|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 11, 2024 11:04:12 GMT -5
Who benefits from this inaction on FISA? How about Russia? China? Iran? N. Korea? Trump? "On Wednesday, GOP lawmakers left a meeting regarding federal surveillance legislation hard-right Freedom Caucus members blocked feeling unaccomplished, and unclear about next steps on the bill, according to Axios." "Per the report, the legislation "would reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows warrantless surveillance of non-Americans by U.S. intelligence agencies."
"The meeting also included some GOP lawmakers demanding "punishment against Republicans who defect and vote against their party on procedural measures," Axios notes." "Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) told the news outlet "he called for 'severe sanction' against such lawmakers — including possibly stripping them of their 'committee assignments or their membership in the Republican Conference.'" "Trump Urges Republicans to 'Kill FISA' Reauthorization Bill. 'THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!' The bill would reauthorize Section 702 for five years." "The meeting was "pure chaos" and not "productive at all," according to Rep. Max Miller (R-OH)." "I don't even know what we're doing tomorrow … I genuinely don't know," the Ohio congressman told Axios." "Members yell at each other," Miller emphasized, "if anyone says there's a path forward on FISA, they're lying," he added." www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-genuinely-don-t-know-house-republicans-confused-about-critical-bill-after-chaotic-meeting/ar-BB1lqa47?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=92ee96f4ccc6421f9be15c2723d4a032&ei=11
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Apr 11, 2024 11:08:40 GMT -5
They were spying on the russians who happened to be involved with trumps cohorts.
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on Apr 11, 2024 11:11:20 GMT -5
This is being couched in terms of Trump......but the fact of the matter is that the "warrantless" part of it needs a pile of work for if they can do it to Trump they can do it to all of us.
It's the ultimate foolishness to toss in the towel on a suspect issue because someone you don't like happens to agree with you on it.
We forget her at our peril: Judge Rosemary Collyer................
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 11, 2024 11:23:54 GMT -5
I agree with the section regarding warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Simply remove that section.
But what the pubs are doing is refusing to allow warrantless surveillance of non-american citizens by refusing to pass any legislation. And they have no alternative plan to submit in it's place. They are just refusing to allow it.
I wonder how much money spies from other countries are funnelling to House members in nondescript ways.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Apr 11, 2024 11:49:08 GMT -5
I agree with the section regarding warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Simply remove that section. But what the pubs are doing is refusing to allow warrantless surveillance of non-american citizens by refusing to pass any legislation. And they have no alternative plan to submit in it's place. They are just refusing to allow it. I wonder how much money spies from other countries are funnelling to House members in nondescript ways. Politics suck. They have to fix it but they have to do it quickly
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Apr 11, 2024 13:05:13 GMT -5
This is being couched in terms of Trump......but the fact of the matter is that the "warrantless" part of it needs a pile of work for if they can do it to Trump they can do it to all of us. It's the ultimate foolishness to toss in the towel on a suspect issue because someone you don't like happens to agree with you on it. We forget her at our peril: Judge Rosemary Collyer................ But only a handful of Republicans voted against reauthorization.... the ones that voted for it are traitors.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 11, 2024 13:59:00 GMT -5
This is being couched in terms of Trump......but the fact of the matter is that the "warrantless" part of it needs a pile of work for if they can do it to Trump they can do it to all of us. It's the ultimate foolishness to toss in the towel on a suspect issue because someone you don't like happens to agree with you on it. We forget her at our peril: Judge Rosemary Collyer................ But only a handful of Republicans voted against reauthorization.... the ones that voted for it are traitors. We know. You'd shut down the CIA and the FBI too so your heros could walk all over this country.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Apr 11, 2024 14:38:01 GMT -5
It just needs to be fixed and it’s use must be reviewed by some sort of an independent board or agency
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Apr 11, 2024 14:38:23 GMT -5
It just needs to be fixed and it’s use must be reviewed by some sort of an independent board or agency
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Apr 11, 2024 15:00:41 GMT -5
It just needs to be fixed and it’s use must be reviewed by some sort of an independent board or agency when the government uses it for political purposes than there is a problem. Otherwise I have no problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 11, 2024 15:02:45 GMT -5
There's an entire court dedicated to judicial review.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is a specialized federal court in Washington, D.C. that Congress created in 1978 when it enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FISC’s primary role is to review executive branch (“government”) applications for authorization to employ various means of obtaining foreign intelligence, principally when they are conducted in the United States or otherwise directed at Americans.
The FISC is composed of 11 experienced federal district judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States for this part-time assignment. As such, each FISC judge has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve as a district judge. Several FISC judges serve or have served as the chief judges of their respective district courts. Because service on the FISC involves regular access to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, judges also undergo an updated background investigation before being designated to serve on the FISC. Judges serve on the FISC for a maximum of seven years. Their terms are staggered, so that in a typical year one or two judges reach the end of their terms and another one or two are newly designated to the FISC. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, so that the FISC benefits from the experience of judges from around the country. At least three of the judges must reside in the Washington, D.C. area, which ensures that a judge will be available to handle emergency applications or other matters in which the statute specifies a tight deadline.
As other federal courts have recognized, the FISC is an Article III federal court.1
|
|
|
Post by Captj on Apr 11, 2024 15:45:17 GMT -5
One might wonder why the Republicans are trying to kill this reauthorization. Their alternative legislation? They're going to let us know in a couple of weeks. Or maybe next Monday. Or whenever.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 11, 2024 16:29:19 GMT -5
It's pretty obvious. Trump is stifling all legislation until he gets elected (if he does).
Then he will immediately approve all the legislation he stuffed so he'll get credit.
He did the same with the border legislation.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Apr 11, 2024 17:22:34 GMT -5
It just needs to be fixed and it’s use must be reviewed by some sort of an independent board or agency when the government uses it for political purposes than there is a problem. Otherwise I have no problem with it. They have been using multiple methods and agencies for political purposes. I have a problem with it all. I look forward to listening to the people using law-fare now cry if and when it is used against them.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Apr 11, 2024 17:26:16 GMT -5
It just needs to be fixed and it’s use must be reviewed by some sort of an independent board or agency when the government uses it for political purposes than there is a problem. Otherwise I have no problem with it. THAT is why it should not exist. We dont punish those that violate the Constitution.
|
|