What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Patriot Act, revised (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
I can't seem to find the old NSA thread; it may have been archived. Anyhow:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/29/congress-nsa-patriot-act/28088993/

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate will convene Sunday evening for a rare weekend session to try to find a compromise on provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire at midnight. Lawmakers are at odds over the National Security Agency's bulk collection of phone records, which a federal appeals court recently ruled illegal. Here's a primer for the Sunday session and how Congress got to this point:

1. Why hasn't the Senate acted already?

They tried. Prior to the Memorial Day recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., held a vote on the USA Freedom Act, a bipartisan, House-passed bill to end the bulk collection of data. It would instead require the NSA to obtain a court order from theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain specific phone records. The House bill received 57 votes, three short of the supermajority necessary for approval. McConnell then offered a short-term extension of current law, but his state's junior senator, Rand Paul, a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, objected. Paul is one of the most vocal and prominent opponents of the bulk collection program. Without a deal, the Senate adjourned for the break with an agreement to return on Sunday, just hours before the law expires.

2. How likely is it the law expires?

It's entirely possible. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, backed by the overwhelming House vote for the USA Freedom Act — which President Obama also supports — has shown no interest in signing off on any other legislation. Senate delaying tactics can also push the debate past the deadline. Two of the NSA program's strongest opponents, Paul and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have not ruled out using their privileges to block the House bill or any extension of current law. Paul and Wyden are also working together on a number of amendments to the legislation.

3. What happens if it expires?

Top law enforcement officers have warned Congress they could also lose less controversial tools to combat terrorist threats. Beyond the bulk collection program, provisions affecting the government's ability to monitor "lone wolf" activity and roving wiretap capabilities will also expire without action. "I sure hope Congress figures out a way to make sure I don't lose these essential tools," FBI Director James Comey said this week. Attorney General Loretta Lynch also warned against allowing "vital and uncontroversial tools we use to combat terrorism and crime" expire.

4. What are the Senate's options?

Practically, there are four options: do nothing and let the law expire; extend current law for a short period of time to allow for more debate; pass the House bill; or find a compromise that can pass both chambers and be signed by the president. The latter is the trickiest, as the Senate will convene at 4 p.m. ET on Sunday, leaving just eight hours to find a path forward. A new piece of legislation would also have to pass the House again, which would mean at least a short-term expiration of current law.

5. Who are the key players to watch?

Beyond Paul and Wyden, McConnell and Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., have been key players leading up to the impasse. McConnell and Burr both strongly oppose the House bill and want to see the program remain intact even though it's been ruled illegal. Both senators argue that any weakening of current surveillance capabilities is ill-advised as the U.S. steps up efforts to combat the rise of the Islamic State and other terrorist threats. McConnell ran down the clock before the break in an effort to get senators on board for a short-term extension of current law, but it didn't work. If the Senate is able to advance the House bill, it will likely be over McConnell's opposition.

 
President Obama just appeared before the cameras to state that the Patriot Act has now been revised to satisfy "civil rights concerns", and that the Senate needs to pass it. He warned that a failure to do so could lead to future acts of terrorism.

 
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/05/29/obama-handful-of-senators-standing-in-way-of-patriot-act

"I don't want us to be in a situation in which for a certain period of time those authorities go away and suddenly we are dark," he (Obama) said. "And heaven forbid we've got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we didn't do so simply because of inaction in the Senate."

The only thing that is standing in the way is a handful of senators who are resisting these reforms despite law enforcement and the (intelligence community) saying 'let's go ahead and get this done,'"

 
President Obama just appeared before the cameras to state that the Patriot Act has now been revised to satisfy "civil rights concerns", and that the Senate needs to pass it. He warned that a failure to do so could lead to future acts of terrorism.

"I don't want us to be in a situation in which for a certain period of time those authorities go away and suddenly we are dark," he (Obama) said. "And heaven forbid we've got a problem where we could have prevented a terrorist attack or apprehended someone who is engaged in dangerous activity but we didn't do so simply because of inaction in the Senate."

The only thing that is standing in the way is a handful of senators who are resisting these reforms despite law enforcement and the (intelligence community) saying 'let's go ahead and get this done,'"
Total fear mongering bull####.

Why should we listen to law enforcement and the intelligence community saying we should get this done? OF COURSE they are going to want more power.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
McConnell and Burr both strongly oppose the House bill and want to see the program remain intact even though it's been ruled illegal. Both senators argue that any weakening of current surveillance capabilities is ill-advised as the U.S. steps up efforts to combat the rise of the Islamic State and other terrorist threats. McConnell ran down the clock before the break in an effort to get senators on board for a short-term extension of current law, but it didn't work. If the Senate is able to advance the House bill, it will likely be over McConnell's oppositi
:scared:

Can you imagine what the right would say if Obama said that about the ACA?

Not mentioned in this article is that the House bill requires the telecom industry to store the meta-data, and the government then asks the super secrete court (not so secrete anymore!) to obtain the data from them. Essentially 'privatizing' the data-collection.

President Obama just appeared before the cameras to state that the Patriot Act has now been revised to satisfy "civil rights concerns"
And he still wants to kill the guy who started the discussion?

 
I think drone bombing is Obama justice. Regardless though, didn't the court decision vindicate Snowden's decision? Doesn't the fact that they have made an attempt to change the law to satisfy 'civil rights concerns' mean that Snowden was justified? Do we need a jury to answer these questions for us?

 
I remember the good ole days when Senator Obama hated the Patriot Act and vowed to repeal it. Lie number 1,494,958 from this clown.

 
McConnel-

THE ADMINISTRATION'S INABILITY TO ANSWER EVEN THE MOST BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE BULK DATA SYSTEM IT WOULD HAVE TO BUILD UNDER THAT LEGISLATION IS TO SAY AT THE VERY LEAST, PRETTY TROUBLING. PRETTY TROUBLING. THAT'S NOT JUST MY VIEW. THAT'S THE VIEW OF MANY IN THIS BODY INCLUDING COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE BEEN FAVORABLY PREDISPOSED TO THE HOUSE BILL. IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW SENATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES HAVE BEEN DISTURBED BY THE ADMINISTRATION'S CONTINUING INABILITY TO GUARANTEE WHETHER THE NEW SYSTEM WOULD WORK AS WELL AS THE CURRENT ONE OR WHETHER THERE WOULD EVEN BE ANY DATA AVAILABLE TO ANALYZE. BECAUSE WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION HAS LET IT BE KNOWN THIS NONEXISTENT SYSTEM COULD ONLY BE BUILT IN TIME, IF TELEPHONE PROVIDERS COOPERATE IN BUILDING IT, PROVIDERS HAVE MADE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COMMIT TO RETAINING THE DATA. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COMMIT TO RETAINING THE DATA FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME UNLESS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO SO. AND THERE'S NO SUCH REQUIREMENT IN THE HOUSE-PASSED BILL. NONE AT ALL. HERE'S HOW ONE PROVIDER PUT IT. WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO COMMIT TO VOLUNTARILY RETAIN DOCUMENTS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PERIOD OF TIME PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED U.S.A. FREEDOM ACT IF NOT REQUIRED BY LAW. IF NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top