LogFAQs > #979903144

Red_XIV posted...

It's "controversial" because one political party is engaged in extensive communications with Russian spies.

divot1338 posted...

Its only controversial to other traitors like Donald Trump.

You do know that there are legitimate criticisms of the legislation, right?

https://www.aclu.org/documents/why-fisa-amendments-act-unconstitutional

There are no real limits on how the government uses, retains, or disseminates the information that it collects. The law is silent about what the government can keep and what it has to get rid of. It fails to place real limits on how information can be disseminated and to whom. This means the government can create huge databases that contain information about U.S. persons obtained without warrants and then search these databases at a later point.

The law does not limit government surveillance to communications relating to terrorism. Journalists, human rights researchers, academics, and attorneys routinely exchange information by telephone and e-mail that relates to the foreign affairs of the U.S. (Think, for example, of a journalist who is researching the surge in Iraq, or of an academic who is writing about the policies of the Chvez government in Venezuela, or of an attorney who is negotiating the repatriation of a prisoner held at Guantnamo Bay.) The Bush administration has argued that the new law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind.

To think that the legislation would only be used against Russian spies is as hilarious as thinking the Patriot Act only applies to terrorists.