Obama voted for the highly unconstitutional Patriot Act not once, but twice.

[Tuckerman]

What a dick he should be jailed as a conspirator.

But there is more:
Voted against immunity for telecoms' illegal spying on Americans
Supports the war on drugs


I'll keep looking.

[doughboyshredder]

links?

especially to support the war on drugs statement. I would be interested to know his opinions on the subject.

[Tuckerman]

Congressional voting records (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/votes/member.cfm?state=IL&pg=1)

[Mathematics]

What a dick he should be jailed as a conspirator.

as should the majority of congress & our current administration then?

what I'd be interested to know is not if he voted for the intitial temporary version of the patriot act following 9/11, but if he voted for it again to keep it in place a year or so ago after it was obvious bush & co were abusing it.

[Tuckerman]

Congressional voting records (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490)

[Mathematics]

Congressional voting records (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490)

nice website. I've looked through his voting record before but not on a site that links directly to a synopsis of the bill they voted on.

Looking through your quoted website, Obama voted NO on the Patriot Act extension bill. He voted yes on the conference report version the senate was working on, which was put to the side to rush through a 3 month extension of the Patriot Act.

Here's Obama's statement on it:


Senate Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on The PATRIOT Act
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Printable FormatFour years ago, following the most devastating attack in our history, this body passed the USA PATRIOT Act in order to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they need to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th.

We all agree that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. And we all agree we needed to make it harder for them to organize and strategize and get flight licenses and sneak across our borders. Americans everywhere wanted that.

But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law - the very purpose of which was to protect us - was also threatening to violate our rights and freedoms as Americans. That it didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.

In Washington, this issue has tended degenerate into an "either-or" type debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

That's why as it's come time to reauthorize this law, we've been working in a bipartisan way to do both - to show the American people that we can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties. To show the American people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can. What we have been trying to achieve, under the leadership of a bipartisan group of Senators, is some accountability in this process - to get answers and see evidence where there is suspicion.

Several weeks ago, this work bore fruit. The Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Senate managed to pass a piece of bi-partisan legislation that, while I can't say is perfect, was able to address many of these most serious problems in the existing law.

Unfortunately, that strong bi-partisan legislation has been tossed aside in Conference. Instead, we have been forced to consider a piece of rushed legislation that fails to address the concerns of members of both parties as well as the American people.

This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary. They simply need sign-off from a local FBI official. That's all.

Once a business or a person receives notification that they will be searched, they are prohibited from telling anyone about it, and they are even prohibited from challenging this automatic gag order in court. Even though judges have already found that similar restrictions violate the First Amendment - this Conference Report disregards the case law and the right to challenge the gag order.

If you do decide to consult an attorney for legal advice - you have to tell the FBI that you have done so. This is unheard of - there is no such requirement in any other area of law, and I don't see why it is justified here.

And if someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document - through library books they've read and phone calls they've made - this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear their plea, no jury will hear their case.

This is just plain wrong.

Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing - and it's the right thing - but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for.

Supporters of this Conference Report have argued that we should just hold our noses and support the legislation, because it's not going to get any better. That does not convince me that I should support this report. I believe we owe it to the nation to do whatever we can to make this legislation better. We don't have to settle for a PATRIOT Act that sacrifices our liberties or our safety - we can have one that secures both.

There have been proposals on both sides of Congress, from both parties, to extend the PATRIOT Act for three months so that we can reach agreement on this bill. I support those efforts and will oppose cloture on this unacceptable Conference Report.

[Mathematics]

Am I being dim or is the clue in the thread title?

you're being dim. there have been several reiterations of the Patriot Act that have been voted on in congress. after 9/11 nearly everyone voted for it because we were all feeling patriotic. the Patriot Act was set to expire though and required extensions, this is the vote I'm interested in as everyone knew at that point how Bush & Co were abusing it.

[Tuckerman]

links?

especially to support the war on drugs statement.

Here is a good link. Stopthedrugwar.org (http://stopthedrugwar.org/)

Obama Supports Mexico's Drug War Crackdown

06/02/2008 - 9:41pm

Nowhere is the failure of drug prohibition more obvious than in Mexico, where President Calderon's crackdown has already produced over 4,000 deaths, without making a dent in the drug trade.

Yet Obama now joins John McCain in praising Mexico's brutal and ineffective anti-drug efforts:

Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico’s effort to crack down. [suntimes.com]

I don't know how anyone can look at the dismal state of the Mexican drug war and find anything to be proud of. Still, I agree with Pete Guither who responded to Obama's comments by pointing out that we just can't expect a realistic drug policy platform from the major party candidates. They're not there yet.

Obama's good positions on needle exchange, medical marijuana, and sentencing have drawn interest from reformers, but there's simply no way to paint his praise of Mexico's bloody drug war crusade as anything other than typical prohibitionist "troop surge" rhetoric. It's the opposite of what's needed and it should give us pause before endorsing the popular perception among reformers that Obama "gets" the drug war issue.

When describing his plans to fund drug war activity in Central and South America, Obama says "we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted," demonstrating a fundamental failure to grasp how those activities complement one another. Crime and violence will simply increase if enforcement increases, so any set of benchmarks will ultimately have to ignore one category or the other.

In regards to both Obama and McCain, however, we've got to recognize that ending violence in the international drug trade is the final stage of drug policy reform. It's the very last issue we'll have to confront and the last one about which we're likely to hear interesting or forward-thinking proposals from prominent politicians. There's no middle ground here. When we're ready to end violence and corruption in the drug trade, we'll stop waging the drug war.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

[freezorburn]

Sounds like the normal "say one thing do another".


Lets see what happens if this crew moves into the Whitehouse.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj19/RipTheManiac/Obama/barack.jpg

[Roo]

you're being dim. there have been several reiterations of the Patriot Act that have been voted on in congress. after 9/11 nearly everyone voted for it because we were all feeling patriotic. the Patriot Act was set to expire though and required extensions, this is the vote I'm interested in as everyone knew at that point how Bush & Co were abusing it.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Roo]

Lets see what happens if this crew moves into the Whitehouse.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj19/RipTheManiac/Obama/barack.jpg

Foreigners! Quick! Call the police.

[Tuckerman]

Here's Obama's statement on it:

I try not to read the statements especially if they are contradictory to the vote. Voting one way and talking another is messed up and cowardly.

[Tuckerman]

nice website.

Try this one. www.ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm)

[focus]

Voted against immunity for telecoms' illegal spying on Americans



I'm confused. This seems to be about bashing obama. How does voting to strip immunity from telecoms so they can be prosecuted for their illegal actions fit in with the otherwise hysteric tone of this thread?

[Tuckerman]

Flip flopper /\. Also it's not really about bashing Obama but what he votes/stands for. I was looking to see if Obama was going the repeal the Patriot Act because that would be good. instead I found that he likes and voted for it which is a bummer because he may win.

[focus]

I try not to read the statements especially if they are contradictory to the vote. Voting one way and talking another is messed up and cowardly.

Because it's all black and white, right? It's right or it's wrong? You're with us or you're against us? You support the war or you're a traitor?

Oversimplifying the issues is ignorant and dangerous.

[doughboyshredder]

The war on drugs in Mexico is much different from the war on drugs in the U.S.

Besides any serious candidate has to pay lip service to supporting the war on drugs to a certain extent. I would be more interested to see what his opinion is on the funding and execution of the war on drugs in the U.S.

Nice try though, especially on the Patriot act callout.

[Roo]

Was it titled 'The Highly Unconstitutional Patriot Act' on the voting form?

If so, I am shocked and appalled that he gave it his approval.

[Tuckerman]

Because it's all black and white, right? It's right or it's wrong?

You can only vote one of two ways. BTW who is "us"?
And if you think voting is

ignorant and dangerous.

I'm sorry.

[doughboyshredder]

Try this one. www.ontheissues.org (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm)

hmmm o.k. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm

posting links that invalidate your statements :yourock:

[Tuckerman]

Can anyone find excuses as to why Barack Obama voted yes to:
-$969 million for the Department of Agriculture, including $557 million for the war on terror

-$615.69 million for the Department of Justice, including $445.69 million for the war on terror

-$98.52 billion for the Department of Defense, including $93.68 billion for the war on terror

-$63 million for the Department of Energy for its efforts in the war on terror

-$6.31 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, including $2 billion for the war on terror

-$5.77 billion for the Department of State for its efforts in the war on terror

-$70.58 billion for Global War on Terrorism

-$50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and anti-terrorism activities

-$450,000 for compensation of the President

-$1.1 billion for the salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives

-$785.55 million for the salaries and expenses of the Senate

-$4.6 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Fund, of which $2.28 billion in grants only for Israel, $206 million for assistance to Jordan

[The AD]

Tuckerman, you act as though "the war on terror" is a bad thing.

[Summit]

Both parties want to take away your rights... sometimes they disagree on which rights should be taken away... sometimes they do agree...

:(

[Tuckerman]

Tuckerman, you act as though "the war on terror" is a bad thing.

I think it's a sham.

[Tuckerman]

- $3.03 billion for the Economic Support Fund, of which $495 million is for direct aid to Egypt, $250 million is for Jordan, $240 million is for Israel, and $40 million is for Lebanon

[Big Balls]

Go Department of Argriculture go! Kill our terrorists!

[Powow]

I try not to read the statements especially if they are contradictory to the vote. Voting one way and talking another is messed up and cowardly.
Don't be such a jackass. He clearly explains it was the lesser of two evils. The revisions he voted for contained provisions for review by the courts on national security letters, among other things.

Voting against telco immunity is bad??

He supports the war on drugs but he also supports marijuana decriminalization. Putting nonviolent marijuana offenders into the judicial system is the most socially costly aspect of the war on drugs. Do you really think we shouldn't continue to fight against meth?

0/3 so far, good work!

[Steven S. Dallas]

Lets see what happens if this crew moves into the Whitehouse.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj19/RipTheManiac/Obama/barack.jpg

Good point. Black people are terrifying. The very concept of an African-American family occupying the White House is laughable.

[Tippster]

- $3.03 billion for the Economic Support Fund, of which $495 million is for direct aid to Egypt, $250 million is for Jordan, $240 million is for Israel, and $40 million is for Lebanon

Am I missing something here? What's "bad" about this?

Oh, your Telecom Exoneration is wrong too: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=17112&can_id=9490

Then he has nice things like this on his record:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13971&can_id=9490 (McCain = NV)
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16706&can_id=9490 (McCain = NV)
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3489&can_id=9490 (McCain = N)

Your little canard about all the money he voted for on the war on terror (McCain = N) is due to this:

-States that most American forces will be redeployed from Iraq by March 31, 2008, with a limited number of troops remaining to protect American personnel and infrastructure, to train and equip Iraqi forces, and to conduct targeted counter-terrorism operations (Title I (Chapter 3 (Sec 1315 (b))))

-Withholds $1.41 billion from the Economic Support Fund and International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Fund appropriations made in this bill if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks, including establishing a system to �equitably� share oil revenues among all Iraqis, implementing a system and schedule for provincial and local elections, and executing a plan to spend $10 billion in reconstruction projects on an �equitable� basis (Title I (Chapter 11 (Sec 1710 (a))))

-Requires certain federal agencies to develop plans to minimize the use of no-bid and cost-reimbursement contracts (Title II (Chapter 6 (Sec 204 (e (2)))))

-Raises the federal minimum wage to $5.85 per hour starting the 60th day after enactment of this Act, $6.55 per hour one year after that 60th day, and $7.25 per hour two years after that 60th day (Title V (Sec 501))

-Creates additional tax credits for businesses and waives the alternative minimum tax limits on the work opportunity credit and the credit for taxes paid with respect to employee cash tips (Title V (Sec 510-515))
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3945&can_id=9490
You know -- all those letters n'shit jumbled together before your little list.

[The AD]

Go Department of Argriculture go! Kill our terrorists!

How about protecting us from possible terrorist attacks targeted at our food supply? Didn't think about that? Well, somebody did.

[Tuckerman]

Am I missing something here? What's "bad" about this?

Oh, your Telecom Exoneration is wrong too: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=17112&can_id=9490

Then he has nice things like this on his record:

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=13971&can_id=9490 (McCain = NV)
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16706&can_id=9490 (McCain = NV)
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3489&can_id=9490 (McCain = N)

Your little canard about all the money he voted for on the war on terror (McCain = N) is due to this:
You know -- all those letters n'shit jumbled together before your little list.

Yeah, McCain is a dick too. Good call man.

[Tuckerman]

Voting against telco immunity is bad??


No, that parts good.

[Jer]

You NeoComs slay me.

If Hitler (or maybe I should say Stalin) was a "progressive" I'm sure you could spin it so that he's actually a swell fellow.

Anyone hear the latest that Jesus Freak Obama says ok for politicians to let their religious views affect their policy? I thought all you NeoComs were all about tha secular?:confused:

[Powow]

You NeoComs slay me.

If Hitler (or maybe I should say Stalin) was a "progressive" I'm sure you could spin it so that he's actually a swell fellow.

Step 1: Spew some bullshit ignoring key parts of an issue.
Step 2: Wait for a 'NeoCom' to call you on your bullshit.
Step 3: Accuse NeoCom of spinning the issue.

Priceless.

There is definitely spin occurring. You should re-examine where.

This is no better than saying 'McCain is McSame hurr'. Its superficially true only in the very broadest sense, but total bullshit if you use even an ounce of critical thinking.

[Jer]

Step 1: Spew some bullshit ignoring key parts of an issue.
Step 2: Wait for a 'NeoCom' to call you on your bullshit.
Step 3: Accuse NeoCom of spinning the issue.

1. What key parts did I "ignore"?
2. I'm not waiting for shit, just commenting on the hypocrisy of the resident libzombs.
3. Haven't done that yet. Probably won't. Pretty predictable.Pretty boring.

[Powow]

1. What key parts did I "ignore"?See thread title. Its not exactly voting for the patriot act if what he voted for has judicial review of the processes involved. Otherwise, shouldn't you be bitching about search warrants?

Do you really think stating 'he supports the war on drugs' without also stating he supports decriminalization of marijuana is legitimate?

2. I'm not waiting for shit, just commenting on the hypocrisy of the resident libzombs.No, you, personally didn't. Congratulations.

3. Haven't done that yet. Probably won't. Pretty predictable.Pretty boring.

If Hitler (or maybe I should say Stalin) was a "progressive" I'm sure you could spin it so that he's actually a swell fellow.

Why is it that I and others have to spend 95% of the debate on simply getting you fucking douchebags to even admit what the real issue is? It serves no purpose to make retarded incomplete claims and then bitch when people fill them in, other than to just be a pain in the ass. And you morons have the gall to go and whine about others being politically toxic.

There is a reason that McCain doesn't raise the same criticisms as you guys do here. Because he would get called on it in a second, and McCain knows it. He knows it would be pointless, possibly even harmful to his own campaign. Do you really think that if it was actually valid to say that Obama voted for the patriot act, that McCain wouldn't do it?

[Mathematics]

Why is it that I and others have to spend 95% of the debate on simply getting you fucking douchebags to even admit what the real issue is? It serves no purpose to make retarded incomplete claims and then bitch when people fill them in, other than to just be a pain in the ass. And you morons have the gall to go and whine about others being politically toxic.

There is a reason that McCain doesn't raise the same criticisms as you guys do here. Because he would get called on it in a second, and McCain knows it. He knows it would be pointless, possibly even harmful to his own campaign. Do you really think that if it was actually valid to say that Obama voted for the patriot act, that McCain wouldn't do it?

Pretty much 100% truth. You librodouche!

[Arty50]

Flip flopper /\. Also it's not really about bashing Obama but what he votes/stands for. I was looking to see if Obama was going the repeal the Patriot Act because that would be good. instead I found that he likes and voted for it which is a bummer because he may win.

Flip flopper? You've gotta be kidding me. If you've done any research of meaning, you'd know that telecom immunity is related to the Protect America Act. If you look at Obama's record on that piece of legislation, he voted against the initial bill, which passed anyway. And the vote on telecom immunity earlier this year was for an amendment to the Senate's version of the extension of the Protect America Act. This amendment would have stripped telecom immunity from the Senate version of the bill. Please also note that Obama took time off the campaign trail to be there for this vote. When the amendment was defeated, he decided not to stick around for the final vote on the PAA extension. Why bother when a ton of democrats crossed the aisle to defeat the amendment. No doubt these same people would vote to extend the PAA, which they did. His nay vote was pointless at that point, and he was better served focusing on running for president so he could fight this insanity more effectively with a veto pen.

Thankfully, the House version of the bill did not contain telecom immunity; and due to the resulting impass between the two versions of the bill, House democrats have essentially killed it.

Also note that the Patriot Act did not authorize Bush to conduct warrantless wiretaps on American citizens. Technically, no bill has authorized this. The Protect America Act seeks to grey the lines, but there's this little thing called the Constitution that bans it outright. Anyway, the basis of your argument, which holds that the Patriot Act and telco immunity are related, is totally false.

Obama's record on warrantless wiretapping is very clear and irrefutable. He's backed up his words with his votes in every instance.

Please become better informed before you start spouting bull.

[AstroPax]

Just fix the FDA already...I want my big fat tomatoes back, dammit!!!

-Astro

[leroy jenkins]

Can anyone find excuses as to why Barack Obama voted yes to:
-$969 million for the Department of Agriculture, including $557 million for the war on terror

-$615.69 million for the Department of Justice, including $445.69 million for the war on terror

-$98.52 billion for the Department of Defense, including $93.68 billion for the war on terror

-$63 million for the Department of Energy for its efforts in the war on terror

-$6.31 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, including $2 billion for the war on terror

-$5.77 billion for the Department of State for its efforts in the war on terror

-$70.58 billion for Global War on Terrorism

-$50 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and anti-terrorism activities

-$450,000 for compensation of the President

-$1.1 billion for the salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives

-$785.55 million for the salaries and expenses of the Senate

-$4.6 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Fund, of which $2.28 billion in grants only for Israel, $206 million for assistance to Jordan

Dude, politicking is complicated. I'm pretty sure that in order to get people to vote for what you want, you have to sometimes compromise and vote for things which you otherwise wouldn't. Also, sometimes you vote for $40 million for something, so that the bill asking for $90 million won't pass. Its called strategy.

For people like us to sit around and just look at stats like the ones above, and pretend we can glean some understanding from such a simplified black and white representation of things is just plain silly.

[Roo]

Good point. Black people are terrifying. The very concept of an African-American family occupying the White House is laughable.

Just last night I had a nightmare that the chap in the Kentucky t-shirt broke into my house and bludgeoned me to death with the remnants of phUnk's toaster oven.

This cannot stand.

[Tuckerman]

Here is what Barack Obama voted yes for.

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

Basically if the FBI is suspicious of a book you are reading or website you looked at they can put you under investigation. There is I'm sure a perfect explanation as to why he would not want that yet vote yes to it.

[Mathematics]

Here is what Barack Obama voted yes for.

good job tucker. after being proven wrong multiple times in your own thread, instead of running away with your tail between your legs you keep digging until you find one piece of legislation Obama voted yes for.

bad news though: Obama's actually voted yes on multiple pieces of legistlation.

:eek:

[lemon boy]

Here is what Barack Obama voted yes for.

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

Basically if the FBI is suspicious of a book you are reading or website you looked at they can put you under investigation. There is I'm sure a perfect explanation as to why he would not want that yet vote yes to it.


Oh the NOES! the FBI must go through a JUDGE to get an order to procure information! NO FUCKING WAY!:rolleyes2

[Tuckerman]

good job tucker. after being proven wrong multiple times in your own thread, instead of running away with your tail between your legs you keep digging until you find one piece of legislation Obama voted yes for.

Yeah thats in the Patriot Act which he voted for.

[Powow]

Here is what Barack Obama voted yes for.

SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and

`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--

`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or

`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.

Basically if the FBI is suspicious of a book you are reading or website you looked at they can put you under investigation. There is I'm sure a perfect explanation as to why he would not want that yet vote yes to it.
Your conclusion is simply fucking wrong. Did you even read the god damn thing before running your mouth off? I highlighted the key parts.

It specifically says the FBI must get a judges approval to obtain such things, AND that it must be regarding a non-'United States person' (I assume someone outside the US?)/international intelligence, and a judge will decide if it really is.

The FBI will not know what books you are reading (at least under this law) because hopefully no judge is going to sign off on that for no reason. The FBI would have to show that you were involved in international intelligence, given that you are a citizen.

So, to recap:

1) It can't be based soley on activities protected by the first amendent (there goes your ridiculous conclusion on this point alone)
2) It must be related to a non-United States person, or international intelligence
3) A judge has to verify both of these things

Give me a fucking break. The requirements for this are much stricter than a search warrant, as they should be since this process is secret.

I seriously can't believe that by pointing this out I'm accused of spinning the issue. Just read the fucking shit you copy and paste.

[Jer]

Why is it that I and others have to spend 95% of the debate on simply getting you fucking douchebags to even admit what the real issue is? It serves no purpose to make retarded incomplete claims and then bitch when people fill them in, other than to just be a pain in the ass. And you morons have the gall to go and whine about others being politically toxic.

There is a reason that McCain doesn't raise the same criticisms as you guys do here. Because he would get called on it in a second, and McCain knows it. He knows it would be pointless, possibly even harmful to his own campaign. Do you really think that if it was actually valid to say that Obama voted for the patriot act, that McCain wouldn't do it?

My god - you really are an uptight bastard, aren't you?

I'm not running for Pres.

McCain doesn't hang out on message boards knotting humorless douche's panties (at least that I know of).

[Powow]

McCain doesn't hang out on message boards knotting humorless douche's panties (at least that I know of).
That was the point.

[Jer]

That was the point.

So why are your panties knotted then?

[ObamasWart]

bump

......

[Tuckerman]

Remember
"Obama voted to support President Bush between 40 and 50 percent of the time over the past two years."
John McCain

which is a fact.

[DickDeep]

Remember
"Obama voted to support President Bush between 40 and 50 percent of the time over the past two years."
John McCain

which is a fact.
That's it boy. Get me a fucking Beer Bitch. That is the weakest start to the dumbest Jong ass ever.

[David Witherspoon]

McCain said that?? Damn, he must think most Americans are dumber than I thought he thought they were.

... judging from the density of functional illiterates here, he's probably right. :(

[Tuckerman]

That's it boy. Get me a fucking Beer Bitch. That is the weakest start to the dumbest Jong ass ever.

Welcome to our country, we speak English here.