General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBiden 100% against meta data collection.
His opposition to the meta data gathering was unequivocal. Back then.
"I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you've made, I'm able to determine every single person you talk to, I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive. And the real question here is what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with Al Qaeda? We're going to trust the President and the Vice President that they're doing the right thing? Don't count me in on that."
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)really thinks about all this now. Back then in this video from 2006 I think he was right on target.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)10 Democrats voted no, Biden and the rest were with the GOP still saying Yes George.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm asking honestly, because there are too many threads on this topic to keep up with
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)he has not
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)trusted as he wishes to be? This is amazing, they run as liars then govern as thieves.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)"they run as liars then govern as thieves"
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Can't wait.
Monopoly, anyone?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bush was intentionally targeting Americans in collecting metadata without a warrant and bypassing the FISA Court.
That was illegal, but the more specific was the fact that Bush was eavesdropping on Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3000248
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Oh, okay.
You go with that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yes, he's saying metadata is intrusive, and the context is that Bush was specifically and illegal targeting Americans, and also spying on them.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Question: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Answer: None, they just declare darkness to be the standard.
progressoid
(50,008 posts)Good one.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)karynnj
(59,507 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Words mean precisely what they mean.
Taking Meta Data is intrusive. It matters not whether it has been declared retroactively legal.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)- and the Bush program required no approval at all.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)A select group of political appointees who have no responsibility to the people can, in secret, IN SECRET, declare that millions of people be spied upon.
Sorry, no sale.
Making something legal with no proper consideration for whether it should be is what authoritarians do to justify themselves.
Was there a public debate on this?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"And the real question here is what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with Al Qaeda? We're going to trust the President and the Vice President that they're doing the right thing? Don't count me in on that."
He's not saying 'oh, no warrant' he's saying 'I don't trust them with the data'. What are they doing with it now? Not just Pres and VP but all of those thousands of 'security' personnel in odd companies being paid shit loads? Do we trust all of them because they are Sanctified by God or what?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He's not saying 'oh, no warrant' he's saying 'I don't trust them with the data'. What are they doing with it now? Not just Pres and VP but all of those thousands of 'security' personnel in odd companies being paid shit loads? Do we trust all of them because they are Sanctified by God or what?
...how does that refute my point? The fact is that Bush was intentionally and illegally targeting Americans. Did that have anything to do with Al Qaeda?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You can't spin it. Read his words.
And.Stop.Fucking.Spinning.
For.Once.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Deal with it.
It's still spying. They just cynically and sleazily made it legal in a sleazy, secret way.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But as they say, you can't get water from a stone.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)A highly compressed astronomical body that emits jets of superheated gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which I'm sure he will be.
So, was I and where I am calling from personally mentioned when the probably cause evidence was presented? I would like to know. Otherwise they took my 'effects' illegally, warrant or no warrant.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,349 posts)All nice and legal, see?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Lol! I need a drink now!
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,349 posts)dennis4868
(9,774 posts)any chance people get here to dump on Obama the misleading begins....really sad.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)The man's aim is uncanny. In fact, I nominate him as a subject candidate for paranormal research.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Doesn't really apply, Biden meant to say what he said, but I thought some might get a chuckle from it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)support the US Constitution, which his oath of office requires him to do. But since we still pretend to be a civilized country, with a Constitution, his statement is entirely correct. Let's see if, like so many others, he no longer supports the rule of law. Maybe that is why we have not heard from him. He knows he will be contradicting his own stated beliefs if he supports this now. Or maybe he just can't bring himself to publicly support something he knows is wrong.
Progressive dog
(6,922 posts)Biden knew while he was still a Senator. At the time, it was illegal. Now it is legal and theoretically used under warrants issued by a FISA judge.
I've yet to see anyone make a realistic proposal to change this.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Here, let me help you:
So what probable cause was presented to gain access to MY phone records?? To the records of millions of Americans. It must have taken years to present arguments showing probable cause on that many people. But if they just got a warrant without evidence that there is cause to suspect wrong doing on the part of all those Verizon customers, of which I am one, then that Warrant is ILLEGAL, according to the only law that matters.
Stop spinning please. You cannot make legal what the Constitution forbids UNLESS there is a Constitutional Amendment. I am unaware of any amendment nullifying the 4th Amendment because it did not happen.
That means that the warrant is illegal UNLESS it was obtained in accordance with the Constitution. Is that clear enough?
Progressive dog
(6,922 posts)The SCOTUS gets to decide whether laws are constitutional and that isn't in the constitution. The founders left it out for whatever reason. Jefferson, for one, believed that each branch of government got to decide whether what it did was constitutional.
Is it clear that every precedent ever set in over 200 years of government says that laws passed by congress and signed by the president are law unless and until declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. You don't get to do it until they clone you five ways and appoint all five of you to the Supreme court. Is that clear enough.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Amendment that nullifies the 4th Amendment. Cases are thrown out of court because law enforcement neglected to get a warrant. They cannot get a warrant without showing probable cause that there is reason to suspect wrongdoing.
I have no knowledge of any court ruling that says we can ignore the requirements necessary to obtain a warrant. Could you please link to such a ruling?
I am hoping to see lawsuits, many of them, filed now against the NSA and the Multi Billion 'Security Corps' and the Secret Fisa Court itself if that warrant was issued illegally. The Constitution trumps all other rulings until it has been amended. The only reason they might get away with it, would be because they have not been challenged.
Even this SC would have a hard time ruling against the Constitution, except maybe for Thomas.
Progressive dog
(6,922 posts)assuming that it is overturned. Simple as that.
There have been lawsuits like this one on 2/27 on the EFF site"Yesterday, the Supreme Court sadly dismissed the ACLUs case, Clapper v. Amnesty International, which challenged the FISA Amendments Act (FAA)the unconstitutional law that allows the government to wiretap Americans communcating with people overseas."
[link:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/supreme-court-dismisses-challenge-fisa-warrantless-wiretapping-law-effs-lawsuit|
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)inch and they take a mile. Now we are talking about domestic spying. Tracking records of Americans talking to each other. Of course that ruling was unconstitutional anyhow, legal means nothing when it contradicts the law of the land. Empires are famous for passing laws, sometimes over night, to make the illegal, legal. To support such policies is against the very principles we claim to cherish.
So will you support another ruling, this time going even further than that vile 'ruling', now covering domestic calls, Americans talking to Americans, because you KNOW that they will do it now that they have been caught.
I support the US Constitution and condemn anyone, no matter who they are, judge, president, member of congress, laborer, butler who violates the law of the land, especially those who took an oath to defend it.
Progressive dog
(6,922 posts)and our laws allow this to happen. It is common, at least at the state level, for legislatures to knowingly pass unconstitutional laws, fight them through the courts, alter the law as little as possible, fight it through the courts again, etc.. They can keep unconstitutional laws in force for decades in some cases.
Here in NY there is a Kiryas Joel public school district which was broken from a larger district to serve members of a single religious sect. That district still exists after 23 years of litigation.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)enough. We will have to fight harder. Ben Franklin was right when he said 'we have given you a Constitution, it is up to you to defend it'. I don't think he believed it would even last this long, considering his knowledge of human nature. So I suppose we have managed to do a relatively good job so far, but not good enough.
This is a test. We'll see if we can pass it.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)They do so by passing laws that may or may not violate the Constitution and then wait to see whether a case will come before the Courts that challenges the law. Until such law is challenged and overturned, it's the law of the land. Period.
-Laelth
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Suuure he is.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He just offered the whole thing in context. Play nice.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)You were duped by Fox News.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)A FISA/court order to collect Meta Data (which Biden CLARY explained is intrusive on privacy) of tens of millions of people who are suspicious of NOTHING.
A court order for surveillance is ALWAYS supposed to be as narrowly targeted as possible precisely to avoid this sort of snooping.
What do you think of that?
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)You got suckered by Fox News.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)is that taking massive amounts of Meta Data IS intrusive.
Now, as to the court order business... you are comfortable with the fact that political appointees can, in secret, order the surveillance of millions and millions of people without any claims of probably cause?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's asonishing to watch people simply throw away their Constitutional Rights and even argue in FAVOR of doing so. I am watching history in the making. I wasn't around when this happened before. I actually didn't believe people CONSCIOUSLY threw away their rights, but now I do because I am witnessing it. It is a very sad thing to watch.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)got it passed and spoke out against it, for years, everywhere. I supported Democrats in order to get rid of it. That hasn't worked, so far.
I've been attacked by fierce Bush Supporters for opposing his policies, threatened with being turned in to Homeland Security, called a traitor by them etc etc . His policies are still with us. I'm still doing what I always did regarding Bush policies.
Spying on the American People to 'fight terror' is a Bush policy.
You chose to argue with a reference you are now unwilling to explain. I am not under any obligation to 'look it up'. Since you refuse to explain it, I assume it is not relevant to this discussion.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)The documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney generals 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of pen register and trap and trace surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the governments surveillance power. (Our original Freedom of Information Act request and our legal complaint are online.)
...
Pen register and trap and trace devices now generally refer to the surveillance of information aboutrather than the contents ofcommunications. Pen registers capture outgoing data, while trap and trace devices capture incoming data. This still includes the phone numbers of incoming and outgoing telephone calls and the time, date, and length of those calls. But the government now also uses this authority to intercept the to and from addresses of email messages, records about instant message conversations, non-content data associated with social networking identities, and at least some information about the websites that you visit (it isn't entirely clear where the government draws the line between the content of a communication and information about a communication when it comes to the addresses of websites).
Modern law has expanded the definition of a pen register to include electronic forms of communication. So it is still not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But laws CAN and sometimes ARE in violation of the Constitution.
The fact that it is a law does not preclude the possibility that it is in violation of the 4th amendment.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And I think you are confusing me with someone else.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)The amount of information to be gleaned now through ALL the meta data available across the internet and then compiled and run through various computer systems work, in toto, to create a vast web of information that is not applicable to the analog pen register of 1979.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)current situation.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)because it was ruled in 1885 that it's too cruel to the horses.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That there are wiretaps at all is because phones were invented. Spies before phones had to actually eavesdrop under a window.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I would be interested in researching it further.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Source: OVERVIEW OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invol=735
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 746, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 748, filed dissenting opinions, in which BRENNAN, J., joined. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
I think Thurgood Marshall would be appalled, though sadly not surprised, to see where this has led and to see people on a liberal forum defending this.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)quoting politicians.
Some of the arguments here are simply not accurate.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)While the conservatives on the Supreme Court (joined by Stevens) argued this did not violate the 4th amendment and won due to numbers, the most liberal members in the dissent, argued that this did violate the 4th amendment.
So, although this did become law, it is still entirely valid to agree with these liberal Justices that this violates the 4th amendment.
From the link I posted above:
Mr. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom Mr. JUSTICE BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
The Court concludes that because individuals have no actual or legitimate expectation of privacy in information they voluntarily relinquish to telephone companies, the use of pen registers by government agents is immune from Fourth Amendment scrutiny. Since I remain convinced that constitutional protections are not abrogated whenever a person apprises another of facts valuable in criminal investigations, see, e. g., United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 786 -790 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 795-796 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 95 -96 (1974) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 455 -456 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I respectfully dissent.
Applying the standards set forth in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), the Court first determines that telephone subscribers have no subjective expectations of privacy concerning the numbers they dial. To reach this conclusion, the Court posits that individuals somehow infer from the long-distance listings on their phone bills, and from the cryptic assurances of "help" in tracing obscene [442 U.S. 735, 749] calls included in "most" phone books, that pen registers are regularly used for recording local calls. See ante, at 742-743. But even assuming, as I do not, that individuals "typically know" that a phone company monitors calls for internal reasons, ante, at 743, 1 it does not follow that they expect this information to be made available to the public in general or the government in particular. Privacy is not a discrete commodity, possessed absolutely or not at all. Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone company for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other persons for other purposes. See California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, supra, at 95-96 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
The crux of the Court's holding, however, is that whatever expectation of privacy petitioner may in fact have entertained regarding his calls, it is not one "society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.'" Ante, at 743. In so ruling, the Court determines that individuals who convey information to third parties have "assumed the risk" of disclosure to the government. Ante, at 744, 745. This analysis is misconceived in two critical respects.
Implicit in the concept of assumption of risk is some notion of choice. At least in the third-party consensual surveillance cases, which first incorporated risk analysis into Fourth Amendment doctrine, the defendant presumably had exercised some discretion in deciding who should enjoy his confidential communications. See, e. g., Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 439 (1963); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 302 -303 (1966); United States v. White, supra, at 751-752 [442 U.S. 735, 750] (plurality opinion). By contrast here, unless a person is prepared to forgo use of what for many has become a personal or professional necessity, he cannot help but accept the risk of surveillance. Cf. Lopez v. United States, supra, at 465-466 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). It is idle to speak of "assuming" risks in contexts where, as a practical mater, individuals have no realistic alternative.
More fundamentally, to make risk analysis dispositive in assessing the reasonableness of privacy expectations would allow the government to define the scope of Fourth Amendment protections. For example, law enforcement officials, simply by announcing their intent to monitor the content of random samples of first-class mail or private phone conversations, could put the public on notice of the risks they would thereafter assume in such communications. See Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn. L. Rev. 349, 384, 407 (1974). Yet, although acknowledging this implication of its analysis, the Court is willing to concede only that, in some circumstances, a further "normative inquiry would be proper." Ante, at 740-741, n. 5. No meaningful effort is made to explain what those circumstances might be, or why this case is not among them.
In my view, whether privacy expectations are legitimate within the meaning of Katz depends not on the risks an individual can be presumed to accept when imparting information to third parties, but on the risks he should be forced to assume in a free and open society. By its terms, the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures assigns to the judiciary some prescriptive responsibility. As Mr. Justice Harlan, who formulated the standard the Court applies today, himself recognized: "[s]ince it is the task of the law to form and project, as well as mirror and reflect, we should not . . . merely recite . . . risks without examining the desirability of saddling them upon society." United States v. White, supra, at 786 (dissenting opinion). In making this [442 U.S. 735, 751] assessment, courts must evaluate the "intrinsic character" of investigative practices with reference to the basic values underlying the Fourth Amendment. California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S., at 95 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). And for those "extensive intrusions that significantly jeopardize [individuals'] sense of security . . ., more than self-restraint by law enforcement officials is required." United States v. White, 401 U.S., at 786 (Harlan, J., dissenting).
The use of pen registers, I believe, constitutes such an extensive intrusion. To hold otherwise ignores the vital role telephonic communication plays in our personal and professional relationships, see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S., at 352 , as well as the First and Fourth Amendment interests implicated by unfettered official surveillance. Privacy in placing calls is of value not only to those engaged in criminal activity. The prospect of unregulated governmental monitoring will undoubtedly prove disturbing even to those with nothing illicit to hide. Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts. See NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958); Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 695 (1972); id., at 728-734 (STEWART, J., dissenting). Permitting governmental access to telephone records on less than probable cause may thus impede certain forms of political affiliation and journalistic endeavor that are the hallmark of a truly free society. Particularly given the Government's previous reliance on warrantless telephonic surveillance to trace reporters' sources and monitor protected political activity, 2 I am unwilling to insulate use of pen registers from independent judicial review. [442 U.S. 735, 752]
Just as one who enters a public telephone booth is "entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world," Katz v. United States, supra, at 352, so too, he should be entitled to assume that the numbers he dials in the privacy of his home will be recorded, if at all, solely for the phone company's business purposes. Accordingly, I would require law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant before they enlist telephone companies to secure information otherwise beyond the government's reach.
[ Footnote 1 ] Lacking the Court's apparently exhaustive knowledge of this Nation's telephone books and the reading habits of telephone subscribers, see ante, at 742-743, I decline to assume general public awareness of how obscene phone calls are traced. Nor am I persuaded that the scope of Fourth Amendment protection should turn on the concededly "esoteric functions" of pen registers in corporate billing, ante, at 742, functions with which subscribers are unlikely to have intimate familiarity.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)registers. The Pen Register Act of 1986 changed the law to require a court order first.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)The reason I looked up the Maryland ruling is because I'm seeing it cited frequently here and since I'm not a lawyer, I realized I had no context for the case and the decision or who voted for or against it. That's different than in current cases since information about Justices and their stance is fresh in our minds. When we see cases such as Citizens United and/or see that Scalia and Ginsburg voted differently on cases, that provides insight on what direction decisions likely took.
In looking up Maryland, I had to look up some of the justices since I couldn't remember or didn't know their views.
But some did catch my eye, two being Rehnquist and Marshall in the same way Scalia and Ginsburg would now.
And like Scalia and Ginsburg often do, Rehnquist and Marshall were on different sides. Having read the above, I would agree with Marshall and on his larger concerns as well as the more specific ones.
Laws can and do change and passing a law that had as part of its base, a contested (and I believe poor) decision by Scotus does not make the situation better. "Legal" it may be at this time, but many laws which were once viewed as legal have later been struck down or changed because they were unconstitutional or otherwise flawed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register#Pen_Register_Act
Pen Register Act
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848). There were three main provisions or Titles to the ECPA. Title III created the Pen Register Act, which included restrictions on private and law enforcement uses of pen registers. Private parties were generally restricted from using them unless they met one of the exceptions, which included an exception for the business providing the communication if it needed to do so to ensure the proper functioning of its business.
For law enforcement agencies to get a pen register approved for surveillance, they must get a court order from a judge. According to 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1), the "court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."[6] Thus, a government attorney only needs to certify that information will 'likely' be obtained in relation to an 'ongoing criminal investigation'. This is the lowest requirement for receiving a court order under any of the ECPA's three titles. This is because in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that use of a pen register does not constitute a search. The ruling held that only the content of a conversation should receive full constitutional protection under the right to privacy, since pen registers do not intercept conversation, they do not pose as much threat to this right.
Some have argued that the government should be required to present "specific and articulable facts" showing that the information to be gathered is relevant and material to an ongoing investigation. This is the standard used by Title II of the ECPA with regard to the contents of stored communications. And others believe probable cause should be required; Daniel Solove, Petricia Bellia, and Dierdre Mulligan say a warrant and probable cause should be necessary, and Paul Ohm argues that standard of proof should be replaced/reworked for electronic communications altogether.[7]
The Pen Register Act did not include an exclusionary rule. While there were civil remedies for violations of the Act, evidence gained in violation of the Act can still be used against a defendant in court. There have also been calls for congress to add an exclusionary rule to the Pen Register Act, as this would make it more analogous to traditional Fourth Amendment protections. The penalty for violating the Pen Register Act is a misdemeanor, and it carries a prison sentence of not more than one year.[8]
Laelth
(32,017 posts)The data-collection the state was conducting in that 1979 case is very different from the kind of global data dragnet we have now. While I agree that Smith v. Maryland is the law of the land on the subject now, it's hard to see how that case really applies to our current situation. I hope the Court gets a chance to hear a case on point soon.
-Laelth
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)I posted the complete transcript from a non-partisan source (I think) below.
However, while he does mention needing a court order, I do think he's talking about court orders that are specific to an individual or group or phone number-- he specifically says something covering 200 million people is a problem. That also corresponds with what most people think of when it comes to warrants-- we have reason to suspect these people, so we want to track them. A warrant that covers the entire population isn't really a warrant in that sense.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)and he's against Keystone XL. Unfortunately, he's in the minority:
HEADLINES MAY 09, 2013
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/9/headlines
Activist: Biden Avowed Opposition to Keystone XL Pipeline
An environmental activist is claiming that Vice President Joe Biden personally told her he is "in the minority" inside the White House in opposing approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. Elaine Cooper says she spoke to Biden at a public event in South Carolina last week. Writing for the Sierra Club, Cooper said: "I asked him about the administrations commitment to making progress on climate and whether the president would reject the pipeline. He looked at the Sierra Club hat on my head, and he said, 'Yes, I do I share your views but I am in the minority.'" The news led a coalition of environmental groups to take out an ad reading: "Tell President Obama and Secretary Kerry: Joe Biden is Right." An anonymous official in Bidens office refused to comment directly on the reported exchange but said Bidens official position on the pipeline remains to await the final results of a State Department review.
I have noticed one of the President's most ardent fans suggesting to those who disagree with the President's actions that if they don't like it, they should call for impeachment. Undoubtedly this is an attempt to get someone tombstoned, but Biden would be an improvement over Obama (although I know the corporate capture of government will not allow anyone to change the direction.)
dennis4868
(9,774 posts)listening to phone calls...that's not the issue here.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)He seems to have been talking about collecting meta-data. That's why he said this:
-Laelth
dkf
(37,305 posts)With this procedure.
This will be very important to my next vote.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Nice find
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)This is a more complete transcript of what Biden said:
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/295064/cbs-early-show-transcript#.Ubk4uXVDtD4
He does say this in between the sentences in that video (bolded parts are not in the video):
MR. SMITH: Well, the president, though, said yesterday, we're not listening to the phone calls; we're just looking for patterns.
SEN. BIDEN: Harry, I don't have to listen to your phone calls to know what you're doing. If I know every single phone call you made, I'm able to determine every single person you talked to; I can get a pattern about your life that is very, very intrusive.
And the real question here is, what do they do with this information that they collect that does not have anything to do with al Qaeda? There's a whole deal when you talk about this kind of stuff where, under the law, they're supposed to demonstrate that they're getting rid of and not keeping any extraneous information that they pick up on wiretaps and/or pick up in sweeps like this. And the president's saying -- I think I wrote it down -- he said, this is not mining or trolling.
If it's true that 200 million American phone calls were monitored in terms of not listening to what they said but to whom they spoke and who spoke to them, I don't know; the Congress should investigate this.
MR. SMITH: Here's the other thing, though. You go all the way back to December and the warrantless wiretaps. The president said, "I have the authority. We went through this. The Congress gave me authority for this and we have this war on terror." You've got guys like Senator Jon Kyl say, complaining about this is nuts. We're at war here. How are we going to find these guys?
SEN. BIDEN: We have -- no one's arguing whether or not you have the right to go out and tap and do everything you need to do to track down al Qaeda. That's not the question here.
Years ago, Harry, I was one of those guys that co-sponsored the bill called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Everyone I've spoken to who's been briefed on this matter says that everything that they want to do to deal with al Qaeda is able to be done under FISA, and maybe with a small amendment to FISA.
But this idea that no court will review, no Congress will know, and we've got to trust the president and the vice president of the United States that they're doing the right thing, don't count me in on that.
Having said that, it's clear that in 2006, Biden clearly argued that meta-data by itself is way too intrusive, and that anything covering many millions of people is also too intrusive. When he's talking about approval from FISC, he means for selected people or numbers, not one blanket warrant for the whole country. His opinion is more or less the same as Richard Clarke's, as published today in the New York Daily News.
I don't know of Biden saying anything in the last week that would contradict his 2006 opinion. Could it be he hasn't actually changed his mind? One can hope...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And when you wrote the following, I am in complete agreement:
"Having said that, it's clear that in 2006, Biden clearly argued that meta-data by itself is way too intrusive, and that anything covering many millions of people is also too intrusive. When he's talking about approval from FISC, he means for selected people or numbers, not one blanket warrant for the whole country. His opinion is more or less the same as Richard Clarke's, as published today in the New York Daily News.
"
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)Repeat fox noise much?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Wow, you really know how to state your case!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Joe would NEVER go against the grain.
Besides, that video is SIX YEARS OLD. People change, ya know.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)theplanfor2016
(14 posts)but I haven't seen him say much about it since being elected.