jerseyhoya wrote:To the extent that I was attacking him, it was mocking a broken promise and not the policy itself. Certainly wasn't expressing any outrage.

jerseyhoya wrote:In general I think hypocrisy is overrated as a political hit. People changing their mind should not be regarded as a sin. But to do so blatantly and without explanation is worth pointing out.

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:it's not like obama got to the WH and had the sole power to just roll back whatever he wanted. if you want to call him naive for making those comments as a senator, fine.

1. Congress voted to legalize expansive surveillance powers in 2001 (The USA PATRIOT ACT), 2008 (retroactive immunity for warantless NSA wiretaps in the FISA Amendments Act), and in 2012 (renewing the FISA Amendments Act).

2. Congress declined to force administration transparency/honesty on secret interpretations of the law in 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), 2008 (NSA immunity), 2011 (the Wyden amendment to the NDAA, which would have required interpretations not be secret) & 2012 (the similar Markley amendment to the NDAA). Those last two actually got voted down, which means Congress voted to enable secret government legal interpretation.

3. All of the opprobrium you should feel at the government’s ridiculously broad surveillance powers needs to be directed at CONGRESS, which keeps approving them while voting they stay secret.

What branch of government is the NSA located in? Who is the commander in chief? It's not an independent agency floating in the ether.

td11 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:it's not like obama got to the WH and had the sole power to just roll back whatever he wanted. if you want to call him naive for making those comments as a senator, fine.

1. Congress voted to legalize expansive surveillance powers in 2001 (The USA PATRIOT ACT), 2008 (retroactive immunity for warantless NSA wiretaps in the FISA Amendments Act), and in 2012 (renewing the FISA Amendments Act).

2. Congress declined to force administration transparency/honesty on secret interpretations of the law in 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), 2008 (NSA immunity), 2011 (the Wyden amendment to the NDAA, which would have required interpretations not be secret) & 2012 (the similar Markley amendment to the NDAA). Those last two actually got voted down, which means Congress voted to enable secret government legal interpretation.

3. All of the opprobrium you should feel at the government’s ridiculously broad surveillance powers needs to be directed at CONGRESS, which keeps approving them while voting they stay secret.

What branch of government is the NSA located in? Who is the commander in chief? It's not an independent agency floating in the ether.

because congress is left completely out of this process, right

jerseyhoya wrote:AG Jeff Chiesa will be the next senator

traderdave wrote:....frankly, is all Lautenberg's fault. He had no business running for re-election last time around.

The NSA and FBI have dug into the servers of nine major Internet companies and pulled everything from e-mails to video, according to a report in The Washington Post. The information has allowed analysts to track movements and contacts over an extended period of time.

This marks the first time the classified program, nicknamed PRISM and established in 2007, has been made public. The disclosure comes on the same day as the Obama administration fielded charges that it secretly obtained records for millions of Verizon customers.

Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who wrote and introduced the PATRIOT Act to Congress in 2001, said in a statement Thursday that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds by issuing a secret order to collect phone log records from millions of Americans.

“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation," he said in a statement. "While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.

He added: "The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

S 240.33 AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR
PEACE OFFICER WHEN, WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM
A PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW TO BE A POLICE
OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES, HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT.
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IS A CLASS
E FELONY.
S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

pacino wrote:Author of Patriot Act is shocked at President who implemented aspects of said Patriot Act:

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who wrote and introduced the PATRIOT Act to Congress in 2001, said in a statement Thursday that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds by issuing a secret order to collect phone log records from millions of Americans.

“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation," he said in a statement. "While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.

He added: "The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

they did ask for Verizon business, not the private use phones, so not sure what he's talking about. approved by a republican judge, no less.

Roger Dorn wrote:

pacino wrote:Author of Patriot Act is shocked at President who implemented aspects of said Patriot Act:

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who wrote and introduced the PATRIOT Act to Congress in 2001, said in a statement Thursday that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds by issuing a secret order to collect phone log records from millions of Americans.

“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation," he said in a statement. "While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.

He added: "The Bureau’s broad application for phone records was made under the so-called business records provision of the Act. I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.”

they did ask for Verizon business, not the private use phones, so not sure what he's talking about. approved by a republican judge, no less.

This guy is a moron. Congratulations you and your colleagues passed a bill in haste without reading it of fully comprehending the ramifications of giving vast surveillance power to the Executive branch. He's naive if he thought Presidents wouldn't abuse this power.

pacino wrote:don't annoy the cops:

S 240.33 AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR
PEACE OFFICER WHEN, WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM
A PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW TO BE A POLICE
OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES, HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT.
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IS A CLASS
E FELONY.
S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

The Republican-controlled House voted Thursday to resume the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children, a largely symbolic move in the first immigration-related vote in either chamber of Congress this year and a measure of the daunting challenge facing supporters of a sweeping overhaul of existing law on the subject.

The party-line vote of 224-201 was aimed at blocking implementation of President Barack Obama's 2012 election-year order to stop deportations of many so-called DREAM Act individuals. Democrats on the House floor reacted with boos when the provision was added to a routine spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Roger Dorn wrote:

pacino wrote:don't annoy the cops:

S 240.33 AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR
PEACE OFFICER WHEN, WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM
A PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW TO BE A POLICE
OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS OR HER
OFFICIAL DUTIES, HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT.
AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IS A CLASS
E FELONY.
S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

So are the police essentially para-military now? Sure as hell seems like it.

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:AG Jeff Chiesa will be the next senator

I was in a committee meeting at the Capital when this was officially announced today and it really seemed to take a lot of people by surprise.

The bottom line here appears to be that we all are paying $24 million so that Christie can scratch his buddy's back with a three-week gig while protecting his own ass for November. I voted for Christie in 2009 and will very likely vote for him again in 2013 (because Buono is pretty much an idiot) but this is just stupid and Christie knows it. I feel very badly for speaking ill of the deceased but this, frankly, is all Lautenberg's fault. He had no business running for re-election last time around.

“I think the first thing we have to do is make sure the borders are secure,” said Chiesa. “From there, these issues are new to me.”

Monkeyboy wrote:

“I think the first thing we have to do is make sure the borders are secure,” said Chiesa. “From there, these issues are new to me.”

I don't know anything about anything, but I do know we need to close our borders!!

How about taking care of your state, the one that was just hammered by a hurricane. Or maybe the poverty and violence in your cities. Nah, better close those borders!

I guess it was just a dog whistle comment to the base, but I literally lol'd.