Indiana Senator votes to take away your 4th and 5th Amendment rights

[SwikLS]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s108

You all probably thought it was Donnelly (not that I'm a fan of him either). Nope it was none other than our esteemed Mr. Coats that voted to give the FBI the power to obtain electronic communications without a court order. Such a disgrace!

Fortunately it didnt get the 60 votes needed (for now).

 

[jblomenberg16]

Just note that the vote was for Cloture, meaning end of debate and put up for official vote. It wasn't the official vote, but since it didn't pass cloture, it means it won't come up for official vote. From the website linked:

This was a vote on “cloture” in the Senate, which means to end debate so that an up-or-down vote can be taken. A vote in favor is a vote to end debate and move to a vote on the issue itself, while a vote against is a vote to prolong debate or to filibuster.

There was a lot of positioning and posturing on those votes, multiple different amendments, etc. I don't know the full details there, but it could very well have been that a vote for Cloture meant that it would not include some other amendments that were proposed that would have been much worse. It could be that knowing that it didn't have enough support to ultimately pass as worded, that a vote for Cloture could have meant going to vote and thus killing it all together.

Not sure what went into the decision on his vote, but you could write Coats office and find out the thought process.

 

[kiddchaos]

Anyone can.
Hacking Your Phone - CBS News

 

[DRob]

Just note that the vote was for Cloture, meaning end of debate and put up for official vote. It wasn't the official vote, but since it didn't pass cloture, it means it won't come up for official vote.................................

Thanks for the lesson on legislative procedures. Lotsa' folks need it.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Just note that the vote was for Cloture, meaning end of debate and put up for official vote. It wasn't the official vote, but since it didn't pass cloture, it means it won't come up for official vote.................................

Thanks for the lesson on legislative procedures. Lotsa' folks need it.

No problem! It is more formal than many people realize, and I don't know if Robert's Rules and basic parliamentary procedure are taught in government class anymore or not. Note that many governments have an even more formal process to open motions, review, amend, etc. those motions prior to actually voting.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

My first impression was, "Eh, they're looking for folks visiting jihadist sites."

Then I thought about it, engaged the brain. OP is exactly right... secret, warrantless searches are inherently evil. Substitute "suppressor advice" for "jihadi advice" and a chill will run down your spine just watching a hickok45 video or browsing INGO. So now our civil rights are under assault by both sides of the political aisle.

That's just great! (purple)

 

[KellyinAvon]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.-- Martin Niemoller

I'm not saying this is 1937 Germany, but there are some definite parallels. If you don't exercise a right its easy to surrender the right. If you're not a jihadist what do you have to fear? If you have nothing to hide why have a 4th amendment? I don't assemble with jihadists, why should I worry about my 1st amendment rights? I have broken no law, why do I need due process?

Scary times boys and girls.

 

[Tombs]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.-- Martin Niemoller

I'm not saying this is 1937 Germany, but there are some definite parallels. If you don't exercise a right its easy to surrender the right. If you're not a jihadist what do you have to fear? If you have nothing to hide why have a 4th amendment? I don't assemble with jihadists, why should I worry about my 1st amendment rights? I have broken no law, why do I need due process?

Scary times boys and girls.

The only reason we have anything to fear is a political class who wants to utilize any available power to attack the domestic population that was intended for use against terrorists.

I don't think you'll see any right wing person trying to put a child in jail for terrorism charges for eating a poptart the "wrong" way.

This is what happens when you allow a bunch of terrorists to form a political party and nominate a war criminal/traitor as their presidential pick.

 

[jamil]

Anyone can.
Hacking Your Phone - CBS News

This is really of topic but the irony is worth mentioning.

John Hering: I'd say, the average person is not going to be exposed to the type of attacks we showed you today. But our goal was to show what's possible. So people can really understand if we don't address security issues, what the state of the world will be.

Sharyn Alfonsi: Which will be what?

John Hering: We live in a world where we cannot trust the technology that we use.
​

Ironically, at the end of the article, the "up next" was "smart guns".