Democratic Congress Legislates Away 1st Amendment

[Kuciwalker]

Er, how does that contradict, or even add to what I said?

[Ramo]

Yep, you recall incorrectly. The law allows surveillance of any communication that Gonzo "reasonably believes" involves "foreign intelligence." Which is why the kucis of the world should read a paper before whining about people like me.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yep, you recall incorrectly. The law allows surveillance of any communication that Gonzo "reasonably believes" involves "foreign intelligence." Which is why the kucis of the world should read a paper before whining about people like me.

That's funny, you haven't contradicted me, unless your disputing my quote FTA...

(And wow, you're prickly. Defensive, even?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Er, how does that contradict, or even add to what I said?

Because you said it was about two people on foreign soil that passes through the US. Not so. The real problem was surveillance of communications between one person on foreign soil and a US citizen in the USA without a warrant.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because you said it was about two people on foreign soil that passes through the US.

Reread my post a few dozen times until it all sinks in, IS.

[Kuciwalker]

here's a hint, Ramo and IS:

i.e. the law was marketed as fixing that problem (which is a problem, and obviously acceptable), but some people claim it does more than that.

Now, I'm not going to read the whole law (I don't care nearly enough), and I don't especially trust either side to tell me what it actually says without major spin, but the article in the OP does support my assertion that the bill was supposed to fix the difficulty of wiretapping entirely foreign conversations that pass through the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Reread my post a few dozen times until it all sinks in, IS.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Anyway, IIRC this is about our ability to tap conversations between two people on foreign soil which happen to pass through the US. Which is obviously something we should be doing. So Ramos of the world, quit whining

Wanna try again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
here's a hint, Ramo and IS:

i.e. the law was marketed as fixing that problem (which is a problem, and obviously acceptable), but some people claim it does more than that.

There is no "some people claim", that's actually what the law does!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wanna try again?

I think you need a few dozen more times, sorry.

[Ramo]

I have no idea what your original post is supposed to mean then. No one disagreed with updating FISA to accommodate changes in technology wrt foreign communications. There was alternative Dem legislation to that effect that was abandoned due to a veto threat.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is no "some people claim", that's actually what the law does

Doesn't your brain hurt when you write one thing which directly contradicts what you wrote just before?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
I have no idea what your original post is supposed to mean then. No one disagreed with updating FISA. There was alternative Dem legislation to that effect that was abandoned due to a veto threat.

He's trying to be uber-ridiculous and say that since the law's main goal was about foreign to foreign communications that pass through US switchboards, we shouldn't complain about the changes that have been created in the warrant approval process for surveillance of any communications that involve a foreign target.