After talking about how the Senator’s efforts to express his concerns about the Patriot Act were thwarted, she goes on to say:
I think it is embarrassing to both political parties that things have gotten to this point in our government. Since everyone now wants to be seen as “tough on terrorism”, most mainstream politicians nowadays seem to have no respect for privacy or the 4th amendment.
Or the 1st Amendment. Or the 5th Amendment. Or the 6th Amendment. I haven’t heard about any attacks on the 3rd Amendment yet, so that’s a plus, I suppose.
So far as I’m concerned, the government can have every piece of communication I have ever made in any media whatsoever, and if they find anything interesting I hope they will let me know.
You can trust that nice Mr. Bush; he has such a lovely smile.
All this NSA spying was constructed to be just slightly legal.
Very carefully aligned with the law so as to bend but not break it.
Notes from the meeting where that was finessed would be fun, but ultimately not good for the country.
You’re a very strange form of exhibitionist, aren’t you?
I don’t think it is. Considering that the supposed argument for why it is legal is one of the better protected secrets in the whole mess, I think it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Another coward and ‘enemy of the people’ in government.
#nightlynews
Well obviously I wasn’t there. But from what I’ve read, it sure seems they tried to keep it legal.
It looks like lawyers very carefully decided what could be collected and on whom without violating current law.
but yeah, I’d like to know more.
Wait no longer.
A real live Third Amendment Case. FTL:
As militarized as the cops are getting these days, I think the plaintiffs have a point.
It doesn’t happen often, but occasionally a 3rd Amendment argument is made in court: Third Amendment Suit Questions Police Fridge-Raiding Tactics.
In this case, police demanded that a homeowner allow them to use his home as a base for surveillance of his neighbor, a suspected <whatever>. Police are not soldiers, but the claim is that this demand violates the homeowner’s Third Amendment rights anyway. Not implausible.
Remember last time we had something like this, with Obama’s assassination memo? It too had bricks of plausibility held together with a mortar of bullshit, like a definition of “imminent threat” that requires neither imminence nor a threat.
I still haven’t seen anything the NSA has done that is actually illegal though.
It all looks like ti was crafted to be just legal enough. Is there any evidence that’s not true?
A quick skim of your posting history shows that you’re obviously very opinionated on political matters. It would be very naive of you to think that wouldn’t be enough to get you flagged as “interesting” to the government depending on who happens to hold the govt’s power. With the authoritarian direction that government has been taking since 9/11, I think the old “I have nothing to hide, so who cares if my privacy rights are being disregarded?” attitude is dangerous.
Yes, according to the Washington Post: “The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.”
Why are they spying again?
Well, because he has been publicly so obviously very opinionated since the heyday of J Edgar Hoover and has never been arrested, it’s hard to think he’s flagged as more than “mildly interesting” by the law enforcement agents who catalog loudmouth lefties, and is more likely in the “who is that?” trashbin. Back in the day a lot of Pinko-Americans had inflated self images of their bad, revolutionary selves and thought there were FBI agents following their every move. They were disappointed to find out The Hoove and his successors didn’t give two shits about them. Bigger fish to fry, and all.
This is not to reduce people’s concern over barely-legal domestic spying–it’s kinda cute that they think they are somehow important–but 'luci is the kind of Real American Opinionated Bastard who, if brought before Robert Mueller to answer for his sins, would spit in his eye and repeat what he said. And more. People who are very public in their beliefs are like that, and often cannot understand why someone else would be more circumspect. You don’t make change by hiding your light under a bushel basket.
And “a Senate staffer” said this? Since when have we cared about what Senate staffers had to say about anything? They’re clerical. Fuck 'em. 
Because apparently terrorism can be used to justify anything you want it to since 9/11.
Well, I think that the direction that govt. intrusion has taken over the last 13-ish years is very concerning and I don’t think that things are going to get better if people just accept it with a shrug.
Just because you are a supremely dull fellow, luci, it does not mean your online communications cannot be used to gin up a charge or thousand against you.
Its hard for me to care about this considering I trust Obama on this issue.