Slashdot Mirror


Senators Want Secret Warrantless Wiretap Renewal

An anonymous reader writes "A group of Senators are meeting in secret today, while most people are focused on the 'debt ceiling' issue, in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which expressly allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S. The law isn't set to expire until next year, but some feel that the debt ceiling crisis is a good distraction to pass the extension without having to debate the issue in public. The meeting is being held in secret, but it's not classified, so people can demand to know how their Senator voted."

133 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. And You Know They Will Get It! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Welcome to the "new normal" in America, where "Citizen" is a term that is interchangeable with "Felon" or "Enemy".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by somersault · · Score: 2

      Does that make Iran and North Korea member states?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think they typed "Terrorists" wrong in that article. It's written starting with a S, and ending in "enators"...

    3. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the shit will hit the fan soon and all of this will be irrelevant. There will be wire-taps a plenty in the new republic, but the power and wealth will have been redistributed to someone else.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, the normal interchangeability is and has always been between 'citizen' and 'tax livestock'.

      The rest of it is just additional fences and collars to manage us.

    5. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by slick7 · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the "new normal" in America, where "Citizen" is a term that is interchangeable with "Felon" or "Enemy".

      How else are the career criminal politicians going to keep tabs on the voters that hate their guts.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    6. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by feepness · · Score: 1

      Coalition of the Unwilling

    7. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Compaqt · · Score: 2

      Where's Rand Paul when you need him?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    8. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm just glad my grandfather who fought against this kind of shit in WWII isn't around to witness this shit. WTH has happened to this country? When you have BOTH parties voting AGAINST the people while at the same time practically tripping over themselves to give away the future of this country to special interests for literally pennies on the dollar?

      This is why I'm making a call out to every one here at /. since WE are the geeks, the smart ones, the ones our friends and relatives and coworkers listen to I urge EVERY SINGLE ONE HERE to not only vote Green and New Whig straight down the ticket but do everything in your power to get everyone you possibly can to do so as well.

      A true multi party system is the only chance this country has short of our own Arab Spring and it is clear that BOTH the Ds and the Rs are not gonna listen to the will of the people. The New Whig Party is made of Iraq vets thinking we should get our boys home and the Greens believe in a true safety net for the poor along with affordable housing and health care, things I bet many here would support.

      So let us change the system, so that horseshit like this won't be the status quo. I'll even give out a slogan for free "A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote" because that is EXACTLY what it is, as they no longer listen to the will of the people. So vote Whig and Green, and push everyone in your sphere of influence to do so as well. Let 2012 be a REAL case of "Hope & Change" and not just more empty slogans!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Weezul · · Score: 1

      Did you see the metafiler discussion?

      They asked whether anyone has written a Javascript library that encodes AJAX requests as extremely suspicious looking emails, meaning every person visiting the site using it would show up as sending emails talking about drugs, islam, etc.

      Anyone seen such a library?

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    10. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by redemtionboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No Libertarian? Regardless, we will never have more than a two-party system until we change the election system. A pure first-past-the-post system will only support 2 parties. If you want more parties you need to eliminate primaries and move to a two-tier run off election system. All candidates are thrown in the ring for the first election, and unless one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates return for a second election. This election system takes emphasis off of parties and more on the individuals running. Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got or a proportional representation system. If you want to see this change happen, it needs to move from the ground up, starting with city elections and moving to statewide. You must first cripple the beast before you attack it.

    11. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by redemtionboy · · Score: 2

      It's a shame how one state can house both Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Hopefully the old turtle will be out of office next election. There aren't many who attempt to expand the powers of the executive branch on the level of Mitch, and we'll be better off without him.

    12. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      AQUA BUDDHA!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More likely, all those voting yes will have been victims of successful secret warrant less wire tapping and a yes vote will ensure their secrets remain secrets.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed.
      Personally I would say that we should eliminate parties as part of candidate identification entirely.
      I would even go so far as to make party identification by candidates a violation of election policy.
      Everyone should run as an individual, who has associated with other individuals.
      The point of a political party is to aggregate votes to create a stronger voting block. This is counter to the goal of a democracy (and/or a representative republic).

      Never should a representative be faced with the phrase "You should vote NO on bill X because you're a PartyZ and all the PartyZ'ers are voting NO".
      Representatives should vote what they said they'd vote during their campaign.
      Representatives should vote what the majority of their constituents desire.
      Politicians are just as stupid as the average people that you see in the supermarket. They are no better at making decisions than the rest of us.

      If you think that there are people who are better at deciding how you should live than you (and your peers)... time to change the TYPE of government entirely.

    15. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by paganizer · · Score: 1

      I'm only 49, and I'm still freaked out by what people allow to happen. I remember watergate; I remember Iran-Contra. it seems to me that we hit the toppling point about 1995 or so?

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    16. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Froeschle · · Score: 1

      So let us change the system, so that horseshit like this won't be the status quo.
      Horseshit like this already is the status quo. Why change it now?

    17. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      I'll vote Libertarian.

    18. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      The TYPE of government is fine. A constitutional republic is the ideal form of government in my mind. Unfortunately, the federal government has slowly expanded its power beyond its intended limits time and time again. The founding fathers should have been clearer in their wording so there was not nearly as much openness to manipulate it and there should be heavier consequences for going beyond the limits of the constitution. The more power we give to elected officials, the more corrupt they become. Democracy will always fail us. A constitutional republic with clear defined limits of power prevents that abuse from happening.

    19. Re:And You Know They Will Get It! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'm just glad my grandfather who fought against this kind of shit in WWII isn't around to witness this shit. WTH has happened to this country?

      The way i see it is this:

      In the late 60's we had the hippies that were going to change the world.

      In the 80's though they decided to sell their hippy beliefs for the yuppie way. yep, they are so brained dead from the 60's that they thought "trick down economics" was a smart decision.

      and well now, we got the lame fucks that let greed rule, when they gave the corporations more power, and totally changed what America was about.

      And the same fucks that were hippies, that used to protest vietnam war, are suddenly okay with us spending shit loads of money we don't have, in other wars in parts of the world.

      So yes, my parents generation sucks shit, fucked up, and are still fucked in the head because they can't stand on their morals and sold our souls to the corporations.

      Which is sad, seeing as the hippies/yuppies/shitheads, were your grandfathers kids.

      Now its up to us to fix things, and well, bitch slapping our parents generation is the first start.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  2. LOL! American Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    LOL! Is this the "American Freedom" we secretly heard so much about when I was a youth growing up in Hungary during the Cold War?

    1. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      No, this is the "American Freedom" that went away after the government realized that the public's fear of terrorism was an excellent pretext for a power grab. We (in America) used to be a lot more free than we are now. It's very sad.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      It's true. Starting in the 80's American freedoms and liberties started taking a backseat to corporate profits. From 80-00 It was a slow decline but from 00-08 it was pretty much a raging plummet.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    3. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we don't collapse economically thanks to the US senate, there is some small hope that justice and liberty can be restored in time. America needs a valid liberal progressive party instead of the conservative democrats and regressive republicans.

    4. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by aekafan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hell, I think we would be much better off if we were forced to default. What most call collapse would economically force us to pull our military c**k out of the worlds ass and take care of issues at home. I cheer the coming default, which will happen no matter what Washington does, and I hope those D.C. bastards burn for it.

    5. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by aekafan · · Score: 1

      I live in Wisconsin, too. The state government here already has pretty much fucked everyone, just like the feds. Do you seriously think a default will cause societal collapse? Not hardly. It will simply force the Government to live within its means. Or do you think that we cannot exist without a bloated fed, state, and local government? Wisconsin is again a great example of this. We are in the top 10 highest taxed states in the nation, yet everything but possibly the university system is a mess, and even that is going downhill fast.

    6. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've been listening to more and more old style folk music (pete seeger, woody guthrie, that era of true progressive lefties) and if you hear the 'fight' in their words and songs and compare to what the right calls 'liberal', you'd see that there are no liberals left in politics or in any kind of power.

      if you mention 'unionize' to most people, they look at you like you've said a naughty word. yet, many decades ago (but less than a century) we *needed* the union movement to balance the power that the corporations had. it worked and we got 5 day work weeks.

      now, likely, you and I are in software or technology and we say "WHAT 5 day work week?".

      exactly.

      which is why we need unions for software and technology-based workers; and all businesses where the overly-powerful corporations get to dictate, essentually unquestioned, what we do, how we get paid and even IF we get fulltime benefits (healthcare, etc).

      if we had a progressive party or even members of left in the government, we'd see more balance. we might see worker rights increase instead of steadily decrease.

      if you have not heard those old folk and freedom songs, give them a listen. look into almanac singers, the weavers, pete seeger, joan baez. they all had a deep feeling for our country and were real patriots. they'd all be extremely ashamed (those that are still living, I'm sure they are ashamed) of what the US has become. we made so much progress in the 60's, only to reverse and actually lose ground in this decade.

      we need more rebellion and more public show of dissatisfaction with our so-called leaders.

      listen to some of those old songs and put them into today's context and you'll see that we're going thru the same kinds of repression again and again. we have to fight it, again and again, too, it seems.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      "America needs a valid liberal progressive party"

      Clearly you've never lived in SF or you'd know that Liberal Progressives are the flip side of the coin to Neo-Conservative nutbaggers.

      Thanks to Liberal Progressives, SF is knee deep in it's own piss and shit while it's political environment while always to the left has become an absolute farce and quite frankly an international joke thanks to these clueless assholes blocking gentrification and non-affordable housing development which has driven out the middle class while increasing the number of homeless and urban blight throughout the city.

      Liberal Progressive is every inch as much an oxymoron as Fiscal Conservative

    8. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If we don't collapse economically thanks to the US senate, there is some small hope that justice and liberty can be restored in time. America needs a valid liberal progressive party instead of the conservative democrats and regressive republicans.

      If you think the Democrats are conservative, the United States needs "a valid liberal progressive party" like it needs forced labor camps. You are far too ready to take The Road to Serfdom.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by 517714 · · Score: 2

      Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in 1961: http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    10. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      it's cute that you think the repiblicans would allow that.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    11. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Froeschle · · Score: 1

      "we need more rebellion and more public show of dissatisfaction with our so-called leaders."
      You do realize that that could get you on the no-fly list?

    12. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      I guess they learned this from somewhere or where just doomed to repeat history.

      âoeNaturally the common people donâ(TM)t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and itâ(TM)s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
      Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.â
            --- Hermann Goering, Hitlerâ(TM)s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    13. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

      I'm reposting a "5 Insightful" on the members of the committee just to illustrate that your precious liberal progressive party is also very in on this fraud. The ones in bold are from the liberal progressive party. For God's sake, look who the f'ing chairperson is?!!?!?! We already have a progressive liberal party running the show and has been since 2008; are you not aware of who has been president for the last few years?!?!? So, no America does NOT need a liberal progressive party, we need a party who wants freedom.

      FTA: Dianne Feinstein, California (chair)
      Saxby Chambliss, Georgia (vice chair)
      John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
      Olympia J. Snowe, Maine NOTE: RINO
      Ron Wyden, Oregon
      Richard Burr, North Carolina
      Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
      James Risch, Idaho
      Bill Nelson, Florida
      Daniel Coats, Indiana
      Kent Conrad, North Dakota
      Roy Blunt, Missouri
      Mark Udall, Colorado
      Marco Rubio, Florida
      Mark Warner, Virginia

    14. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      The steep decline started in the 80's, but you are correct that it didn't exactly start in the 80's. It really started in the 60's, but you can't deny that the steepest decline occurred during the last 30 years and if you are not willing to admit that the really who is the ignorant one? Not really implying the r's are more to blame for this than the d's, but they just happen to have been in power for the most part during the steepest decline.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    15. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Those are conservative democrats and the rest are regressive republicans. A liberal progressive advocates freedom, transparency, justice and security. Just because you have used these words as insults with a corrupted meaning does not change the fundamental meaning of those words.

    16. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      what stops it IS the unions! the unions would be local. I would not expect (or want!) unions to be cross-national. too many problems and it becomes a nightmare to straddle all the country laws.

      and in fact, I don't give a rats ass about the workers overseas. we need to focus on our own people! making some guy's life better 10,000 miles away does not really help me; but helping my countrymen live better lives surely does pay us all back. each country needs to look after their own people; we have not the money or power to police the whole world (its futile to even try).

      and so if we had unions, they would empower us to deal with companies and get rid of these damned import workers. sorry if that offends, but I cannot sit by and watch my neighbors starve so that some rich ceo's new yacht can get paid for.

      imagine if the whole software department (and all of them!) went on strike to force corporations to pay ALL workers health benefits? suppose overtime was not allowed; or at least it was compensated for?

      imagine how good life could be, as a worker, IF we had bargaining power.

      right now, if you apply to a corporation and you try to change ANY terms in the contract, you get rejected and the next guy is given the offer or chance. if we had union power, we could have HONEST employment contracts.

      the proper thing is to have balance of power. corps having as much but not more or less than the employees (via unions).

      right now, the scale is tipped 100% to corporations. that's not right (and its unamerican; based on what we went thru during the last 100 years 'labor wars').

      my grandfather got paid overtime. as a software guy, I don't! and in fact, he was able to afford a home and a good middle class living. I, otoh, work more than 40 hours a week and am told its a fixed pay. I can't afford a house and am moving backwards in life. my grandfather had only a highschool (if that) education. I am college educated with a crapload of relevant experience. yet, my standard of living is behind what he had, 50 years ago.

      THIS is what's wrong.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I have not even tried to fly for about 10 years now.

      and if I'm turned away, well, then I won't fly. I don't need to fly for the kind of work I do and if I never have to fly again, well, I could think of worse things than that.

      flying busses suck, anyway. and I stopped taking business trips since they are more hassle than they are worth and they don't pay me enough to force me to do work-flights.

      so, fuck it. I'm not going to edit myself for 'fear' of retaliation. if I do, THEY WIN.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  3. That explains everything. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling instead of just voting to fix what should have been a relatively minor and uncontentious issue. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the purpose of government is not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:That explains everything. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I need some input from the Lawn Crowd, did it feel like this in the Watergate days? I'm getting the horrible feeling that after a nice quiet 90's with nothing but a fun little sex scandal we're seeing a whole different class of nastiness today.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:That explains everything. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling

      No, not really. Despite what many on slashdot think, warrantless wire-tapping isn't terribly controversial with the most of the US. Remember, the only time we hear about public discontent with the TSA is when they grope a baby or a grandmother - the bullshit constitutional smokescreen of "administrative searches" isn't even mentioned, much less questioned. No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.

      I wouldn't be surprised to find that this meeting had been scheduled months in advance. But even if it wasn't, it's just opportunism to schedule it now, not the cause of the debt ceiling fiasco, just a side-effect.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:That explains everything. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was much worse in the Wategate days. You could tell Nixon was a meglomaniac who might start a nuclear war or conduct a coup d'etat to stay in power.

      Congress pretty much rallied together to rid the country of this madman.

      The current budget stuff is pretty sickening, but really is a throwback to earlier times in the republic when politics was pretty disgusting as a normal way of life. It isn't the same level of insanity as having a completely deranged President.

    4. Re:That explains everything. by plover · · Score: 1, Funny

      No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.

      You mean most Americans are too stupid to realize they're getting groped over the internet.

      --
      John
    5. Re:That explains everything. by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      I need some input from the Lawn Crowd, did it feel like this in the Watergate days? I'm getting the horrible feeling that after a nice quiet 90's with nothing but a fun little sex scandal we're seeing a whole different class of nastiness today.

      No, it wasn't like this.

      Watergate was a relatively singular event, which elicited widescale public outrage. You couldn't go anywhere without it being a topic of convesation and dispute.

      This is one of ten-thousand such outrages, perpetrated over the past decade. Like most of them, people don't know of it happening, or why it might even be wrong.

      Sleep tight, America.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    6. Re:That explains everything. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I disagree, I don't think it was worse in the watergate days.

      the wholesale cut-out of personal freedoms - WORLD WIDE (yes, the US controls the intertubes. this is news to you? all core routers go thru US owned datacomm centers, dummy; and every one of them that is on the backbone has taps for (cough) calea use. and other things.

      watergate only fucked over the US and not really citizens, but it was mostly politicians doing the hurting to each other.

      this stuff we have now is them doing it to US.

      far, far worse for us all. its the sell-out of privacy, in official terms!

      and yes, I was around in the nixon days; as a child but still was very aware of the tv coverage and even what we were discussing in school. it was still ok to discuss current events in school, back then.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:That explains everything. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nixon was doing the same kind of corruption of personal freedoms that is happening right now - except all on his own and clandestinely without the knowledge or consent of Congress, for his own personal power. Enemies lists and using the IRS to harass political opponents. Massive use of the FBI and CIA to track US citizens including war protesters and other dissidents. It was and still is illegal for the CIA to track US citizens.

      And all of this was for one purpose - to preserve and extend his personal power.

      Whatever you think about the current situation it is not anywhere near the level of having the POTUS actively, vigorously and illegally using the mechanisms of the federal government to suppress political dissent in the US in order to preserve his own position of power.

      Yes the internet provides various surveillance opportunities that weren't available at the time of Nixon. But don't kid yourself into thinking Nixon wasn't using the massive cold war intelligence apparatus of the time to gather information outside the US and covert operations to corrupt and overthrow governments he didn't like. He was, and in spades. Look up Project FUBELT if you don't believe me.

    8. Re:That explains everything. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hated nixon. of course.

      but I still see that as limited damage compared to world-wide surveillance that now passes as 'ok'.

      not only is there more spying, but it feels a lot less 'free', now, than it did back then. just in general. we always talked about 'the russians' and how they were a 'papers please' kind of society and government. but today, them is us! the things we held up as differentiating are no longer. I see that much, much worse.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:That explains everything. by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Deus Ex, the video game. There was an Aquinas hub being built to control all network traffic across the world. Its an awesome game if you enjoy believable conspiracies.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    10. Re:That explains everything. by littlewink · · Score: 2

      It is far, far worse today. The Watergate scandal was clearly limited to the executive branch of government and to a handful of men in the President's innermost circle. The danger to our democracy was clearly limited. There was no danger of a war.

      Today we have tens of thousands of employees with secret and top secret security clearances (and I doubt the validity of their background checks also) who are monitoring, following, performing "sneak and peek" operations on U.S. citizens not in the pursuit of terrorist activities as the law specifies but instead for any activity whatsoever . The decision whether to monitor or not is made by an agent, not by a judge. Although approval is given by FISA "judges", they are a rubber-stamp mechanism: I know of no refusal of a request to monitor by a FISA judge. "Judicial" approval is given after the monitoring begins anyway.

      The U.S.A. is now a Stasi state with monitoring capability that the Stasi could only dream of: voice-recognition technology combined with AI narrative-comprehension software plus real-time processing and archiving brings us the world of the novel 1984 in 2011. Privacy now exists only in your mind.

      Can anyone show, is anyone concerned, that some of the capture information is misused? Since NSA captures all of Goldman Sachs e-mails, phone calls, faxes, cables, wires, and cellphones, then can anyone assure me that there is not someone in NSA taking financial advantage of what they monitor? Or passing that information to an outside party? The financial information monitored is worth trillions. The social information monitored can bring down candidates, be used to blackmail politicians, attorneys, and company and government officials.

      We need to tear down the domestic intelligence operations just as badly as we need to bring deficits under control. In fact, the former is far more dangerous to a free nation than debt.

    11. Re:That explains everything. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:That explains everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that everything Nixon did w.r.t. Watergate Would be legal now.
      http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/daniel-ellsberg-all-the-crimes-richard-nixon-committed-against-me-are-now-legal/

      So worse.

    13. Re:That explains everything. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So in how many of these cases was the investigator unable to get a warrant for a wire tap, a search, or anything else they might want or need? My understanding is that the FISA court basically hands them out like candy and can even hand them out after surveillance has begun.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  4. Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Svartalf · · Score: 2

    It's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing things like this in secret.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by nschubach · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTA:

              Dianne Feinstein, California (chair)
              Saxby Chambliss, Georgia (vice chair)
              John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
              Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
              Ron Wyden, Oregon
              Richard Burr, North Carolina
              Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
              James Risch, Idaho
              Bill Nelson, Florida
              Daniel Coats, Indiana
              Kent Conrad, North Dakota
              Roy Blunt, Missouri
              Mark Udall, Colorado
              Marco Rubio, Florida
              Mark Warner, Virginia

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not all of them support the warrantless wiretaps

      [secret citation needed]

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Please review the subject line.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 2

      At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair. She also hates the 2nd Amendment... Freedom of Speech (If someone wants to call a gay person a fanny bandit, goddamnit, he should have the right to do so...) :)

      But then again, she's a Senator... that means she's more out of touch than Helen Keller on acid.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    5. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seeing as warrantless wiretapping is clearly unconstitutional, it's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing it at all.

      --
      This space available.
    6. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      TFA good enough for you? No one reads it, so it might as well be secret :P

      Anyway, it singles out Wyden and Udall as opposing the wiretaps, and there could be others too, since that list just consists of everyone on the committee.

    7. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Thats a strange order to be presenting them in (not alphabetical), until you dig down:

      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat
      Republican
      Democrat

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by danlip · · Score: 1

      Well, the first 2 are the chair and vice-chair. I am guessing after that it has something to do with the way the parties assign members to the committees, which is probably alternating parties, by seniority.

    9. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by DoomHamster · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain he meant 'and' freedom of speech...but you never know.

    10. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair.

      I keep hoping California will get just a couple of competent Republicans running for major offices so we can get rid of Boxer and Feinstein, but instead, the Republicans keep giving us people like Meg Whitman (who ran one of the most evil companies of the Internet age) and Carly Fiorina (who nearly bankrupted two major technology companies in a row before trying her hand at politics...).

      It's purely the illusion of choice. California Democrats give us incompetent candidates that don't represent the state, and California Republicans give us incompetent candidates that don't represent the state. Simply amazing.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    11. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Constitution? You mean that fancy toilet paper with writing that they have in the Senate bathrooms?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Or let's look at it this way:

      Feinstein: Anti constitutional rights
      Wyden&Udall: anti spying

      Considering that feinstein is the head, we're kinda screwed. That and the complete lack of transparency, not that they were ever going to make good on it .

    13. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Seeing as warrantless wiretapping is clearly unconstitutional, it's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing it at all.

      Warrantless wiretapping for national security purposes has been found Constitutional by courts repeatedly. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping

      A special federal appeals court yesterday released a rare declassified opinion that backed the government's authority to intercept international phone conversations and e-mails from U.S. soil without a judicial warrant, even those involving Americans, if a significant purpose is to collect foreign intelligence.

      Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps

      the special FISA appeals court, which in a 2002 sealed case upholding the constitutionality of the Patriot Act held that "the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court said it took the president's power "for granted," observing that "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

      For your viewing pleasure, some of the more recent developments regarding would be "Jihadis" in the US:

      Yet again: Fort Hood Suspect Mentions al Qaeda Cleric Believed to Have Inspired Previous Attack, Official Says

      A U.S. serviceman is in custody after he allegedly admitted he was planning an attack on his fellow servicemen at the U.S. Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, the same base where 13 people were killed in a 2009 terror attack.

      Reservist Charged in '10 Building Shootings

      WASHINGTON â" The Marine Corps reservist arrested in Arlington National Cemetery last week with suspicious materials in his backpack was charged Thursday with firing shots last year at five military buildings in the Washington area, including the Pentagon.

      Investigators said they linked the reservist, Yonathan Melaku, to the shootings by determining that the bullet fragments recovered at those scenes came from the same gun as the spent shell casings found in his backpack last week.

      Minneapolis Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Offense - July 18, 2011

      Pennsylvania Man Indicted for Soliciting Jihadists to Kill Americans - July 14, 2011

      Accused al Shabaab Leader Charged with Providing Material Support to al Shabaab and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - July 5, 2011

      Two Men Charged in Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center - June 23, 2011

      Chicago Businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana Guilty of Providing Material Support to Terror Group and Supporting Role in Denmark Terrorism Conspiracy - June 9, 2011

      No

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Warrantless wiretapping for national security purposes has been found Constitutional by courts repeatedly.

      hands up, all here, who consider this an example of 'people giving themselves power'.

      yeah, the government assigns itself a lot of self-importance and overrides the rights and will of the people.

      well, color ME surprised!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      well, color ME surprised!

      How about if I color you uninformed instead?

      You have no right to private communications with foreign powers or organizations aimed at attacking or overthrowing the government of the United States, particularly if they have declared war on the US.

      yeah, the government assigns itself a lot of self-importance and overrides the rights and will of the people.

      The will of the American people is to not be blown up at Christmas tree lightings and other public functions by terrorists. They are OK with spying on terrorists communicating with Al Qaeda. The Constitution is OK with that. I'm not sure you're "hip" to any of that.

      Please tell me you are not on a dim witted personal crusade to ensure the right of terrorists to conspire and communicate in secret with their overseas masters as they plan and prepare to kill Americans?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia

      Bwahahahaha!

      Sorry, I shouldn't laugh.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      The "Christmas tree bomber" incident in Oregon is a really piss poor example to use since it was the suspects own father who turned the suspect over to the FBI who decided that they would use him as a patsy and provide him with the support and materials needed. Now granted they provided defective materials and incompentent support but they just kept stringing the suspect along instead of stopping it there. They then arrested the suspect with his defective bomb, provided by the US government, and wow now we have some great PR since he had a bomb and was going to a public event. Same thing with "Operation Fast and Furious" but that one appears to have failed miserably.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  5. FTFY by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which unconstitutionally allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:FTFY by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      But the constitution is a "living document" meant to "change with the times" and stuff... they tell us this all the time.

    2. Re:FTFY by rsborg · · Score: 1

      in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which unconstitutionally allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.

      Don't worry, with the Roberts court, if you sacrifice yourself and push the issue, the Supremes are sure to have a nice 5-4 split vote that will, indeed, prove it's constitutional. It happened with Citizens United, it will happen here.

      The court via Clarence Thomas is up for sale, what less would his sponsors expect?

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:FTFY by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Bad news. Things are only unconstitutional if SCOTUS agrees that they are. And given authoritarians like Scalia and Clarence "Strip-search-teenage-girls" Thomas, I doubt warantless wiretapping will become unconstitutional any time soon.

    4. Re:FTFY by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. The Supreme Court is composed of fallible (and corruptible) human beings. If you believe in the rule of law, and not men, they cannot simply change the constitution by disregarding what the constitution actually says. When the Supreme Court fails in their obligation to uphold the constitution, it doesn't make unconstitutional acts constitutional, it makes the US government illegitimate.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  6. Awful, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    warrantless anything is wrong and such acts should be punished for attempting, people should be burning with anger about this subject! Thanks for the info slashdot.

    1. Re:Awful, by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately there are certain key words that make people push their own anger aside. These set of words usually includes:
      Terrorist
      Terrorism
      Pedophile
      Children
      Drugs
      War
      If you suggested that government was going to search everyone (using the airport scanners) leaving a store to ensure that they didn't steal anything there would be blood in the street.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  7. Suspected Terrorist by glittermage · · Score: 1

    You are all suspected terrorists. Where is that phone number for the local FBI office...

    1. Re:Suspected Terrorist by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You keep saying this, but in how many of these cases was the investigator unable to get a real warrant?

      --
      Time to offend someone
  8. ugh... by pak9rabid · · Score: 2

    Fuck Congress and their contempt for the common man.

    1. Re:ugh... by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      And a teabagger, determined to screw over the common man with theatrics and appeals to nationalism.

    2. Re:ugh... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      sigh.

      its not about ballot box; that obviously does not work.

      its not about soap box; they don't listen to us.

      its not about ammo box; their guns are bigger than ours

      you know what its about? IGNORE THEIR SO-CALLED LAWS.

      they ask for it and so we give it to them. they have ruined the respect of the rule of law; so we are not obligated to follow their made-up bullshit laws.

      yes, you risk 'problems' in life; but so did so many patriots in our past. be patriotic and IGNORE CONGRESS' LAWS.

      we already ignore the copyright bullshit. we copy things 'right', actually (lol), but we don't follow bullshit made-up laws.

      civil disobedience: we have a long history of it. its needed, now, folks.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:ugh... by FiloEleven · · Score: 2

      Civil disobedience is not ignoring the law. Civil disobedience is flagrantly and publicly violating the law with the full knowledge of and the willingness to accept the consequences of doing so. This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore, strengthening the demonstrators' chances to land in the spotlight and hopefully find widespread support for their cause.

      Don't kid yourself into thinking that downloading stuff for free that you must legally pay for is an act of civil disobedience. It isn't. It is only ignoring the law. For it to become civil disobedience you would have to sit with your laptop on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "I am downloading MGM's entire library and not paying them one red cent," preferably in the company of a few dozen others doing the same thing.

    4. Re:ugh... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore

      Also: it is harder to catch every one of the demonstrators, so there is some sense of "safety in numbers."

      For the same reason, fish school. I really like that one, actually: the fish is not getting up close to his neighbor because he's being friendly; he's doing it so that when the predator comes, there's a greater chance of his neighbor gets eaten first.

      We can learn a lot from nature. :)

      (Similarly, the joke whose punchline is "I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.")

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:ugh... by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Civil disobedience is a great way to effect change, it's true, but it really can't be applied to warrantless wiretapping. Hell, for us to "ignore" their laws about wiretaps is exactly what they want.

      If you want to change this, you need to vote for the most liberal candidate in every election. For the purposes of this post, I'm talking about liberal in terms of civil liberties. Don't worry about their views on economics or foreign policy or whatever, if your main concern is civil rights. Usually, there aren't any that are actually liberal. Don't make the mistake of thinking Democrat = liberal... with few exceptions, Democrats these days are far to the right of Republicans from a few decades ago. But vote for the candidate furthest to the left, and start dragging the overton window back to the realm of sanity.

      The forces that be rely on your apathy to allow them to keep dragging the window further and further into fascist territory. They expect you to get tired and depressed and give up. Don't.

      Don't expect results in the next twenty or thirty years. It took decades to corrupt the government this far, and it will take decades to fix. It may not even happen in your lifetime. But if you don't fight at every opportunity, it will continue to get worse indefinitely.

    6. Re:ugh... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I disagree. He at least is also socially liberal unlike most Teabaggers.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    7. Re:ugh... by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      He practically founded the movement during the last election, and his son is its current ringleader. The guy doesn't care about personal rights. Not one bit. Look at his stances on abortion and gay rights if you really want to know. He has a lot of rhetoric about leaving things to the states, but ultimately that means repealing the few protections that the federal government gives citizens, and letting states like Arizona implement whatever unconstitutional laws they like. Balkanization of the US, which has been a fairly stable republic since the civil war, isn't a noble or liberal goal in any sense.

      This is coming from someone who actually supported Ron Paul, until the Tea Party arose and I saw what him and his kin actually support. No more. I am a party-line Democrat until the Republicans show they actually care about anyone other than the christian elite.

    8. Re:ugh... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Having an opinion on gay rights or abortion doesn't mean you will stomp over everyone else's rights or right to choose. Im not going to force people to say nice things to gay people just because I think gay people should have all the rights of straight people. That is against a person's right to free speech. Assuming he gets the presidency, he can't even make laws anyway since that is under the purview of Congress. Sure, he can veto the hell out of bills, but Congress can still over-ride. If you believe he will remove federal protection for gay rights and abortion he is much more dangerous in the House or Senate. The Tea party was around before Ron Paul, he is just trying to ride it to the top by winning over the fiscal conservative individuals. He is quoted as saying that prostitution and drugs should be legalized since it does more harm than good to make them illegal, and its not in the spirit of liberty to outlaw them. I don't see this as being the opinion of a person who wants to stifle your liberties.

      I see nothing wrong with leaving more things up to the states. It allows the people of that state to have some level of self determination in their governments and laws rather than giving everyone a cookie cutter "American" lifestyle they must uphold. This is precisely what is happening right now and one reason there aren't as many pro-gay-marriage laws in many states.

      Local government was what was intended anyway when the states formed a union. If you don't like the lack of gay rights in Alabama, move to California or Colorado. In a States Rights type Republic, If anything, you will see the most bigoted and religious nimrods flocking to the most socially conservative states, and all the scientists and rational thinkers will flock to the more liberal states leaving the states run by morons to implode on themselves, meanwhile eating their own medicine and having no Federal bail outs.

      I am just sick and tired of a government run by Republicans that cater to the rich and stomp on the poor while manipulating people through religion, and Democrats that give way too much to the poor no-strings-attached and never stick up for the common man (like me) they try to win over. Obama was a big disappointment, and Bush was a moron sycophant to the wealthy. Id rather have someone that ran on a Libertarian platform before in the presidents office than another Obama or Bush.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    9. Re:ugh... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      Seriously? You think sitting on your ass in the safety of your mom's basement and using some sort of torrent software is "civil disobedience"?

      Civil disobedience is a targeted act intended to draw attention to injustice. Not just being too lazy and too cheap to go buy something instead of pirating it. (Not that I'm in favor of current copyright laws, but the vast majority of file sharers are not violating copyright for political reasons -- they're doing it simply out of convenience.)

      As for warrantless wiretapping, the only people who could be involved in civil disobedience to that law would be law enforcement officials who refused to make use of wiretapping or something. Civil disobedience must be targeted to break a particular law to show its injustice; I don't see how you as a regular citizen could break a law authorizing law enforcement to do wiretapping.

  9. Re:raging plummet. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hiya.

    Thank you for confirming that I am not a Tin Foil Hat for thinking this stuff is accelerating.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  10. To anyone will still vote for one of the senators: by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

    I hate you.

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  11. Email your Senators today by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 2

    Let then know this is not slipping under the wire. Email the President as well. Calls are good too.

    1. Re:Email your Senators today by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      silly person. still thinks that the will of the people matters when its a power-grab we are talking about.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Email your Senators today by tidepool · · Score: 1

      I actually just did. It was a brief, sarcastic message, but it allowed them to see that at least ONE person knew they were paying (some) attention.

      I actually just asked why they were at the meeting and what position they (she) planned to take on it. Fingers crossed.

    3. Re:Email your Senators today by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      We do still vote them in. If a large enough percentage of their constituency says, "vote this way and I will vote you out," they will very likely change their tune. It works very well in the House and less so in the senate, though it is still effective. Public pressure is the best tool that the public possesses.

    4. Re:Email your Senators today by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      kang and kodos.

      nice choice we have.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Email your Senators today by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Well, congressional approval ratings are at about 20 percent, so plenty of people are pissed off.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:Email your Senators today by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately as long as they have the R or D behind their name and are in the correctly colored district they more than likely won't be voted out. Granted you can see big swings like the 2010 elections, but those tend to be more a throw the bums out and it doesn't matter who the bums are or what bums replace them. Most people don't follow politics and aren't active. When they do follow them it is in the weeks leading up to the election and there you find out that candidate A like to kick puppies and is a pinko commie while candidate B hates apple pie and is a fascist (the specific accusations vary but the themes are the same).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Email your Senators today by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound too out of the norm. Typically people dislike congress in general but like their own congress critters. It is similar to schools, public schools suck except for the one their children go to.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Email your Senators today by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I can't really think of a congressman/woman I do like.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    9. Re:Email your Senators today by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Of course anyone grabing for power will have pause if they see the torches and pitchforks coming up the road, or the deluge of voters wrath in written form.

  12. Meanwhile by atari2600a · · Score: 1

    At the Legion of Doom...

  13. Re:Paranoid, much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Secret' is a word widely used in sensationalist headlines across the board in media, whether news, opinion or lifestyle. "Secret torture camps in country X", "Policy proposal X secretive meetings", "X's hot dating secrets". It's meant to draw attention primarily, to imply a "back-room deal brokering by shadowy players" as you put it. The way it frames and polarizes the subsequent discussion is also one of the wonderful effects of human nature, since less than 10% of people RTFA before discussion and less than 1% wish to fight the totality of FUD - not just from the politicians, but also FUD from summarizers, opinion leaders and uninformed discourse from the general public.

  14. Read The Shock Doctrine by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Read The Shock Doctrine . Then weep. Then vote for anyone other than Republicans or Democrats.

  15. Re:Why hasn't by danlip · · Score: 1

    Because it wouldn't do any good - at worst they would be martyrs, and at best they would be replaced by someone else just like them. Violence is rarely the best solution, and they were elected after all, so if you want to make a change then campaign for someone else. If you can't find someone better then run for office yourself.

  16. Why waste the opportunity to screw the public by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
    - Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

    1. Re:Why waste the opportunity to screw the public by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Ya, you can thank Saul Alinsky for that bit of advice.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  17. Re:Why hasn't by Zomalaja · · Score: 1

    anyone planted a bug in the meeting room ?

  18. Solution by Aggrav8d · · Score: 1

    Frame the NSA for wiretapping senators on the intelligence committee.

    Wait... was that was in V for Vandetta? Damnit.

    1. Re:Solution by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      well, lulzsec had their main guy nabbed, so they're out of action. right? or, wait, did they get the wrong guy?

      maybe l.s. can refocus world attention and let everyone know that we have rogue senators trying to pull a fast one on us.

      the world needs new heros. sadly, we can't count on our 'elected' officials to work in our interests. I hope there is someone out there who can.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Solution by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The real Topiary better hide in a cave now, all his personal details and pics are available online.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  19. Re:Mod parent up by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    Default is not inevitable, we can balance the budget, but if we only do a short term debt limit increase the US AAA rating will drop and cost the US another 100 billion a year in interest, making it that much harder to balance the budget in the future. That is what Obama is trying to do. The republicans in the senate are holding our govornment hostage and their only offer is an extra trillion dollars in debt over the next 10 years.

  20. Phone Hacking by TheBiGW · · Score: 2

    How can they back a bill like this whilst simultaneously the Phone Hacking scandal continues unabated? Isn't this exactly the same thing, only on a grander scale?

    --
    Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for an hour. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Phone Hacking by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Phone Hacking scandal may have been done against them where as they are doing this to us. World of difference, you just don't get that this is to stop pedophiles, terrorists, Mexican Drug cartels, and gun runners, just think of the children. /sarcasm

      --
      Time to offend someone
  21. Re:Mod parent up by redemtionboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you believe Obama is actually trying to balance the budget, then all you need to do is look at what his plan actually entails to think otherwise. The same goes for Boener's plan. Both add over $7 Trillion in new debt over the next 10 years and spending levels continue to rise. If they were actually interested in balancing the budget, the would put us on a path to reduce spending and actually balance the budget, but all this is is a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us think they're doing the right thing. In reality, all they're doing is continuing to expand the power of the federal government, the executive branch in particular. We need to return to Clinton administration levels of spending, adjusted for inflation of course. We can't keep the Obushma empire going.

  22. Dear US government: by cbope · · Score: 2

    1984 is NOT an instruction manual.

    Seriously, I'm actually reading 1984 again, and the parallels are scary to what has been going on in the US post-9/11. And to imagine that Orwell came up with this in the late 40's and it's mirrored in today's USA, is literally unbelievable.

    How much longer do you let this continue?

  23. Re:Mod parent up by John+Newman · · Score: 1

    We need to return to Clinton administration levels of spending, adjusted for inflation of course. We can't keep the Obushma empire going.

    With you 100%, but it should be noted we're not that far off from Clinton levels of spending and will more or less reach it once we wind down our two land wars in Asia. We've cratered revenues, however. If we returned taxes to Clinton levels, we would have a small enough deficit that Republicans would be back to calling for tax cuts to prevent a surplus, instead of tax cuts for whatever reason they give now.

  24. Re:Mod parent up by jonwil · · Score: 1

    The US really needs to stop thinking that it has to be the worlds police force and pull its troops out of places that it doesn't really need them. Iraq for one (let the new democratically elected government of Iraq decide what sort of military Iraq needs to defend itself).
    Get out of Europe altogether (the cold war is over and the threat of the Russians are going to send fleets of tanks west is long gone and that's assuming they actually have any armies left after the collapse of their military)
    Pull all the covert guys (including CIA and special forces) out of South America and stop trying to topple or influence governments in the region (be they democratic or otherwise)
    Get out of Japan (the Japanese are unlikely to attack America again, not when the Americans spend so much money on Japanese electronics, automobiles and other products)
    Stop spending so much money on expensive new toys like the F35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and start spending money on the kind of operations required to get intel on the bad guys, especially the terrorists. Stop spending money on ever more data collection (including tapping every phone and internet connection in the known world and dumping the contents of every storage device that passes through a US point of entry) and spend money on paying gurus to analyze the data to find the good bits.

    You dont beat terrorists by shooting at them with Sidewinder missiles, you beat them by finding where they are through good intel and blowing up their camp with a few artillery pieces or bazookas.
    You dont beat IEDs with massive radar installations that make radio telescopes look small, you beat IEDs with detector dogs, guys carrying metal detectors, bomb detection robots and bomb squad teams.

  25. passive conspiracy by jokoon · · Score: 1

    Conspiracy theories are nuts, but we really have to agree there are conspiracy facts: people with higher power will always try to conspire against any other people, it always seem to happen that way. There are no conspiracy theories, but it's just a fact that there as so many examples out there where politics is just a tool to fuck up citizens. I'm wondering how the hell those guys can do this hit without even alarming citizen. I think we have come to be 99% sheeps who will not question or not worry about this, 0.5% turning crazy because of knowing this, and 0.5% being the actual elite who fuck up everybody.

  26. Re:Mod parent up by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

    Nice try. Protip: if you want to troll people, don't contradict yourself so much.

  27. Re:Wait a minute! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I can't mod in this discussion so could someone mode the parent down, the "President Chocolate Jesus" is really uncalled for and is just trolling. I don't like President Obama, and agree that the up roar during President Bush's administration over these issues by Democrats is strangely missing (hey at least the Republicans are consistent).

    --
    Time to offend someone
  28. Causes, timeline by Quila · · Score: 1

    Starting in the 80's American freedoms and liberties started taking a backseat to corporate profits.

    Don't forget the War on Drugs and the expansion of the ATF. Waco and Ruby Ridge weren't about corporate profits.

    From 80-00 It was a slow decline but from 00-08 it was pretty much a raging plummet

    I notice how carefully you selected your beginning and supposed end dates for the plummet. It's still plummeting under Obama. He doesn't get a pass. If you believed his "hope and change" rhetoric during the campaign, you were gullible. If you still believe it you're just an idiot.

  29. our new democrat overlords by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    ah, this group is lead by Dianne Feinstein.

    No surprise. Thanks a lot California for not voting her out of office years ago. Ugh.

  30. And George Washington's warning by Quila · · Score: 1

    He warned us about how parties would lead to the current situation in 1796.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_Farewell_Address

  31. Exactly what rights to gays not have? by Quila · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about gay rights, but I still don't see any violations.

  32. Re:Wait a minute! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I really hate that term as well as it shows someone is a political hack. As it isn't a personal attack I am generally more forgiving.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  33. Re:Mod parent up by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

    That's actually not even remotely true. While yes, the wars are significant adding to our budget, we have significantly increased spending across the board. In 2000, we spent $1.77 trillion, 18.2% of GDP with a deficit of $0.04 trillion. Our 2011 budget is $3.83 trillion, 26% of GDP, with a deficit of $1.65 trillion. Adjusting the 2000 budget of $1.77 trillion to 2010 dollars would result in $2.22 trillion or $1.61 trillion less than we're currently spending. If we used the last Clinton budget and adjusted it for inflation, we'd have a deficit of $0.4 trillion in a year where tax revenues are at a relatively low level. So, not even close. Eliminating the entire military budget still lives us with a massive deficit, so we can't just blame this on the wars.

  34. Re:Agreed, & apparently what U have to do by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    I do believe there are blacklists. I suspect I'm on one; more than one, I would even wager.

    and I believe everyone that 'stirs up trouble' will find that the jobs and offers kind of dry up, slowly over time.

    it sucks. yes, it certainly does. when I run out of money, I'll be on the street (or something equally worse). and I guess at that point when I have nothing left, I'll be thinking in even more extreme terms.

    if the 'job creators' (yeah, that's the new euphemism for 'rich republican motherfuckers') want to keep people in their place, they at least have to ensure they still have *income* or else there WILL be riots in the streets.

    so maybe for people like me who run out of support - maybe we're the ones to raise the union flag. but I just don't see my fellow software, hardware and systems guys following. they are TOO comfy with their playstations, blue ray players (I refuse to sell it the sony way; fuck sony!) and smartphones. there are a lot of people under water, but not enough to really rise up.

    yet.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  35. get mad but... by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    Unless you plan to do something about it this time... It is the same ole BS they passed before. Nothing different except for the date, and the public did not do a thing but sit on their ass and twiddle their thumbs and watch the movie stars on the tv. The public doesn't care? I can't speak for all of them, but yes they had a rally about this, and you could count the attendants on your hands. The sorry good for nothing media didn't even cover it. They would lots rather cover BS on entertainers.

  36. Re:Wait a minute! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    It most certainly is NOT trolling. I use the term to ridicule the unearned adulation that the political left heaps upon the atrocity that's in the People's House.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  37. Re:Wait a minute! by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I really hate that term as well as it shows someone is a political hack. As it isn't a personal attack I am generally more forgiving.

    You, sir, are a hypocrite.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  38. That makes more sense... by bostongraf · · Score: 1

    When I first saw this headline I thought it said "Senators Want Secret Warrantless Wiretap REMOVAL" and I was truly shocked...

    But then I saw it was RENEWAL and realized that nothing had actually changed...