Senator Paul's illustration about the Boston bombing and the call for the Patriot Act to investigate phone records of the suspects is on target. The Patriot Act is being substituted for other more constitutional laws such as the FISA Court. It has been a long time since the Patriot Act was passed with a SUNSET for the very reason that exists in Senator Paul's illustration. If the USA continues it's Paranoia Laws, the country over time will become a very different country. We need to end the hysteria and become intolerant of these laws and elect those that actually care about our constitution and the liberties it provides.
Senator Paul is the singular voice carrying the warning. He is absolutely correct.'
I haven't heard that FISA actually decided collecting all phone data is correct. It isn't. That is the very reason why FISA existed, because, mass collection was wrong. The FISA exists in law because it is wrong. See, this is getting to be a mess beyond any meaning.
The FISA Court is suppose to mean something and a method closely guarded to allow evidence to bring warrants. "Rubber stamp?" It was never suppose to be.
Everything has to be looked into now. The Supreme Court is in the mix, too.
I refuse to state Senator Paul is extreme. He is more than willing to be the voice of liberty of the people and I can respect that. He has done all the research. He quotes the lower courts as holding important values. He is correct in completely examining the power within the law and how the people are burdened by it. He is not willing to concede the idea there is a need for sacrificing our liberties. He is correct. I find very little of what he states as political rhetoric. He is strongly leaning on facts.
The Paranoia Laws are dissolving the due process statues.
That also bothers me. Why was Mr. Clapper allowed to continue in his capacity? That is a concern and an overt expression of a political system resigned to imposition of extreme control over the electorate.
When politics becomes the oppressor of the people, those that maintain control through that oppression seek to keep it beyond any reason to eliminate it.
IN LAW, the word relevant has impact on PRECEDENT. If all information is collected how does any information set PRECEDENT. Mass collection removes the meaning of LAW. Sure, we all understand that something MIGHT turn up in mass collection, but, in the collection of the data itself the information is lost and not noted to be important UNTIL further evaluation can be discerned, so why not discern it from the beginning? By chance there is something, anything that will prevent another 911. The process of mass collection has yielded nothing. There is no precedent to defend the idea under law.
So, besides all the other reasonable reasons to end the collection of mass data there is a legal reason to do so. The precedent of the mass collection is lost. This plan to end all potential threat is invalid and threatens the very power of the law, under FISA, to uniquely prove there is reason for search and seizure (The Fourth Amendment).
Senator Paul has deeply studied the reasons why he has concern and I agree with him. We could lose the protections completely of our Fourth Amendment. It is too high a price to pay.
He also brought to the debate, the problem that could belong to companies when they may or may not collect detailed records and the government decides they need the records. The company than can be indicted if not forthcoming with records. In other words, if a company is not collecting mass data, but, simply billing in minutes of use with a method to count those minutes without phone records; what then happens to companies that don't collect detailed records? The reality today is that many smart phone users pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited use. Why would any company offering that service want to keep detailed information? And if any company did, how long do they have to maintain these records? What cost to companies do detailed records reflect in monthly fees? Again, how burdened is a company and the fees they charge in order to do business because of the occasion of government in seeking information? What happens to the relationship between company and customer?
To boil this down, the entire idea of monitoring the American people is hideous and without purpose.
Senator Paul is the singular voice carrying the warning. He is absolutely correct.'
I haven't heard that FISA actually decided collecting all phone data is correct. It isn't. That is the very reason why FISA existed, because, mass collection was wrong. The FISA exists in law because it is wrong. See, this is getting to be a mess beyond any meaning.
The FISA Court is suppose to mean something and a method closely guarded to allow evidence to bring warrants. "Rubber stamp?" It was never suppose to be.
Everything has to be looked into now. The Supreme Court is in the mix, too.
I refuse to state Senator Paul is extreme. He is more than willing to be the voice of liberty of the people and I can respect that. He has done all the research. He quotes the lower courts as holding important values. He is correct in completely examining the power within the law and how the people are burdened by it. He is not willing to concede the idea there is a need for sacrificing our liberties. He is correct. I find very little of what he states as political rhetoric. He is strongly leaning on facts.
The Paranoia Laws are dissolving the due process statues.
That also bothers me. Why was Mr. Clapper allowed to continue in his capacity? That is a concern and an overt expression of a political system resigned to imposition of extreme control over the electorate.
When politics becomes the oppressor of the people, those that maintain control through that oppression seek to keep it beyond any reason to eliminate it.
IN LAW, the word relevant has impact on PRECEDENT. If all information is collected how does any information set PRECEDENT. Mass collection removes the meaning of LAW. Sure, we all understand that something MIGHT turn up in mass collection, but, in the collection of the data itself the information is lost and not noted to be important UNTIL further evaluation can be discerned, so why not discern it from the beginning? By chance there is something, anything that will prevent another 911. The process of mass collection has yielded nothing. There is no precedent to defend the idea under law.
So, besides all the other reasonable reasons to end the collection of mass data there is a legal reason to do so. The precedent of the mass collection is lost. This plan to end all potential threat is invalid and threatens the very power of the law, under FISA, to uniquely prove there is reason for search and seizure (The Fourth Amendment).
Senator Paul has deeply studied the reasons why he has concern and I agree with him. We could lose the protections completely of our Fourth Amendment. It is too high a price to pay.
He also brought to the debate, the problem that could belong to companies when they may or may not collect detailed records and the government decides they need the records. The company than can be indicted if not forthcoming with records. In other words, if a company is not collecting mass data, but, simply billing in minutes of use with a method to count those minutes without phone records; what then happens to companies that don't collect detailed records? The reality today is that many smart phone users pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited use. Why would any company offering that service want to keep detailed information? And if any company did, how long do they have to maintain these records? What cost to companies do detailed records reflect in monthly fees? Again, how burdened is a company and the fees they charge in order to do business because of the occasion of government in seeking information? What happens to the relationship between company and customer?
To boil this down, the entire idea of monitoring the American people is hideous and without purpose.
