Dan Goldman Supported Warrantless Spying on Americans. Now His Primary Opponent Is Hitting Him for It.

A Republican House member, Representative Dan Goldman from New York, has taken a stance against the requirement for warrants before the US government can search foreign communications for intelligence on Americans. This stance was supported by his own experience as a federal prosecutor.

Goldman argued that obtaining a warrant would "render this program unusable" due to the time it takes and its potential impact on national security threats. He believes that in times of urgency, the lack of warrants is necessary.

The issue has sparked controversy with progressive groups opposed to the warrantless surveillance powers. The House debate took place when Rep. Goldman rose against those who sought to pass a law requiring government agencies to obtain a warrant before accessing foreign communications for intelligence on Americans.

Goldman's stance won the day, and the law passed by a single vote. However, some Democrats have since changed their position due to pressure from the Biden administration.

A recent report suggests that the FBI is no longer conducting "widespread noncompliant querying of U.S. persons" as previously reported. Nevertheless, the issue remains contentious with various implications for civil liberties and national security.

This incident highlights the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain democratic values in a country where executive powers are expanding rapidly.

just great, another step back for our rights . i mean, who needs warrants anyway? it's not like we're talking about some random stranger here, we're talking about our own citizens. and now it's okay to snoop on us without a second thought because of 'national security' . newsflash: that just means the gov's getting lazy about following the rules . and what really gets me is how quickly democrats are backing down when it comes to standing up for their own values . it's all about being seen as a team player, not fighting for what's right . this is exactly why we need more people like rep goldenman who aren't afraid to speak out ... but even then, it's a single vote . what does that say about the state of our politics?

I guess it's not like we're living in some dystopian novel or anything . So, a Republican rep from NY thinks no warrants = no problem for national security... yeah, because that never ends well . And now the law passes by just one vote? That's what I call "democracy" in action . Meanwhile, the FBI is scaling back its noncompliant querying of US persons, but who knows when they'll start doing it again . It's like we're playing a game of whack-a-mole with civil liberties and national security... good luck with that .

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole thing... so basically Rep Goldman is saying that without warrants, the government can catch some real bad guys faster? I get it, national security is a big deal and sometimes you gotta act fast. But what about the Americans who aren't even involved in anything shady? Don't they deserve some protection too?

I'm not sure I agree with Rep Goldman's stance, but at the same time, can we really afford to wait for a warrant every single time? It's like trying to catch a speeding bullet - if you blink, it gets away. But what about the principle of things? Isn't it our job as citizens to ensure that our government is following the rules and respecting our rights?

This whole thing is a real head-scratcher for me... I just hope we can find a balance between keeping America safe and not trampling on individual freedoms

Ugh, this whole warrantless surveillance thing is giving me major déjà vu . I mean, I get it, national security threats and all that jazz, but can't we find a way to balance that with our civil liberties? It feels like we're always caught in this grey area where the gov's gotta keep us safe from harm, but at what cost?

I'm not gonna lie, it's hard not to feel a little uneasy when you think about all those foreign communications being sifted through without any oversight . And what really gets my goat is that some of our own reps are willing to sacrifice the principles we hold dear for the sake of expediency .

It's like, can't we find a way to make our systems work in a way that respects everyone's rights? I mean, I'm not a fan of the current system no more . We need some serious reforms ASAP

This whole thing is super weird - I mean, on one hand, you got these lawmakers saying that warrants aren't necessary because it's gonna slow down the process and compromise national security, but then you gotta wonder if they're just prioritizing convenience over people's rights . I'm not buying the whole "urgency" thing, especially when it comes to surveillance powers that can be used to tap into anyone's communications without a second thought .

And what really gets me is how quickly some Democrats are backtracking on their stance just because of pressure from the admin . It's like, we're living in a country where the line between national security and personal freedom is getting blurred so fast it's hard to keep up . As someone who cares about civil liberties, this whole thing has me super concerned .

I'm low-key worried about this warrantless surveillance thingy . I mean, I get it, national security is important, but shouldn't we have some kinda checks and balances in place? It's all so grey and easy to abuse, you know? And now that some Dems are flip-flopping on this, it just feels like a bigger mess. What even is the point of having a warrant if it's just gonna get overridden when things get "urgent"?

I think it's pretty wild that Rep Goldman won this debate & got his way despite the controversy . I mean, some ppl might say it's a slippery slope when it comes to warrantless surveillance, but he made a solid case about national security threats being time-sensitive .

Personally, I'm all for protecting our country, but I also think we gotta be careful with our freedoms . It's like, if we can't even trust the government to get warrants in place for intel gathering, how can we trust them to use this info responsibly?

I'm not saying it's easy to find a balance between security & civil liberties, but I do think we need more nuanced discussions around this issue . Maybe we could look into some mid-ground solutions that still prioritize national security while also respecting Americans' right to privacy .

It'll be interesting to see how this law plays out in practice . Will it really make us safer or will it just create more problems down the line? Only time (and future debates) will tell