cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710
Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710
Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.
I’m sure as I type this there are men beating their wives and children, maybe to death.
Should the government put cameras in every house to prevent this?
If not, why do you hate women and children and want them to die?
Removed by mod
The Patriot Act* didn’t exist before 9/11. Your argument is invalid.
Also, the NSA can get the FBI to get a warrant for the person in the US. We already have mechanisms for monitoring communications in the US.
* It’s actually called the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” I prefer the acronym U SAP AT RIOT/
Removed by mod
Section 702 has only existed since 2008.
They got that information before section 702 was a thing. You’re supporting GWB’s wiretapping policy.
Removed by mod
The memo gwb ignored before 9/11 was before section 702 existed. 702 didn’t go into effect until 2008.
If you don’t want me to downvote you, don’t lie in support of a gwb policy.
Removed by mod
I understand that whenever a centrist is dead wrong about something, they pull this gaslighting horseshit.
Removed by mod
You pretended that a policy that didn’t exist before 2008 provided the intel Bush ignored before 9/11.
You don’t understand how linear time works, and have presented no facts.