Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 9/25/2001 9:49:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 9:50:59 AM EDT by fattym4]
By Mark Wigfield Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated willingness Tuesday to modify the Bush Administration's antiterrorism bill to address constitutional questions raised by members of Congress and civil libertarians. In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ashcroft was questioned about the bill's changes to a key espionage law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that critics say could effectively turn the statute on U.S. citizens. The administration's bill would invoke FISA if rooting out foreign-government espionage was "a purpose" of an investigation, not the sole purpose. But invoking the law's extensive powers more broadly could, for example, allow investigators to tap the content of a phone call without first finding probable cause of criminal activity. The Bush administration has sought to expand the law because of what Ashcroft said is the overlap of criminal and terrorist activity, Ashcroft said. "If we were going to make a change here, I think we would move toward thinking that if 'a purpose' isn't satisfactory, saying 'a significant purpose' reflects a considered judgment that reflects the kind of balancing we're all seeking to find," Ashcroft said in response to questions from [red]Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. [/red] But the panel showed little inclination to act on the bill quickly, as Ashcroft urged. Instead, [red]Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.[/red], asked that Ashcroft, who had to leave before he could respond to questions from all of the panel members, be called back for another hearing. (MORE) DOW JONES NEWS 09-25-01 01:36 PM- - 01 36 PM EDT 09-25-01 - since when are these pinko-commie-fYck-ups concerned with [blue]protecting[/blue] our Constitution?!?!?!?!?!?!? and who put them on this panel?
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 1:08:43 PM EDT
Yeah it's pretty scary. Hopefully that cunt Feiny won't get too far attaching her rider to any legislation she can. Good eye. We ALL need to make sure these domestic terrorists, like Feinstein are watched very closely.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 2:40:54 PM EDT
I despise Schumer and Feinstein. That said, I don't want the government to be able to tap phone calls or obtain search warrants without probable cause. "Its to stop terrorists" is the same cry as "Its for the children". They both lead to giving up our liberty for some percieved safety.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:37:22 PM EDT
That is so true. Since when did those two dirt bags give a crap about our Constitutional rights? No, the real reason is political. They just want to make Ashcroft's job harder -- to find a point of disgreement so they can show their fellow dems that they won't march right in line with the republicans.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 4:48:04 PM EDT
While I find it farely astonishing that Finestine and Shumer would take a stand in support of the consitution- all you tin-hat wearers should be able to see the obvious threat here. If allowed to past in the present form, any group could be targeted for the tapping of their calls just to see if they were getting foreign support. And any information obtained about other activities not involving foreign intelligence could still be recorded and used against you. There is only ONE change needed, that is to make any communications survaiance centered on a PERSON not a particualr phone, or e-mail account. That makes sense with the decentralization of modern communications. All other rules should remain as they are, including the manditory destruction of any accidentally intercepted third party communications and the banning of third party intercepts from being used in a court of law.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 5:09:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 5:14:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/25/2001 5:13:36 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 5:16:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 5:24:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: - since when are these pinko-commie-fYck-ups concerned with [blue]protecting[/blue] our Constitution?!?!?!?!?!?!? and who put them on this panel?
View Quote
don't kid yourself. that is not their agenda. rather, they are loathe to push something through that will be seen as a success for the "other side". if/when they can turn this bill so that it looks good for them, and not bush, they will jump on it so fast you're head will spin.
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 5:38:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/25/2001 6:18:22 PM EDT
Duhnuhnuhnuh Duhnuhnuhnuh - you have now entered the Twilight Zone... Because of his stance on his second amendment, I thought Ashcroft was one of the "good guys". Just goes to show you that both dems and repubs are just different sides of the same coin. Ashcroft wanting to take our liberties away and Fienstein and Schumer defending them - who'd a thunk it? Rocko
Top Top