THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Fife]

There's nothing in FISA Section 702 which allows for Americans to be deliberately targeted, that I am aware of.

ORLY??

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/h ... americans/

The GOP-led House renewed Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on foreigners abroad by a vote of 256 to 164. Section 702 remains controversial because it can sweep up Americans in the process.

Section 702 does not allow officials to spy on Americans or people in the states, but “the FISA Amendment Act allows the government to collect data from American firms, such as Google or Microsoft.”

At Reason, Scott Shackford wrote that “it also codifies permission for the FBI to access and use data secretly collected by Americans for a host of criminal cases that have nothing to do with protecting America from foreign threats.”

From time to time, lawmakers have tried to push through warrants into the section, but Shackford noted that experts have explained that “the law was worded so that it applies only if you’re a suspect of a crime.”

Yes, you read that correctly. A suspect of a crime “have greater protections under the law than those who just have their data and communications snatched up en masse.”

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/11/hous ... -warrantle

Massie is a co-sponsor of the Amash amendment, which supporters will attempt to pass before the larger bill. The Amash amendment would force law enforcement to do what the Constitution plainly demands—that it get a warrant spelling out exactly what and why it is looking for when investigating U.S. citizens, based on reasonable suspicion of a crime, before accessing this database. "That's the only constitutional way to do it," Massie declares flatly.

U.S. Americans on the MHF, check and see if your representative shitholed you on this one: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml

Randy and Wyden are going to make the Senate interesting for a day or two, anyway.

[Smitty-48]

Americans want what they want when they want it, and that shifts as quickly as the wind, the outrage of a mass casualty terrorist attack, wherein SIGINT had the target acquired, but then let it go because, whoops, some random American bumbled into the target area, would be astronomically greater.

[Smitty-48]

There's nothing in FISA Section 702 which allows for Americans to be deliberately targeted, that I am aware of.

ORLY??

Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Ron Wyden; "blah, blah, blah" hostile witnesses.

Section 702 allows for collection of SIGINT on the internet, which, pretty much a requirement, since the enemy doesn't use phones nor radios anymore.

Military necessity, it's a war, learn to deal.

[Fife]

Americans want what they want when they want it, and that shifts as quickly as the wind, the outrage of a mass casualty terrorist attack, wherein SIGINT had the target acquired, but then let it go because, whoops, some random American bumbled into the target area, would be astronomically greater.

"Astronomically" greater?

#getawarrant

[Smitty-48]

If you have no Section 702, then you'd have no signals intelligence at all, they'd be listening on analogue and hearing nothing.

That's not what the pubic wants, you filthy hippie peacenik.

Don't need a warrant to fight a war, it's not law enforcement, so take a lap, lolberg.

[Fife]

If you have no Section 702, then you'd have no signals intelligence at all, they'd be listening on analogue and hearing nothing.

That's not what the pubic wants, you filthy hippie peacenik.

Don't need a warrant to fight a war, it's not law enforcement, so take a lap, lolberg.

LOL. I gave you the goods on Randy, maybe give a listen to him if you aren't willing to actually read anything.

We can have a perfectly fine § 702 that at least facially complies with the 4th A.

The neocons will scream at you that millions will die! if we don't have 702 hitched up just the way they want it. Of course, in your case you might just jump in on the harmony.

At least Paul and Wyden will set up a bit of a legislative intent record for Mr. Justice Repo Man to review later on.

[Smitty-48]

The fourth amendment doesn't protect you from military force, the military doesn't need a warrant to conduct operations, Signals Intelligence is not law enforcement, the enemy is fair game, a FISA warrant authorizes the targeting of an American, but it's not required to target the enemy overseas, if an American happens to bumble in to the target area for whatever reason, the military is not targeting that American, unless of course, that American is treating with the enemy, at which point, that's when you get the FISA warrant.

Paul and Wyden are grandstanders, go stand over there with the hippie peaceniks if you want, see if America joins you, betcha they don't tho.

[Smitty-48]

It's no different than analogue, if you were broadcasting over the means to the KGB, the military never needed a warrant to intercept that, if you sent a letter to Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, the military never needed a warrant to open that letter and read it, the NSA are not the police, the fourth amendment does not restrict the military from fighting the war.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Sadly, this one is a direct hit.

Yes.

[SuburbanFarmer]

There's nothing in FISA Section 702 which allows for Americans to be deliberately targeted, that I am aware of.

ORLY??

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/01/h ... americans/

The GOP-led House renewed Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on foreigners abroad by a vote of 256 to 164. Section 702 remains controversial because it can sweep up Americans in the process.

Section 702 does not allow officials to spy on Americans or people in the states, but “the FISA Amendment Act allows the government to collect data from American firms, such as Google or Microsoft.”

At Reason, Scott Shackford wrote that “it also codifies permission for the FBI to access and use data secretly collected by Americans for a host of criminal cases that have nothing to do with protecting America from foreign threats.”

From time to time, lawmakers have tried to push through warrants into the section, but Shackford noted that experts have explained that “the law was worded so that it applies only if you’re a suspect of a crime.”

Yes, you read that correctly. A suspect of a crime “have greater protections under the law than those who just have their data and communications snatched up en masse.”

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/11/hous ... -warrantle

Massie is a co-sponsor of the Amash amendment, which supporters will attempt to pass before the larger bill. The Amash amendment would force law enforcement to do what the Constitution plainly demands—that it get a warrant spelling out exactly what and why it is looking for when investigating U.S. citizens, based on reasonable suspicion of a crime, before accessing this database. "That's the only constitutional way to do it," Massie declares flatly.

U.S. Americans on the MHF, check and see if your representative shitholed you on this one: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml

Randy and Wyden are going to make the Senate interesting for a day or two, anyway.

Doesn’t matter. I’ll vote against the incumbents no matter what.