politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's actually not true, but I expect that you only posted so you could downvote further.
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.
That's it isn't it. You don't understand the program, and the result is its bad.
Section 702 is only the current iteration of a legal problem that has been brought to congress by FISA users since its inception. It really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and more to do with the inability of Congress.
I understand that whenever a centrist is dead wrong about something, they pull this gaslighting horseshit.
HILARIOUS
You centrist! You're gaslighting me with facts!
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.
You don't understand how FISA was implemented. You'd rather be consumed by things you don't know about than become aware of things that are totally out of hand.
For instance, up the string I said that the courts have ruled that mobile location tracking wasn't an issue where a warrant was needed. Not only that, but you don't know mobile location tracking is commercially available. Anyone can buy the data, and that's wrong. Senator Ron Wydon has been working on this for years. Instead of being worried about all the rights you have that are not being taken away, worry about the those that are.
You pretended that section 702 got us the intel Bush ignored prior to 9/11. It couldn't have, as it was implemented almost a decade later.
You lied.
Sigh...if that's the best you can do, I am now bored.
I'm not here to entertain you.
Its worked