YOUR rights away and give them to the terrorists in the name of a free society and progressive thinking.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,145
1,301
182
51
Birmingham, AL
The government has to spy on us because the government lets the one's they're concerned with live and exist right here among us. Makes complete sense.

They'll gladly take YOUR rights away and give them to the terrorists in the name of a free society and progressive thinking.
The conservatives are just as willing to sacrifice privacy in the name of law and order.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,648
12,576
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
That's what happens when you have a liberal government.
So piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican that carried 78% of the Republican vote and 70% of the Democratic Vote is some how the fault of Liberals?

I just don't even understand how to think like a Conservative any more.

If you can't see that neither party gives a crap about you or your privacy you've got your head in the freaking sand

oh and by the way, you know who fights the hardest against stuff like this? The Radical Commie Liberals at the ACLU
 

HartselleTider

Suspended
Jan 11, 2012
538
0
0
So piece of legislation sponsored by a Republican that carried 78% of the Republican vote and 70% of the Democratic Vote is some how the fault of Liberals?

I just don't even understand how to think like a Conservative any more.

If you can't see that neither party gives a crap about you or your privacy you've got your head in the freaking sand

oh and by the way, you know who fights the hardest against stuff like this? The Radical Commie Liberals at the ACLU

There would be no need to sponsor legislation for the government to spy on us to begin with if the folks you have highlighted in blue there hadn't already sponsored their right to be here in the first place.

It's as if they can't see past the end of their nose when it comes to their liberal agendas. This is essentially a countermove to the other's agenda in order to further homeland security. Meanwhile, the average American citizen is having their rights taken away while at the same time, telling them how safe they're keeping them.

It's absurd on it's face.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,648
12,576
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
There would be no need to sponsor legislation for the government to spy on us to begin with if the folks you have highlighted in blue there hadn't already sponsored their right to be here in the first place.

It's as if they can't see past the end of their nose when it comes to their liberal agendas. This is essentially a countermove to the other's agenda in order to further homeland security. Meanwhile, the average American citizen is having their rights taken away while at the same time, telling them how safe they're keeping them.

It's absurd on it's face.
i have ability to comprehend your first sentence. It's English and I understand every word individually but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say, can you clarify please?

This makes your entire post nonsensical, What did the liberals do that caused this?
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
i have ability to comprehend your first sentence. It's English and I understand every word individually but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say, can you clarify please?

This makes your entire post nonsensical, What did the liberals do that caused this?

Translation:
Mooslims shouldn't be allowed to be here. They all want to kill us. Democrats want them here because democrats like to be blown up. The republicans have no alternative but to spy on all Americans and turn this into a police state because they don't like to be blown up. If the democrats and aclu would just let us deport all Muslims and build the fence that the republicans have been wanting, the republicans wouldn't want to spy on us anymore.

Very simple Jon, how can you not get on board? Or is it that you secretly want to be blown up?
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Translation:
Mooslims shouldn't be allowed to be here. They all want to kill us. Democrats want them here because democrats like to be blown up. The republicans have no alternative but to spy on all Americans and turn this into a police state because they don't like to be blown up. If the democrats and aclu would just let us deport all Muslims and build the fence that the republicans have been wanting, the republicans wouldn't want to spy on us anymore.

Very simple Jon, how can you not get on board? Or is it that you secretly want to be blown up?
It seems like this discussion has turned into a Democrat vs. Republican mud-slinging contest.
Actually the vote against this bill was amazingly bipartisan: 45 Republicans and 55 Democrats.

Maybe statists vs libertarians (both parties seem to have both) is a more useful dichotomy.

As for immigration, there is a temporal consideration to immigration quotas. 1941-1945 would not have been a good time to up the immigration quota for Germans or Japanese wanting to come to America, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone capable of abstract thought. Before and after those dates, immigration from Germany and Japan would not be objectionable. Likewise, right now, I would favor restricting immigration from muslim majority countries to very, very low levels (and after demonstrating clearly what skills and attributes such immigrants would bring to their prospective new country that warrants allowing them to immigrate). This should last until the muslim world simmers down a bit.
I believe culture matters, both the culture immigrants bring with them and the American culture immigrants ostensibly will be joining and adding to.
 

HartselleTider

Suspended
Jan 11, 2012
538
0
0
Translation:
Mooslims shouldn't be allowed to be here. They all want to kill us. Democrats want them here because democrats like to be blown up. The republicans have no alternative but to spy on all Americans and turn this into a police state because they don't like to be blown up. If the democrats and aclu would just let us deport all Muslims and build the fence that the republicans have been wanting, the republicans wouldn't want to spy on us anymore.

Very simple Jon, how can you not get on board? Or is it that you secretly want to be blown up?

I'm extremely shocked at the fact you didn't throw in quite enough liberal terms in there for Jon to completely comprehend. I'll help by bolding all the terms liberals like to use to we can understand each other more clearly.

Obama, and the liberal democrat's motive, is to create enough "diversity" here in America, to secure the votes of the Latinos, Muslims, and African-Americans, so they can keep on with bigger and bigger government. Doesn't matter if they're illegal or not...or to use a liberal term, "undocumented migrants".

In order to accomplish this, we must deny the fact that border security is a national security issue, in addition to an immigration issue. In fact, we must not refer to our insecure borders as an immigration issue at all, but a "humanitarian crisis".


The terrorists that will go to any means whatsoever to bring death and destruction to Americans, are fully aware of our insecure bor....(pardon me)..... I mean our "humanitarian crisis".

According to Texas Gov. Rick Perry,....... "a leaked intelligence analysis from the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reveals the exact numbers of illegal immigrants entering and attempting to enter the U.S. from more than 75 different countries."

It reports that 28 "individuals from Pakistan were caught attempting to sneak into the U.S. this year alone, with another 211 individuals either turning themselves in or being caught at official ports of entry."

Perry also says that the number of apprehended illegal aliens who come from countries with "substantial terrorist ties" is at a record high, countries such as Yemen, Somalia and Saudi Arabia. On top of this, individuals from nations currently suffering from the world's largest Ebola outbreak have been caught attempting to sneak into the U.S."

Now, in order to keep ourselves from being seen as "racist", but also keep ourselves secure at the same time, we must pass legislation that allows our big government to spy on its American citizens. Our big government is already aware of the threat, and that the threat is already here.

Now, you can choose to fight them abroad, or you can choose to fight them here on our home soil... but make no mistake, you will fight them. The "radical followers of Islam" have made this abundantly clear, along with their intentions of bringing down the Imperialists.

You see, the left are convinced that you can have a melting pot of various cultures, and they'll all hold hands and sing Kumbaya together as long you're nice to them and give them handouts. We'll even teach you how to fly our planes and crash them into buildings. We can do all that right here.


In turn, we're not concerned with the rights or liberties that so many have fought for Americans to have. We're only concerned about the rights and liberties of those who have no citizenship at all, or those that have terrorist ties.

Since we can't "torture", or use EIT's on these terrorists in an attempt to gather intelligence, we must use our "progressive thinking" skills, and come up with a less offensive means to gather intelligence. Hey, how about spying on our citizens? What rights do they have anyway?
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
It seems like this discussion has turned into a Democrat vs. Republican mud-slinging contest.
Actually the vote against this bill was amazingly bipartisan: 45 Republicans and 55 Democrats.

Maybe statists vs libertarians (both parties seem to have both) is a more useful dichotomy.

As for immigration, there is a temporal consideration to immigration quotas. 1941-1945 would not have been a good time to up the immigration quota for Germans or Japanese wanting to come to America, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone capable of abstract thought. Before and after those dates, immigration from Germany and Japan would not be objectionable. Likewise, right now, I would favor restricting immigration from muslim majority countries to very, very low levels (and after demonstrating clearly what skills and attributes such immigrants would bring to their prospective new country that warrants allowing them to immigrate). This should last until the muslim world simmers down a bit.
I believe culture matters, both the culture immigrants bring with them and the American culture immigrants ostensibly will be joining and adding to.
I appreciate you bringing it back to facts. I was being extremely black and white, to the point of absurdity, primarily to point out the fact that many believe any one side is wholly on the side of freedom, national security, pork projects, spending, whatever.

The people in DC want power. How they get it and peddle it to those represented by the lobbyists doesn't really matter. Whether it was the Cold War, Islamic terrorists, or some other enemy, those in power will beat the war drums to bolster their position. I always come back to quotes such as this one by Madison who is far more eloquent than I.

James Madison said:
The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
I won't deny that there are many who mean to harm those in the US. But to keep flogging the specter of every Muslim needs to be watched, so it's ok to turn the lens inward just in case, seems to be willingly turning over power out of an over abundance of fear.
 

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,926
1,795
187
47
Huntsville, AL
Since we can't "torture", or use EIT's on these terrorists in an attempt to gather intelligence, we must use our "progressive thinking" skills, and come up with a less offensive means to gather intelligence. Hey, how about spying on our citizens? What rights do they have anyway?
Just so I'm understanding you right, are you saying that it is those who don't believe in using torture, or liberals, who put this together as a way to still gather intelligence?
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.