Why did Kerry and Edwards vote to relax the restrictions

[sfecap]

on cell phone eavesdropping by the government?

Essentially they both voted to kill an amendment that would require the govt to know who was in a residence and/or actually using the phone before listening in on a conversation.

They both supported the Patriot Act, too.

(Although Kerry was probably misled.)

[dsc]

1. Wouldn't one know who the cell phone belonged to?

I am by no means an expert but don't you have to know the number of the cell phone and thus its owner to tap it? If that is the case I am not sure entirely what the problem is. Can you give more details?

[sfecap]

2. No, there is simple technology that permits anyone to

sit outside a residence and listen in on cell phone conversations. It is illegal to do so, however.

As I understand it, the amendment would require law enforcement to ascertain that the individual who is being tapped is actually the one using the phone. IOW, they couln't just listen in on all conversations on that phone waiting for the right one.

It would protect other persons who may be using the phone, but not investigative targets...and it would insure privacy rights.

[AP]

5. And, I presume, it would be impossible to determine who was

picking up the phone unless you listened to the call.

[blm]

3. nah...

too obvious.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Blatantly obvious.

I take comfort in the fact that Kerry and Edwards are both attorneys. There is no way that they could read a bill like the Patriot Act and misinterpret it's implications. Thank God they voted "No."

What's that...?

[AP]

4. I believe that many people who want to protect civil liberties

accept that the technology of telephone calling has outpaced the law.

It's not like anyone thinks you don't need a warrant. They're just trying to acknowledge the new realities of cell phone usage.

Having said that, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not familiar with THIS piece of legislation, so I have no idea what the issues were (and/or whether there was something else in the bill which caused it to be killed).

[dfong63]

7. do you also accept,

... that the technology for surveillance has outpaced the privacy protections granted by the courts?

imho we need the courts and/or the legislature to positively reaffirm the original intent of the bill of rights, which was not to guarantee that "law enforcement" had the ability to convict, but rather to guarantee that the rights of innocent citizens would be safe from encroachment by "the authorities".

where did this insidious idea come from, that the cops have some inherent right to eavesdrop on anyone they wish?

or that we can trust them with that much power?

why is it that as time goes on, our rights are continually being eroded, rather than enhanced or expanded???

[AP]

10. And the SC has placed limitation when that happened with heat images

They said that you can't do heat surveillance (to find out who has a green house in the basement) without a warrant, because heat surveillance can reveal a lot of other information -- it's like looking through the walls, and I suspect, if you're having sex, it shows up on the monitor. So, yes, where technology gets too invasive you have to account for that -- and in this case it was in reaffirming the need for a warrant.

[renie408]

12. 9/11

It came from 9/11. The current administration exploited the gaping hole in the door that Al Quaeda blew open to get us into Iraq, the Patriot Act and a lot of other things. Ashcroft and the gang have shamelessly used the fear that the country has lived with for the last two years to quietly usurp many of our previously hallowed rights.

[sfecap]

19. Our rights are being eroded because

our elected officials vote to allow it. They react instead of debate. They do what is politically expedient instead of what is right.

It won't stop until we take our country back.

[CoffeePlease1947]

8. Why do you smash on Kerry and Edwards!?!

They are Democrats! They could be facing Bush in the general election and you are hurting them. I cannot understand why you are smashing on Gephardt, and now Edwards and Kerry. Their records are much better than any Republican and Bush.

Mike

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Can You Link To This Amendment?

Honestly, I am in the dark on this cell phone amendment.

[sfecap]

18. Here it is...

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped.

S1510

Vote 2001-300, 10/11/01


http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_Kerry_Civil_Rights.htm

[DrFunkenstein]

20. Some Others To Add To The List

http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Robert_Byrd_Civil_Rights.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Ted_Kennedy_Civil_Rights.htm

http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Civil_Rights.htm

The Patriot Act was an enormous piece of legislation rushed through Congress within a month (10/11/01) of Sept. 11. Many Senators, for better or worse, wanted to get something substantial on the table to deal with the threat of terrorism. In my opinion, I believe they had (wrongly) assumed that the courts would shoot down anything un-Constitutional.

Remembering back to the days following the attacks, I can understand why their judgement was clouded. After all, they were responsible for the lives of their constituents in a way the ACLU is not. Personally, I sided with the ACLU at the time, but I was not in a position of responsibility.

It seems to me that most of the candidates agree that real measures must be made to increase the efficiency of our intelligence - that part (the majority) of the Patriot Act is correct. And the candidates also seem to agree that the un-Constitutional portions of the Act, particularly the laws twisted by Ashcroft's gestapo, must go.

If, say, (former NYC Public Advocate and Mayoral candidate) Mark Green was the Attorney General (a real possibility for Kerry), you would not see the rampant abuse of power you have under Ashcroft.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Byrd, Feinstein and Kennedy deserve just as much grief.

98 wrongs do not make a right.

Praise Russ Feingold.

[sfecap]

22. Agreed.

n/t

[sfecap]

23. But Dr....

The fact that this was a rush job only makes it more egregious, IMO. We do not pay our legislators to enact sweeping revisions to our civil rights based on knee jerk reactions. They should be deliberate, and extraordinarily careful with legislation such as this.

For the Senators to now be backpeddling from their vote is pathetic. They KNEW John Ashcroft. They SERVED int he Senate with this POS. They had to know what he was capable of once he was turned loose. And they truned him loose on us. If Kerry, Edwards, Graham, et all had the least bit of courage, they would support the complete revocation of the PA, and THEN start over with legislation that protects the citicenry, while permitting law enforcement reasonable methods to do their job. Nothing shortof that is acceptable, IMO.

They made a mistake, and they ought to admit it, instead of giving the political bullshit answers they are giving.

The ONLY one with any guts was Feingold.

[gottaB]

24. It sounds like you're talking about Feingold amendment 1900

Another link to rollcall 300, with links to the record.

Amendment text:

On page 21, line 14, insert ``except that, in such circumstances, the order shall direct that the surveillance shall be conducted only when the target's presence at the place where, or use of the facility at which, the electronic surveillance is to be directed has been ascertained by the person implementing the order and that the electronic surveillance must be directed only at the communication of the target,'' after ``such other persons''.

In fact, on the motion to table there were seven nays:

• Cantwell
  
• Corizine
  
• Feingold
  
• Levin
  
• Specter
  
• Thompson
  
• Wellstone

There wasn't really much debate. Helms said a few words against it. Daschle moved to table, arguing that the issues had already been debated, and they needed to move on.

[styersc]

11. In 1990 the Supreme Court Ruled that cell phone users

have no expectation of privacy as they are so easy to pick up and monitor. Talking on a cell phone is the same as standing on the street corner and shouting.

This is a non-issue, any lawyer, particularly a former prosecutor like Kerry knows this. The amendment would have been as foolish as it would have been useless.

Unless you're a symbolism over substance type.

[dsc]

17. I don't think that is right

Just because the police are able to do something without violating the Constitution doesn't mean that Congress can't ban them from doing it. The Constitution is a floor in this regard not a ceiling.

[renie408]

13. Edwards comments on Ashcroft

Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Edwards Says Ashcroft Speeches Won't Change The Fact The Administration Has Rolled Over Our Rights
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) released the following statement today regarding Attorney General John Ashcroft's speeches on the Patriot Act in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Iowa:
"John Ashcroft and this administration can get on a bus and spin their wheels all they want about the Patriot Act. They can roll from battleground state to battleground state, and make as many speeches as they want, but that won't change the fact that they have rolled over our rights for the last two years. What they have done isn't cause for celebration; it should cause us to slam on their brakes.

"One of my top priorities is defending this nation and stopping the terrorists who continue to plot and plan to harm our country, our citizens, and our democracy. We must never forget that their tactics are unlike any enemy this nation has encountered, and they must be stopped, prosecuted, and prevented from doing any harm.

"That is why I have proposed a new domestic intelligence agency that will both protect our country and safeguard our freedoms, with a new, independent office dedicated to protecting our civil liberties. Unlike this administration, I will never lock away an American citizen indefinitely without access to a lawyer and without a chance to go before a judge and make the case he is innocent. And I will make sure the Department of Justice is accountable in the courts and to the public.

"We must continue to strengthen our domestic defense and stop terrorists in our midst, and we must protect our rights as Americans. But I do not believe in John Ashcroft's and this administration's America where we must sacrifice one to do the other."

[renie408]

14. More on Edwards, Ashcroft and the Patriot Act

>>Security & Terrorism: Voted "yes" on HR 3162, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001. Later said he has heard anecdotal stories about misuse of the (PATRIOT) act. But he added that there’s a need for more concrete evidence about what’s actually happening.
The Christian Science Monitor reported that Edwards looks to be taking on post-9/11 restrictions on civil liberties as an issue. Edwards was concerned by a machine being tested at Orlando International Airport in Florida that civil liberties groups have called a "virtual strip search." The machine uses low-level X-rays to conduct a full-body scan of a passenger. According to news reports, the machine can detect plastic knives hidden under clothing, but it also can clearly see the outline of a passenger's body.
Voted "yes" on the "Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001", a bill to strengthen counter-terrorism efforts by imposing restrictions on student visas and among other things, it creates a centralized 'lookout' database. In a questioning Attorney General John Ashcroft regarding military tribunals, Edwards asked, "Do you believe that there needs to be a process that allows some appeal that looks at the fundamental question of how the trial was conducted -- whether evidence was properly considered by the court, and whether, in fact, there's evidence that was not considered by the court that would have shown this person, in fact, did not do it, did not commit this crime?" After Ashcroft replied the process was adequate, Edwards then asked, "But the President and the Secretary of Defense are the people who decided the prosecution should be brought in the first case. Do you believe there needs to be an objective third party that looks at the trial, looks at the conviction, looks at the imposition of the death penalty" <<

[renie408]

15. I *think*

if I am reading this right, that Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and has since become concerned about the current admin's interpretation of the act.

[JI7]

16. correct

you are correct. edwards (and kerry, graham,lieberman) voted against ashcroft.