Posted on 12/04/2015 12:48:05 PM PST by VinL
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he would be in favor of restoring the PATRIOT Act.
Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt Show on Tuesday, Trump said, "When you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security."
Hewitt asked Trump to comment on the }big debate between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. On meta-data collection, Ted Cruz is glad that the NSA got out of it, Marco Rubio wants it back. What's Donald Trump think?"
"Well, I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you," explained Trump. "I've been there for longer than you would think. But you know when you have people that are beheading our .. if you're a Christian, and frankly for lots of other reasons ..when you have the world looking at us and would like to destroy us as quickly as possible, I err on the side of security. And so that's the way it is. That's the way I've been, and some people like that frankly, and some people don’t like that."
"I'm not just saying that you know since Paris, I’m saying for quite some time. I assume when I pick up my telephone, people are listening to my conversations anyway, if you what to know the truth," said Trump. “It's pretty sad commentary, but I err on the side of security.â€
Hewitt followed up, “So you would be in favor of restoring the Patriot Act?â€
"I think that would be fine, as far as I'm concerned. That would be fine," explained Trump.
I’ve never really understood the resistance to active surveillance of foreign terrorist’s phone calls, nor even the surveillance of Americans provided there is a warrant of some kind— delayed notification of those warrants is something already done for organized crime. Even the bulk collection of metadata makes logical sense, especially for an ongoing terrorist attack. I used to work for Verizon Wireless, so I know the complicated process of retrieving this data for law enforcement purposes.
It is also a straight out lie that these records could be viewed without a warrant. Having billions of phone numbers on record is pretty useless unless you’re looking at a specific person.
Actually, got to be diligent in spreading verifiable truths regarding Trump.
If truth is what takes Donald down, then you should be glad for it.
I strongly disagree with this but you know what? He’s STILL not as bad as Bush.
Secretive court rules NSA can keep collecting phone records
The latest approval was the first since two conflicting court decisions about whether the program is lawful and since a presidential advisory panel recommended that the NSA no longer be allowed to collect and store the phone records and search them without obtaining separate court approval for each search.
What needs to be reinstated is The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).
Had it not been done away with by RATs in 1975 in the wake of Watergate, we would never have had Obastard and the march into socialism.
Do you seriously expect a Senator from Texas, the biggest agricultural state in the U.S., to vote not to protect farmers from losing their farms when a natural disaster happens? BTW, nobody criticized Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, even though they both voted the same way as Cruz.
Crop insurance is private sector, subsidized by the government. That actually saves the government money, because they don’t have to pick up the entire tab in the event a disaster wipes out an entire area’s crops.
Without a stable agricultural sector, no nation is secure. Consider farmers the army that feeds us.
Yes, "collection," key word, that's obvious from what I wrote. Your link also specifically uses the phrase: "without obtaining separate court approval for each search." That's because they receive a blanket warrant giving them authority to look at all relevant information. So when the FBI is looking at Osama's phone call list, they don't need to get a specific warrant for each individual Osama is talking to to get their records.
If you have within your circle of friends someone the FBI is investigating for terrorism, I think you have bigger problems than the FBI having your call logs.
Thanks DJ, hard to keep up. It all seems to be moving too fast.
Good to see you, miss the old days :)
Why is it that folks forget that testimony was given that bulk collection of data had not assisted in preventing a single terrorist attack?
Why do people not accept what the NSA has itself said, that the USA Freedom Act actually better provides them with the tools they need than did the Patriot Act?
They don’t need to be collecting Americans phone records. Only a fool thinks that’s freedom.
You’re welcome. I don’t get on the threads much.
There were plenty of Muslims in America regarded as "Americans" under the law celebrating on 911. I fail to see how having metadata collection-- provided there are warrants of some kind to look at that data-- actually harms your freedom.
Same here, mostly lurking these days.
Take care and hold on, got a feeling it’s going to get rough in the next year :(
I've noticed you have quite liberal views. Interesting.
Yeah. Obama’s gearing up to wreak hell.
A good plan..
It won’t while 0bola’s is in the WH..
Because the "testimony" from the FBI was that metadata had not "thwarted any MAJOR terror attacks." But then there weren't any major terror attacks after 911 during the Bush administration, except for overseas and maybe some situations like that guy who blew up outside a sporting event, whom the FBI claimed wasn't a terrorist, even though he had the Koran in his bedroom and had built a suicide vest.
I think it would be pretty foolish to believe that the FBI was not actively using metadata to keep track of suspected individuals throughout the United States, and that there is a great deal we don't know going on that is not told us.
But then, the primary benefit of bulk collection isn't the access-- which the government can get anytime even without bulk collection, albeit through a slower process-- it is the SPEED of the access that is important, and is something that is to come into play when a massive terror attack is already in the works:
"Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., asked Rogers to imagine this: a plane takes off in Boston and turns south toward New York when it was scheduled to go to Montreal. The plane will enter New York airspace in 15 minutes. Theoretically, one of the passengers may have recently been in phone contact with a known terrorist, a clear warning signal. The question Coates put to Rogers: would he be able to get information about the passengers or other suspects in time to act?
“Under the previous framework, I, as the head of the NSA, was delegated the authority and the responsibility in emergency situations to authorize access to the data. I then had to go to the [FISA] court and to the attorney general and put into writing why I did it, what I did, and what the basis for that decision was,†Rogers answered. “Now as we transition to the new law, which we have to have firmly in place by November the 29th, I have lost that authority. It has now been raised to the attorney general and I will have to approach the attorney general for why she needs to authorize emergency access.â€
http://www.govexec.com/defense/2015/09/nsa-head-loss-access-metadata-will-hurt-intelligence/122069/
So now we're losing this sort of emergency access just to satisfy to Art Bell who thinks the government is listening to all his phone calls.
You can, and should, say that again!
Trump = Perot
Doubt it?
Trump became a sponsor of Perot’s Reform Party back in 1998.
He likes Emminent domain, favored liberal NYC stances on being pro-choice, and for gun-control.
He is a Big gov’t guy, and knows Nothing substantial about constitutional law or foreign policy.
The Don is not quite the candidate his short attention span easy fix supporters think he is.
But then again, Don’s supporters are likely admirers of strong daddy Putin, and lament that he couldn’t run for POTUS.
Cruz 2016
RE:
“To: VinL
And this is the creepy side of Donald Trump. He likes power and control at any cost. Just like the rest.
20 posted on Fri Dec 4 13:09:38 2015 by Revel
Trump is not an anything. His knowledge of anything but business is thousands of miles wide and a mm deep.”
“They can listen to my conversations. Ive nothing to hide.”
I prefer Constitutional Rights.
I take it you don’t have curtains either.
Will you object if the police stop your car and demand to search it?
Knock on your door and demand to look around?
Cavity search?
Which other Rights people died for are you willing to give up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.