Former AGs secret deal with the NSA to skirt the 4th Amernment

[Churchmouse]

9 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

It bothers me because I do not think that our government should be allowed to spy on its own citizens.   For some reason I am in the very small minority that think that way. 

The minority you are in at present is the one that  is trying to derail a thread. If you want to take on the issue you have brought up then  respect the op enough to start one concerning that.

[Churchmouse]

9 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

What a judgemental comment to make about a person you don't know at all.

Pay him no mind I have the strength of my convictions and know where I stand. If that is to him something other than I am it is in his mind alone. I'm looking for solutions and the current administration is dealing with a good many of them.

Those who break the law or facilitate others in doing so need to be dealt with according to that law. We are a nation of laws and we need to return to that in order for any of us to feel safe and secure in our homes. The outgoing AG just sneered at that and if some want to obstinately refrain from dealing with that, then they condemn themselves to being not taken as seriously as they would like.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Churchmouse

[Running Gator]

Well, what do you know.  The deal was not really a secret, it was reported on back on Jan 13th.  

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/

Oh, and the NY Times did so back on the 12th. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

[Churchmouse]

23 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

When I see you address what has been going on for the last 13ish years I will then agree you are not just a partisan hack.  Till then your lack of complaint makes it clear to all.

You ask me to address something you say is being done through 2 administrations(Democrat and republican) as a means of with which you will remove me off a mental list that I care absolutely nothing about when if i did so would not prove anything to anybody other that I justify your derailment of a thread, I have asked you not to derail. As I've said, If you wish to start a thread on that issue I would be ready, will and able. As far as your determinations of my political stance I would suggest you look up the definition of Irrelevant to see my level of concern for what another human being thinks of me.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Churchmouse

[Running Gator]

Oh, here is a copy of the "secret" deal that was made available to the public weeks ago...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3283349-Raw-12333-surveillance-sharing-guidelines.html

[Running Gator]

And if you read the document above you find that this statement by the Judge is false...(just to stay on topic with the OP)

Now, Mrs. Lynch has said you can take that data and you can give it to the FBI, you can give it to the NJ State Police. You can give it to the Bergen County Prosecutor. You can give it to MI6 and MI5. You can give it to anybody who wants it if they need it.

[heyvavhey]

19 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The NSA has been doing this without warrants since the days of Bush II, all Lynch did was make it official that they can share it.  

It would be very naive to think that the NSA has been collecting data for the last 14 years or so and has never done anything with it. 

I am also not sure how it can be claimed that "we do care" (we being the people of this country) when it has been going on for two administrations and the new one is for it, in fact the new CIA director thinks we need to expand it.

 

 

You imply this was done deceptively outside the law, like Democrats do

However, Bush followed the political process, and everyone in DC was onboard. Don't act like Democrats weren't giddy in voting to institute the Patriot Act.

I reluctantly supported it because it was only a war-time measure and required a renewal vote every two years, but when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate under Obama's first administration, they voted the Patriot Act to be permanent. 

Seems like I heard Rand Paul did something to stop that last year? Not sure what was actually stopped yet. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Running Gator]

Just now, heyvavhey said:

 

 

Bush allowed the political process to achieve that, so don't act like Democrats weren't giddy to institute the Patriot Act.

 

When it passed under Bush, it was never meant to be permanent. But when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate under Obama's first administration, they voted the Patriot Act to be permanent. 

Seems like I heard Rand Paul did something to stop that last year? Not really sure what was actually stopped yet. 

 

Both sides are giddy about it and both sides will defend it till the end, that has been my whole point.  Anyone who tries to make this a one party or the other issue is just blinded by their own partisanship. 

But just to keep things real, in 2005 the Patriot act was reauthorized the first time..the vote in the House:

Repub 214 aye, 14 n0

Dems 43 aye, 156 no

Again in 2011 it was again up for a vote.

Vote in the Senate was 74-8 with 18 choosing not to vote, which is the same as a yes in my book.

In the House:

Repub 211 aye, 26 no

Dems 68 aye, 117 no.

[heyvavhey]

 

 

There is still reason to have the tools to combat terrorism, and there are plenty of good reasons to renew if we're still in danger. 

That is different than making it permanent. 

[MorningGlory]

2 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Oh, here is a copy of the "secret" deal that was made available to the public weeks ago...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3283349-Raw-12333-surveillance-sharing-guidelines.html

Anything having to do with Loretta Lynch is suspect to me.  She gave up all credibility when she started dancing on the strings of the puppeteer, Barack Obama.