Best
84 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    The spying on Americans is beyond inappropriate. It violates the Constitution and anyone involved should go to jail.

    We elect those fools to work for us, not to download and read messages from young girls late at night. And there is no sense in denying it, we have elected dishonest perverts.

    Send them to jail with the rest of the criminals.
  • #79
    !
    @dances-weebles sounds like cops when doing a crooked search,ask them if they mind if you search their wives unless she has something to hide.

    whats the difference. need to daily u/a on all police. and all others who get tax dollars.
  • #20
    !
    Election year coming up and they want votes. They have known about this since the Patriot Act was passed and congress was briefed by NSA on a continuing basis since 911. That is why the FISA Court was established. Now it's a political ball game. I'm all for the bills to limit or do away with surveillance on US Citizens.
  • #8
    !
    "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." - So, if the courts, congress and the president can't understand the original text, what effect is passing another bill saying "we really mean it" gonna do?
  • #12
    !
    Exactly. If the Constitution forbids something its illegal already. Oath breakers. Protect and defend is the oath they take. Destroy and dismantle are the actions they take. Criminals in need of prison time is what they are.
  • #11
    !
    So many people say that privacy is dead and we have no expectation of privacy. I have to ask, "Why?" It's a simple question.

    As near as I can tell there are two reasons. Somebody wants to make money off of you and your existence and somebody wants to justify their department or agency. Both situations I find deplorable.
  • #3
    !
    Even Mark Udall, a democrat, is trying to propose a bill that requires more evidence before accessing data. What in the hell happened to probable cause?!
  • #35
    !
    @harold_lloyd oh don't get me mistaken I was very opposed when Bush did it also. I think it's wrong no matter who does it. But our nation was just attacked and we were at war so I could understand where Bush felt the need to intervene. Our nation is no longer at war and there is no reason to do that
  • R Load more replies

  • #23
    !
    Does anyone besides me see how twisted it is that we have to pass a law to recognize the US Constitution??? Ugh!

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ... or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." -- Samuel Adams

    "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson
  • #46
    !
    I dunno. Didnt the administration just point out that the recent renewal of metadata gathering could not be challenged in court? Doesn't sound they want to give up this practice.
  • #56
    !
    @fraps refuse a bunch of bipartisan proposals trying to protect the privacy of citizens?...watch what happens to his approval rating then. He'll render himself completely useless in future ambitions...good. Let him do it.
  • #61
    !
    @Slowmo
    Yes, they did, Slowmo.
    Additionally, the courts passed a decision that reporters now have to reveal their sources.
  • R Load more replies

  • #24
    !
    Well said! "The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -John Adams
  • #55
    !
    Glad to see such a show of bipartisanship in CONgress. Now if there were such bipartisanship elsewhere perhaps the USA could move forward.
  • #26
    !
    Unless all of these congressmen want to get credit for protecting our privacy, it would be more efficient to consolidate all of these bills into one.
  • #18
    !
    Better late than never ,the only trouble is that the lawmakers that vote againest this agency will probably be shown some of the skeletons in their closets that are on file from years ago to be used as needed..
  • #17
    !
    I'm cautiously optimistic. Congress is notorious for passing laws that the membership hasn't read.Then, they start tacking on unrelated addendums to fund their pet projects, bribe local politicians or in an indirect way, benefit themselves. An anti-spying law should also include a competition and prize for whoever shoots down the most drones.
  • #30
    !
    It's more likely that some friend of a senator will get a big tax break, or a huge subsidy than any useful response to govt surveillance.
  • #59
    !
    @harold_lloyd
    If it got the Patriot Act rescinded a bridge to nowhere's would be a cheap price to pay!
  • #67
    !
    @Rogue
    Keep in mind that it's one or two favors per congressman.

    A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money.
  • #68
    !
    @harold_lloyd
    We're already paying that kind of money (and more) to the private contractors who do the "surveillance" work.
    So! It would just be a repurposing of funds ....
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    When the next attack happens on US soil the same people who scream out 4th amendment violations will be screaming out that the government didn't do enough to keep us safe. Damned if you do damned if you don't...I think we just enjoy hearing ourselves scream.
  • #21
    !
    IF NSA can show that this is an effective method of stopping or preventing terrorists acts, let them put that out to justify what they do. I have seen nothing to indicate they have prevented anything. The Boston Bombing was not detected and they had not only phone calls but flights to Russia and a call from Russia warning that they were involved in terrorism. How did this collection of phone records help in any manner?

    The old Missouri saying of "Show Me" is not what I want NSA to do. If you cannot show me how it has helped, then do away with it totally.
  • #29
    !
    @Bill2E - Excellent point. I don't hear a lot of screaming for MORE surveillance after the Boston bombing. This is getting out of control.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    They need to see if previous terror attempts were truly stopped by pre-empting them with intelligence gathering? Or was it more due to criminal stupidity?
    That will help determine what to do.
  • #25
    !
    So far, the terrorist acts that have been prevented were done so using ordinary intel practices that did not require collecting data and spying on all Americans... The other problem I have with PRISM is that we have to take their word for its success... Alexander promised to release a list of 50 success stories a while back and he has yet to do so... he coughed up 4 incidents, 3 of people financing terrorist groups, and one discovered after the attack already occurred (not on US soil)... they were caught through regular law enforcement practices... Too many layers of secrecy for proper oversight...
  • #57
    !
    @DogLady_1
    Actually, the British supplied the intel which prevented the terrorist incidents! And the Brits accomplished this thru good ole flat-footed police procedures.
  • R Load more comments...
Post