Slashdot Mirror


Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power

Robotron23 writes: The latest attempt at NSA reform has been prevented from passage in the Senate by a margin of 58 to 42. Introduced as a means to stop the NSA collecting bulk phone and e-mail records on a daily basis, the USA Freedom Act has been considered a practical route to curtailment of perceived overreach by security services, 18 months since Edward Snowden went public. Opponents to the bill said it was needless, as Wall Street Journal raised the possibility of terrorists such as ISIS running amok on U.S. soil. Supporting the bill meanwhile were the technology giants Google and Microsoft. Prior to this vote, the bill had already been stripped of privacy protections in aid of gaining White House support. A provision to extend the controversial USA Patriot Act to 2017 was also appended by the House of Representatives.

27 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. So basically by magsol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A watered down version of the original bill with the name "FREEDOM" in the very title still couldn't pass muster once the WSJ put the words "terrorist" and "ISIS" next to it.

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:So basically by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Libertarians don't admit that because they typically don't admit to voting republican in the first place.

    2. Re:So basically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Libertarianism is just Big Government renamed to Big Government Inc., with less accountability to the people.

      Power always finds a vacuum.

    3. Re:So basically by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Libertarianism is just Big Government renamed to Big Government Inc., with less accountability to the people.

      This is why most of us grow out of our Libertarian phase by our mid-20s.

    4. Re: So basically by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This happened now because the Democrats knew it would fail (if they'd thought it would succeed, they'd have pushed it BEFORE the elections just past), and wanted to get the good publicity for being AGAINST THE NSA!!!

      The Republicans voted against it because the Democrats were for it.

      Neither Party's position had anything to do with their opinions about the issue (they're both in favour of the status quo) - it was a purely tactical vote.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:So basically by meustrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the entire government became Libertarian today, it would take less than 10 years for corporations to take total control of governance and we'd have just as much (or probably more) squashing of individual liberties, but no longer any accountability to voters. There are many powerful players in society and I'm not one of them. Does it make me a crony capitalist or a welfare queen when I decide I'd rather the power go to those I can vote out of office than those I can't?

      --
      I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    6. Re:So basically by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The implicit theoretical side effect of libertarianism is that the wealthy, those with the means and resources, would do every well and those with out wouldn't. If you don't have people paying taxes for schools, libraries, roads, etc. How do things get better? When you've got concentrated wealth, what's stopping the wealthy from taking over?

      Violent insurrection is a fine idea in that case, but, I wouldn't bet on it.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    7. Re:So basically by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good to see Illiberals target libertarians on a regular basis now... Only 10 years ago or so, we were simply dismissed with mild amusement.

      There is hope for America yet.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re: So basically by pastafazou · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI, because this bill failed, the NSA's authorization to bulk monitor phone calls warrantlessly is now set to expire next year, whereas this bill would have extended it with some minor limitations. Some Republicans who were in favor of the original bill voted against the final version because it didn't do enough, and they would prefer the expiration to take effect instead.

    9. Re:So basically by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative

      He used the chicken shit excuse that "It didn't go far enough", as if a fantasy bill that went even farther was a realistic alternative.

      According to your link:

      Paul said he voted against the bill because it would have extended the Patriot Act provision that allows the NSA to search Americans' phone records. He has consistently opposed the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

      It curtailed some domestic spying, but extended it in other areas, and also extended the PATRIOT Act. My guess is you would have criticized him if he voted in favor of it as well.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    10. Re:So basically by whistlingtony · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ahem.... There were TWO bills, ONE of which was introduced by Jim Sensenbrenner, a republican in the House. I don't know how it started, and Sensenbrenner is the guy that helped WRITE the Patriot Act, who later said "oops". He gets credit for that in my book. Anyway, the HOUSE (R controlled) version went through committees and THAT version extended the Patriot act and didn't go far enough.

      The OTHER bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy, a Dem in the Senate. THAT version was stronger, and THAT version unequivocally was BLOCKED by Republicans in the Sentate.

      If you'd care to look for yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

      So, it seems you don't know what you're talking about....

  2. Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember that ISIS is our enemy now. They have always been our enemy.

    Ignore those who say they used to be our ally in Syria and we were sending them weapons and aid. They want the T E R R O R I S T S to win!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ignore those who say they used to be our ally in Syria and we were sending them weapons and aid.

      Who said that? One of the reasons we were reluctant to send aid to the so-called moderates was because we were afraid it would fall into the hands of groups like ISIS. In retrospect that was probably a mistake; of course one could go further back and say that it was a mistake to help destabilize Assad in the first place. Devil you know and all that. Did you happen to catch Assad's interview with Charlie Rose? He called this happening; he may be a scumbag but he knew his country better than we ever did. Realpolitik might have been the best play, though it's a bit late for that at this stage.

      Incidentally, they're not just our enemy; they're enemies of all of civilization. You're willing to sit on the sidelines while ISIS engages in a campaign of genocide and ethnic/religious cleansing? Go watch this, assuming you have the stomach to get through it. They're barbarians and they need to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

      If you can't get behind the moral imperative to intervene, well, they've killed multiple American citizens and that's all the casus belli we need.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're willing to sit on the sidelines while ISIS engages in a campaign of genocide and ethnic/religious cleansing?

      Why were we fine with doing this when the warlords of Africa were doing it? Or Bosnia?

      Or anyplace else on this list:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unrealistic answer: Invading other countries to play world police will fix the problem.
      Idealistic answer: Government thugs shouldn't be using emotional propaganda to manipulate Americans into supporting yet another war in the middle east that will accomplish a whole lot of nothing except to waste our money.

  3. How did your senator vote? by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Dems (including Obama) expanded and extended the patriot act at a time when they could have pushed it through with little resistance.
     
    As much as the talking heads are going to try to make this seem like a partisan issue the fact of the matter is that there is heavy bi-partisan support for controlling the slaves of the USA and any resistance to this is largely lip service to keep the sheep filling the party coffers.
     
    How many times do we have to go through the "It's the Democrats!" "No, no, it's the Republicans" mantra before we get sick of the game and smash the established sacred idols of the jackass and the elephant? We, The People, have become of the dog chasing its own tail. The sad thing is that the vast majority think that they're fighting the good fight when they're just being kept busy while the real powers that be loot and pillage.

  5. Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by Saunalainen · · Score: 5, Informative

    A couple more Republican's voted against it than Democrats.

    "insightful"?

    If you look at the data (scroll down to "grouped by vote position", all but three Republicans voted against it, and all but one democrats in favour of it. So, a lot more than "a couple".

  6. Re:Thanks Obama... by mean+pun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trying to imply that Obama is the good guy in the mess is pure bullshit.

    He was mocking the astroturfed memes that blame Obama for every perceived wrong in the world, even if the supposed wrong or its justification makes you spin-dizzy. But you knew that.

    Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote. That does not mean Obama is the good guy in the NSA-powers scandal, it only means that Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote.

    Similarly, the Republicans are responsible for this down vote. That does not mean they are solely to blame for the NSA-powers scandal, or that everything should be explained in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, it only means that in this case the Republicans are responsible for this down vote.

  7. Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by asylumx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obamacare passed without one Republican vote in the House or the Senate. When was that last called a Strictly Partisan Bill?

    Um... every day?

  8. Re:Thanks Obama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, Obama has deported *more* illegal aliens than his predecessor. The ones that aren't being deported aren't being deported because the *LAW* says they're entitled to an asylum hearing, but the courts which handle those hearings are *beyond* understaffed because Congress won't do it's job regarding appointments to those courts.

    Obama wrote an executive order delaying *enforcement* of those deadlines. Republicans are all upset about those executive orders, even as they argue for those *same* delays, but won't actually put a bill to effect those delays up for a vote.

    On the third point, yes, Obama could, 'with the stroke of a pen' write an executive order to disallow what the NSA is doing. He may or may not 'want to'. However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional) due to the incompetence of Congress in passing laws which they haven't read and didn't understand. Likewise, Congress could 'with the stroke of a pen' make what the NSA is doing expressly *illegal*, but they haven't, and they won't because one party wants to be able to blame Obama for it. In fact blaming Obama is *much* more important to that party's congress-critters than actually *doing their freaking job*.

  9. PATRIOT Act by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if maybe attaching a PATRIOT extension to the bill might have anything to do with it dying.

  10. Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by LF11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to Dr. Paul, the bill didn't go far enough (I agree). It also extended the PATRIOT act. Are you really led around that easily, to think that helping to kill this bill somehow makes him an authoritarian stooge?

    Failure to pass this bill means we'll get another chance. The pressure is on. Once they pass a bill, nobody is going to want to pass another one for a while, so the first one has to get it right. The ACA is an example of a bill that was slammed through, and got a lot of things wrong. Let's not do the same thing with limiting the NSA.

    Also, Rand Paul does not claim to be a libertarian, and if you actually knew anything about libertarians you should have known that libertarians tend to give him a giant stink-eye.

  11. Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll start this off by stating I'm non-partisan and have no particular party affiliation. That said, the AC above is being disingenuous at best.

    Domestic surveillance of the American populace by the NSA as almost certainly been in place since its inception, but it didn't really come into full-force until Bush signed the order to begin domestic spying on Oct.4, 2001. (see https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... say that its reached "new and unimagined levels" under the current administration is true, but only because the program has grown and expanded steadily since 2001.

    But all of that is history to be rewritten by those with the motivation to do so, and relearned by those with short memories. As Americans, our forefathers built a nation upon the idea that we could create and maintain a country free of political tyranny; that those with power could not subjugate those without; that as humans, we have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that its laws will provide justice and protection for all its citizenry; and that those citizens will be brave in the face of those who would try to take those ideas from us, and fight to preserve what we have built.

    The Senate had the chance to take a stand to honor the sacrifices made by so many, and everything that we've fought and bled for 238 years; but they did not. Perhaps that is fine. Perhaps ISIS, and Al-Qaeda before them, have shown us that the idea of America is a false one. That all it takes to shake our country to its foundation is to sneak in and blow up some buildings. Maybe we were delusional in thinking that we could really ever be free? Maybe it's all been romanticized through movies, literature, and rewritten history books; and that we never really were a "land of the free and home of the brave". Maybe that's just song lyrics. Maybe it is the best form of government on the planet, or maybe that doesn't matter because it's government of and by an animal driven by greed and fear. And maybe it's always been that way since we came out of the caves.

    That's what I take away from this vote, and all the other votes on all the other measures that either erode our freedoms, or prevent that erosion from happening. That it doesn't matter what we do, no form of government can overcome our failings as species.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  12. Re:DID ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Informative

    One Democrat and almost every Republican is not "bipartisan effort against liberty".

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  13. Re:Hmmm .... by Maritz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My answer is that both parties have decided that security at any costs, and privacy be damned is the way of the future.

    While I hope my cynicism is misplaced, I personally don't think they give a fuck about security. If they did, they'd do the math and realise there are higher priorities in terms of preventable deaths. What they give a fuck about is power. Specifically, getting it, keeping it, and increasing its scope.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  14. Bad bill. by Chas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Honestly? In its final form? The FREEDOM act was BADLY compromised. To the point where it would, in some ways, be achieving the OPPOSITE of the bill's original intent and could compromise our rights

    I'd rather a bill like that get left on the floor.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!