The word Vichy comes to mind for some reason…

9secondkox2 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

9secondkox2 said:

netrox said:

Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".

The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims. 

Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree. 

LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.

Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat. 

From 2015

“New Snowden Documents Reveal Obama Administration Expanded NSA Spying”

https://time.com/3909293/edward-snowden-obama-nsa-spying/

You appear to be confused about warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping DOMESTICALLY. Meaning they were targeting people inside the borders of the United States, either citizens or non-citizens. That practice was ended in January of 2007. The article that you posted is in regards to INTERNATIONAL warrantless wiretaps where the target is outside the borders of the United States. 

The difference is that DOMESTIC wiretapping always required warrants prior to what George W. Bush did. That's not the case with INTERNATIONAL wiretaps. 

"FISA distinguishes between U.S. persons and foreigners, between communications inside and outside the U.S., and between wired and wireless communications. Wired communications within the United States are protected, since intercepting them requires a warrant,[47] but there is no regulation of US wiretapping elsewhere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiretapping#Pakistan

This is an example of what was so stupid about most of the Snowden coverage. Snowden claimed he was concerned about Constitutional rights violations but the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply outside of U.S. territory. There's nothing scandalous about the United States doing warrantless wiretaps of foreign targets. 

9secondkox2 said:

netrox said:

Expect to see this happen here in USA with SCOTUS being right wing and having expressed doubts about the right to privacy, starting with abortion and saying the same for sexual acts. They will likely use that reasoning to force Apple to provide a "backdoor".

The right to privacy simply does not exist with conservatives where they believe in imposing structure and control over people and their behaviors to their whims. 

Similar things were already happening under Obama. Hence Snowden. Barking up the wrong tree. 

LOL...the wrong tree? All the files that Snowden provided to Glen Greenwald for the articles he wrote were pre-2006 Patriot Act era. In other words, the era before Congress got rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act like warrantless wiretapping. George W. Bush was president at the time, not Obama. The Snowden stuff was really just a repackaging of the complaints that came out about the Patriot Act at the time it was passed + a layer of conspiracy theorizing on top. And the Patriot Act was primarily driven by the GOP.

Plus you now have the Laken Riley Act, which takes the loss of due process for anyone charged with terrorism (i.e., indefinite detainment) and applies it to undocumented immigrants charged with crimes as minor as shoplifting. The problem there is that the loss of due process for people charged with terrorism was based on the idea that they were a national security threat. Undocumented immigrants are not a national security threat. 

mac_dog said: Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but I find it ironic and interesting that the democrats all of a sudden are interested in “protecting” our democracy and putting forth such a public display when they could have been doing this decades ago—yes, DECADES.

Protecting our democracy = following the legal constructs of the Constitution. Example: when Barack Obama was president, Republican members of Congress repeatedly stated that Congress had the power of the purse and that any changes to funding required Congressional action. Nobody in the GOP believed that Barack Obama could create a department out of thin air and appoint George Clooney to cut Pentagon spending and redirect it to his tequila company. 

CheeseFreeze said: Why did Americans choose this joker?

The voters that decided the election are ones that don't pay attention to politics at all. Those types of voters overwhelmingly chose Trump. And then they're surprised that the GOP, the party of deregulation, isn't going to do anything about their cost of living problems.