The Republican party was against Clinton for wiretapping al Qaeda.<quoted text>
Nope, the need a bigger facility because Obama wants to collect even more data on private citizens that he has already been doing. Plus he needs to computer capacity to filter all of that new data!
At what point does that attack our civil rights?
COMPREHENSIVE ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 1995
Congressional Record: April 18, 1996 (House)- Pages H3605-H3618 Government Printing Office's Online Records: DOCID:cr18ap96-43
Conference Report on s. 735, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Dan Burton (R-Ind): If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.
TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
Congressional Record: April 17, 1996 (Senate)- Pages S3454-S3478 DOCID:cr17ap96-153
Terrorism prevention Act--Conference Report
Orrin Hatch: Mr. President, again, in the real world, in the case of the Unabomber or a terrorist where there is a real threat or an immediate concern, you do not need this provision to get an emergency wiretap. All the Senator's motion does is expand the number of crimes that would trigger the wiretap statute. This amendment was offered during the Senate debate. It was defeated. It was not a part of the Senate bill. It was not a part of the House bill. It is not a part of our conference report, and rightly so. I oppose this provision that could expand emergency wiretap authority to permit the Government to begin a wiretap prior to obtaining court approval in a greater range of cases than the law presently allows. I personally find this proposal troubling. I am concerned that this provision, if enacted, would unnecessarily broaden emergency wiretap authority. Under current law, such authority exists when life is in danger, when the national security is threatened, or when an organized crime conspiracy is involved. In the real world, we do not need this amendment to get emergency wiretap authority, and that is a fact.
Let me also say that this authority is constrained by a requirement that surveillance be approved by the Court within 48 hours, but that authority already exists in those areas I have addressed.
Clinton PDD 63
For Immediate Release May 22, 1998 FACT SHEET PROTECTING AMERICA'S
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES: PDD 63
Clinton PDD 62
COMBATING TERRORISM: PRESIDENTIAL DECISION DIRECTIVE 62