• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the H.R.1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act?

Do you support the H.R.1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act?


  • Total voters
    25

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes
No
other



https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1466/all-info
Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (thereby restoring or reviving provisions amended or repealed by such Acts as if such Acts had not been enacted), except with respect to reports to Congress regarding court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Extends from 7 to 10 years the maximum term of FISA judges. Makes such judges eligible for redesignation.
Permits FISA courts to appoint special masters to advise on technical issues raised during proceedings.
Requires orders approving certain electronic surveillance to direct that, upon request of the applicant, any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance).
Prohibits acquisitions under FISA relating to a U.S. person, or acquisitions under Executive Order 12333 targeting a U.S. person, without a warrant based on probable cause.
Requires the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice to destroy any information collected under the repealed Acts, or acquired under Executive Order 12333 without a warrant, if the information concerns a U.S. person that is not related to an investigation that is actively ongoing on the date of enactment of this Act.
Prohibits the federal government from requiring manufacturers of electronic devices and related software to build in mechanisms allowing the federal government to bypass encryption or privacy technology.
Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report annually on the federal government's compliance with FISA.
Permits an employee of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community with knowledge of FISA-authorized programs and activities to submit a covered complaint to the GAO, to the House or Senate intelligence committees, or in accordance with a process under the National Security Act of 1947 with respect to reports made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Defines a "covered complaint" as a complaint or information concerning FISA-authorized programs and activities that an employee or contractor reasonably believes is evidence of: (1) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Prohibits an officer or employee of an element of the intelligence community from taking retaliatory action against an employee or contractor who seeks to disclose, or who discloses, such information.

I support it.Its a step in the right direction
 
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.
 
My favorite is when people claim its ok to have the Patriot Act because we at one point had the Sedition and Espionage Act and how President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Hebeas Corpus. Yes, because we have previously violated the peoples rights, we should do it again!!!
 
My favorite is when people claim its ok to have the Patriot Act because we at one point had the Sedition and Espionage Act and how President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Hebeas Corpus. Yes, because we have previously violated the peoples rights, we should do it again!!!

I admit that when the war on terror first started and even some time after I was I used to think like that. I used to think anyone against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan were piece of **** **** sucking dirty filthy code pink hippy scum, that anyone against the patriot act were scumbag terrorist sympathizers, and would have had no problem if every Muslim boarding a plane was cavity searched first. Over time I stopped thinking like that.
 
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.

Says it all.
 
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.

:yt

But what is in the act that isn't being told about? Or should I say what WILL be in the act if/when it passes and is signed by the POTUS. Riders always seem to get into a piece of legislation before it is actually signed by the POTUS.
 
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet
 
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet
Why not scrap the whole thing and start from scratch with the things that do not violate the Constitution?
 
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet

why can't we use a hatchet? what is it about this legislation that needs to be surgically removed as opposed to doing away with it entirely?
 
Do I support it as written? Yes. Do I think it has a chance in hell of getting passed? No. Do I think the government would pay any attention to it if it was passed? No.
 
ever since the comments of jonathan gruber with respect to the PPACA, in combination with the "pass it to find out whats in it" comments, i have to be skeptical on this

even if the language is clear, who knows what it will look like if enacted. which companies get exempted from the requirements because they're inconvenient or impact revenue (e.g. changes to manufacturer specs on mobile devices for Apple)? which provisions later get waived away by executive order? which features get delayed so that the party responsible doesn't get held accountable at the ballot box?

before the ppaca, i would have agreed with the poster who said we need a hatchet not a scalpel. but after that, i dont trust any bill that this congress comes up with of this magnitude. i get that the text of this bill itself is short, but it refers to the dismantling of a much more complex and entrenched piece of legislation.

these are the all stars who couldnt oversee the creation of a website in 2 years with 300 million dollars; these are the geniuses that take over a decade to deliver new fighter jets; and the ones who have created our nonsensical middle east policy where we can't even keep track of which rebels and terrorists we are funneling the money and the guns to.

its time we take back the authority vested in our representatives and scale back the extent to which they are in charge of things. i say we take it one provision at a time until they can prove that they're deserving of more responsibility
 
Assuming it really is what it appears to be on the surface, yes I would support it. The Patriot act is one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation we've ever passed, and it's time we get rid of it.

Yep, it was one of the things the neocons at PNAC were talking about when they said, all we need is another Pearl Harbor and we'll be able to pass everything we want.
 
Why not scrap the whole thing and start from scratch with the things that do not violate the Constitution?

why can't we use a hatchet? what is it about this legislation that needs to be surgically removed as opposed to doing away with it entirely?

I've addressed this a few times in various threads, so we'll see if repeating myself makes me talk more or for once makes me less verbose due to fatigue ;)

Why the scapel? Why not scrap the whole thing? A number of reasons...

One, the vast majority of it is sound and solid law. Even it's biggest critic at the time of it's passage, the one man to vote against it Russ Fiengold, acknowledged that 90% of the bill is solid worth while law. Most of PATRIOT is aimed at bringing out survelliance law into the modern age. Prior to PATRIOT, the two most instrumental survelliance laws in the country was Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act in 1978 and TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets act of 1968. Prior to PATRIOT we had a cobbled together pieces of patchwork trying to deal with the massive advances in technology since then; patchwork that left gaping holes and horrible grey areas. Scrapping a large amount of legitimately worth while updates to our intelligence law to get rid of some problematic parts is inefficient and wasteful. In part because....

Two, the political poison that is PATRIOT, mixed with the highly politicized atmosphere today, makes it extremely unlikely that an option of "Just repeal the whole thing and put back the good parts" is likely to work. ANYTHING related to Patriot is largely panned by the public and is unpopular, making it very fertile ground for anyone looking to attack an incumbant if they were to support a bill bringing back any part of PATRIOT. As such, it'd likely be politically damaging for someone to take up a bill restoring the majority of the good parts. Not to mention, with how divided we are today, the likelihood of such a bill actually gaining wide scale acceptance to a level necessary to actually pass (let alone make it past a presidents desk) is likely small.

Given that I feel the majority of it is good, and given that I believe getting those things rewritten into law would be extremely difficult and potentially unlikely anytime in the near future, to me that creates a recipe asking for a measured approach. We have a house with a good foundation and solid structure, but with a busted toilet, a linking sink, and a light fixture that's out. All problematic things that definitely make life more difficult and you don't want to leave there; but you don't bulldoze the entire house, especially when building prices are much higher than before and the potential contractors you could hire are much more limited this time around.

There are all kinds of methods of dealing with the more problematic portions of it; many that have already been working for years. Sunets built into the bill itself, court cases striking portions of it, new bills amending or removing portoins of it. Those methods should continue to be employed to clean out the troubled parts while leaving the solid foundation in place.

I see no point in repealing PATRIOT unless one has an inherent issue with Government Survelliance in general, in which case calls to simply repeat PATRIOT but not many of the other laws (Like FISA or Title III) are simply either short sighted and useless OR a sign that the person is not actually caring about survelliance but rather a political hot button.
 
I've addressed this a few times in various threads, so we'll see if repeating myself makes me talk more or for once makes me less verbose due to fatigue ;)

Why the scapel? Why not scrap the whole thing? A number of reasons...

One, the vast majority of it is sound and solid law. Even it's biggest critic at the time of it's passage, the one man to vote against it Russ Fiengold, acknowledged that 90% of the bill is solid worth while law. Most of PATRIOT is aimed at bringing out survelliance law into the modern age. Prior to PATRIOT, the two most instrumental survelliance laws in the country was Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act in 1978 and TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets act of 1968. Prior to PATRIOT we had a cobbled together pieces of patchwork trying to deal with the massive advances in technology since then; patchwork that left gaping holes and horrible grey areas. Scrapping a large amount of legitimately worth while updates to our intelligence law to get rid of some problematic parts is inefficient and wasteful. In part because....

Two, the political poison that is PATRIOT, mixed with the highly politicized atmosphere today, makes it extremely unlikely that an option of "Just repeal the whole thing and put back the good parts" is likely to work. ANYTHING related to Patriot is largely panned by the public and is unpopular, making it very fertile ground for anyone looking to attack an incumbant if they were to support a bill bringing back any part of PATRIOT. As such, it'd likely be politically damaging for someone to take up a bill restoring the majority of the good parts. Not to mention, with how divided we are today, the likelihood of such a bill actually gaining wide scale acceptance to a level necessary to actually pass (let alone make it past a presidents desk) is likely small.

Given that I feel the majority of it is good, and given that I believe getting those things rewritten into law would be extremely difficult and potentially unlikely anytime in the near future, to me that creates a recipe asking for a measured approach. We have a house with a good foundation and solid structure, but with a busted toilet, a linking sink, and a light fixture that's out. All problematic things that definitely make life more difficult and you don't want to leave there; but you don't bulldoze the entire house, especially when building prices are much higher than before and the potential contractors you could hire are much more limited this time around.

There are all kinds of methods of dealing with the more problematic portions of it; many that have already been working for years. Sunets built into the bill itself, court cases striking portions of it, new bills amending or removing portoins of it. Those methods should continue to be employed to clean out the troubled parts while leaving the solid foundation in place.

I see no point in repealing PATRIOT unless one has an inherent issue with Government Survelliance in general, in which case calls to simply repeat PATRIOT but not many of the other laws (Like FISA or Title III) are simply either short sighted and useless OR a sign that the person is not actually caring about survelliance but rather a political hot button.

this all makes sense if we accept the idea that 90% of the bill is good. I don't know if I agree with that, however, because I honestly don't know a ton about what's actually in it. what are the parts that you would take out and how are they different from the parts that you would leave in?

oh and sorry to make you repeat yourself. I suppose i'm still reasonably new around here and haven't talked about PATRIOT in a long time.
 
this all makes sense if we accept the idea that 90% of the bill is good. I don't know if I agree with that, however, because I honestly don't know a ton about what's actually in it. what are the parts that you would take out and how are they different from the parts that you would leave in?

oh and sorry to make you repeat yourself. I suppose i'm still reasonably new around here and haven't talked about PATRIOT in a long time.

No problem being new, or making me repeat myself :) Nature of a message board. If I wasn't interested in still saying my opinion on it I would've just kept my trap shut ;)

That said, what it does mean is that sometimes I can just repost what I've already written. And seeing as someone asked me a similar question, I'll go ahead and do that.

Second, an example of the type of things I find good are the multitude of updates To past surveillance laws like Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act and Title III of the Omnibus Crime control and safe streets act of 1968, which brings many of those laws up to speed with things like email, cell phones, etc the were just non existent at those times. For example, Section 204 updates a part of Title III dealing with Survelliance to read "wire, oral, and electronic" as opposed to just wire and oral, removing the grey area regarding modern communication and how it fits with a title III. This allowed for the government to obtain a voicemail via a search warrant, where as previously the law would require them to get a warrant to tap the phone and then hope the individual played said voicemail.

Section 214 and 216 are similar, bringing the technologies of penregisters and trap and trace devices into the modern era of email and chat rooms, allowing the government to obtain warrants to use devices to gleam what keys a person is pushing instead of just what numbers they're dialing.

Third, some of the things I'd have no qualms seeing cut (mind you, it's been 8 years since I heavily studied the bill so many of these mayve been altered/removed already). Section 206, dealing with roving wiretaps. Patriot lowered the burden of proof to gain a warrant for such a thing, needing to only show its needed because the persons movement between communication sources circumvents detection rather than showing that they're doing it specifically to circumvent detection. I'd be fine seeing that standard bumped up once again.

Another instance is section 213 dealing with sneak and peek warrants. I'd be fine seeing the "foreign agent" require,enr placed back in, removing its ability to be used on domestic targets. A look at section 215, the "any tangible things" provision, and it's cousin action 505 would be absolutely reasonable as well.

Finally, I'd love for them to reexamine section 802, the definition of domestic terrorism as defined in Patriot, as I feel it's FAR to broad and gives the government way too much leeway.
 
Do you support the H.R.1466 - Surveillance State Repeal Act?

if it only does what it says in the OP, then probably. if they attach a bunch of poison pills to it, no.

this is all rhetorical, though. the "patriot" act will never be repealed, nor will most of the other measures and policies passed as part of the WOT. the NSA will also continue to record every bit of data out there, and it will most likely expand its operations even more. this bill is ceremonial, and nothing more.
 
Absolutely and unequivicoably "no". I'm emphatically against any legislation that would enact a wholesale repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act as opposed to a piecemail approach. The correct answer for this kind of surgery is a scapel, not a hatchet

That's one possible route, but I'd prefer the hatchet and passing things individually that was previously in the act and should stay law.

It was far reaching legislation that was passed in probably the time that people were least worried about civil liberties and fearful of constant terrorist attacks. If the single measures can't bear scrutiny on their own they shouldn't be law
 
It's a step in the right direction. More is needed to properly constrain the government, but this at least starts in the right direction it would seem. Particularly getting rid of the Anti-Patriot Act.

I think it in order to prevent future abuses companies should be required by law to delete their data on customers that the government could use to spy on the people with.
 
I've addressed this a few times in various threads, so we'll see if repeating myself makes me talk more or for once makes me less verbose due to fatigue ;)

Why the scapel? Why not scrap the whole thing? A number of reasons...

One, the vast majority of it is sound and solid law. Even it's biggest critic at the time of it's passage, the one man to vote against it Russ Fiengold, acknowledged that 90% of the bill is solid worth while law. Most of PATRIOT is aimed at bringing out survelliance law into the modern age. Prior to PATRIOT, the two most instrumental survelliance laws in the country was Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act in 1978 and TITLE III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets act of 1968. Prior to PATRIOT we had a cobbled together pieces of patchwork trying to deal with the massive advances in technology since then; patchwork that left gaping holes and horrible grey areas. Scrapping a large amount of legitimately worth while updates to our intelligence law to get rid of some problematic parts is inefficient and wasteful. In part because....

Two, the political poison that is PATRIOT, mixed with the highly politicized atmosphere today, makes it extremely unlikely that an option of "Just repeal the whole thing and put back the good parts" is likely to work. ANYTHING related to Patriot is largely panned by the public and is unpopular, making it very fertile ground for anyone looking to attack an incumbant if they were to support a bill bringing back any part of PATRIOT. As such, it'd likely be politically damaging for someone to take up a bill restoring the majority of the good parts. Not to mention, with how divided we are today, the likelihood of such a bill actually gaining wide scale acceptance to a level necessary to actually pass (let alone make it past a presidents desk) is likely small.

Given that I feel the majority of it is good, and given that I believe getting those things rewritten into law would be extremely difficult and potentially unlikely anytime in the near future, to me that creates a recipe asking for a measured approach. We have a house with a good foundation and solid structure, but with a busted toilet, a linking sink, and a light fixture that's out. All problematic things that definitely make life more difficult and you don't want to leave there; but you don't bulldoze the entire house, especially when building prices are much higher than before and the potential contractors you could hire are much more limited this time around.

There are all kinds of methods of dealing with the more problematic portions of it; many that have already been working for years. Sunets built into the bill itself, court cases striking portions of it, new bills amending or removing portoins of it. Those methods should continue to be employed to clean out the troubled parts while leaving the solid foundation in place.

I see no point in repealing PATRIOT unless one has an inherent issue with Government Survelliance in general, in which case calls to simply repeat PATRIOT but not many of the other laws (Like FISA or Title III) are simply either short sighted and useless OR a sign that the person is not actually caring about survelliance but rather a political hot button.


So your excuse for not repealing the whole thing is because it may not be politically beneficial for future politicians to enact what you may think are the good parts of the patriot act.Sounds like Nancy Pelosi lying her ass off saying she is against domestic spying while supporting unconditional funding of the NSA.
 
So your excuse for not repealing the whole thing is because it may not be politically beneficial for future politicians to enact what you may think are the good parts of the patriot act.Sounds like Nancy Pelosi lying her ass off saying she is against domestic spying while supporting unconditional funding of the NSA.

No. I think that we shouldn't repeal the whole thing because the vast majority of it is sound, useful, reasonable intelligence law and I don't believe attempts to reinstitute the good parts would be successful anytime soon.

The REASON I don't think those attempts would be successful is because it would not be politically beneficial to politicians to push for reintroducing those portions, and thus few would likely do it let alone vote in favor of it.

It's like saying I'm for legal immigration, but against those who do it illegally. My solution for dealing with those doing it illegally isn't to say "**** immigration entirely" and toss the whole thing out; it's to deal with the problems that are inherent as they come up.

Similarly, I have an issue with unconstitutional domestic survelliance and believe that efforts should absolutely be made to combat that. However, I don't have an issue with survelliance as a broad concept. Just like I have an issue with illegal immigratoin into this country, but that doesn't mean I have an issue with immigration as a broad concept.
 
No. I think that we shouldn't repeal the whole thing because the vast majority of it is sound, useful, reasonable intelligence law and I don't believe attempts to reinstitute the good parts would be successful anytime soon.

The REASON I don't think those attempts would be successful is because it would not be politically beneficial to politicians to push for reintroducing those portions, and thus few would likely do it let alone vote in favor of it.

If the vast majority of it is useful and not unconstitutional then it should be able to pass on it's own merit and politicians should have nothing to fear from passing those things.

It's like saying I'm for legal immigration, but against those who do it illegally. My solution for dealing with those doing it illegally isn't to say "**** immigration entirely" and toss the whole thing out; it's to deal with the problems that are inherent as they come up.

Similarly, I have an issue with unconstitutional domestic surveillance and believe that efforts should absolutely be made to combat that. However, I don't have an issue with survelliance as a broad concept. Just like I have an issue with illegal immigration into this country, but that doesn't mean I have an issue with immigration as a broad concept.

Not comparable.A lot of the domestic spying was justified as the result of patriot act, so elected officials can fraudulently claim they were following the law(anything that violates the Constitution is illegal). Illegal immigration is illegal because it's illegal there is nothing on the books that allow for illegal immigration.Because if there was something that allowed illegal immigration then it wouldn't be called illegal immigration in the first place.Illegal immigration is happening due to the fact our elected officials are turning a blind eye.
 
If the vast majority of it is useful and not unconstitutional then it should be able to pass on it's own merit and politicians should have nothing to fear from passing those things.

So basically you've learned nothing of politics in your 9 years of posting heavily on a political message board. You're seriously suggesting that bills pass, and public perception of a bill relies, simply on it's "merit"?

That's funny.

PATRIOT has been lambasted from the left and right in some fashion since it's inception. The attacks on it have generally not been detailed, they have not been nuanced, they have not been specific. Rather, they've been generic in nature, attacking the bill as a whole. To believe that a politician attempting to pass a bill that is 90% of what PATRIOT was originally is not going to have his opponents raking him over the coals and trying to tie his name to the overall negative stigma of it (REGARDLESS of it's merit), and to think that the public isn't going to simply view it as PATRIOT redux, with all the same stigma attached, then you're being laughably naive and ridiculously unrealistic in a political sense.

Not comparable

Of course its not...can't accept that your claim that I'm like Nancy Pelosi equally applies to your pet issue. Much easier to just wave it away. You're right, acting unconstitutionally is illegal. As such, illegal survelliance is illegal and wrong and should be combatted. But that doesn't mean we should harm LEGAL survelliance that is in line with the constitution. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to oppose illegal uses of survelliance powers and illegal survelliance laws, while still strongly supporting the governments ability and the legal foundation for them to engage in survelliance.
 
So basically you've learned nothing of politics in your 9 years of posting heavily on a political message board. You're seriously suggesting that bills pass, and public perception of a bill relies, simply on it's "merit"?

I realize that in my 9 plus years posting on political message boards that people will support blatantly unconstitutional things and claim it is constitutional or that it is justified.


That's funny.

PATRIOT has been lambasted from the left and right in some fashion since it's inception. The attacks on it have generally not been detailed, they have not been nuanced, they have not been specific. Rather, they've been generic in nature, attacking the bill as a whole. To believe that a politician attempting to pass a bill that is 90% of what PATRIOT was originally is not going to have his opponents raking him over the coals and trying to tie his name to the overall negative stigma of it (REGARDLESS of it's merit), and to think that the public isn't going to simply view it as PATRIOT redux, with all the same stigma attached, then you're being laughably naive and ridiculously unrealistic in a political sense.



Of course its not...can't accept that your claim that I'm like Nancy Pelosi equally applies to your pet issue. Much easier to just wave it away. You're right, acting unconstitutionally is illegal. As such, illegal survelliance is illegal and wrong and should be combatted. But that doesn't mean we should harm LEGAL survelliance that is in line with the constitution. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to oppose illegal uses of survelliance powers and illegal survelliance laws, while still strongly supporting the governments ability and the legal foundation for them to engage in survelliance.

Again if this emot-airquote.giflegalemot-airquote.gif surveillance is justified and not unconstitutional then elected officials will have no problem reenacting it.

So keep telling yourself that the whole thing shouldn't be scrapped.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom