McConnell Introduces Bill To Extend NSA Surveillance

jriding sends word that the majority leader of the U.S. Senate has introduced a bill that would extend the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act until 2020: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a bill Tuesday night to extend through 2020 a controversial surveillance authority under the Patriot Act. The move comes as a bipartisan group of lawmakers in both chambers is preparing legislation to scale back the government's spying powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. It puts McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the bill’s co-sponsor, squarely on the side of advocates of the National Security Agency’s continued ability to collect millions of Americans’ phone records each day in the hunt for clues of terrorist activity.

Comments

republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

or better known as assholes

Re:republicrats

[g0bshiTe]

R or D doesn't matter if they agree to allow this type of bullshit they are assholes.

Seriously how much are we spending on the witch hunt for terrorists?

Can they show results of thwarted attacks to merit such spending? If not the assholes should be removed from office.

On a side note I'd be interested to find out if there are any ties between these people and those that have the contracts to provide hardware for this project.

Re:republicrats

[gewalker]

You are right the R or D matters little. The reasons are actually pretty simple.

Both parties threaten their junior members to tow the party line or they will work against them next election. And of course, holding power becomes the most important thing to members over time as the perks are without parallel, esp. power and ego stroking.

Majority of congresscritters don't really care that much about rule of law or the opinion of their constituents.

The reelection rates are so high that their is little actual reason for them to change their ways.

D & R do have different issues, e.g., Rs like guns, Ds like abortion on demand. But they share more in common, desire for power, using gov. to solve all problems, discounting personal liberty.

Re:republicrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to be a single issue voter, you just need to prioritize your issues. For example, for me it might be:

1) Against surveillance state.
2) Free trade.
3) Less regulation
4) Small government

Regarding #1, the Democrats are the better bet. Regarding #2, at least in the past 25 years the Democrats have supported free trade about as well as Republicans. #3 leans slightly in favor of Republicans, even though they nix many regulations I think should be necessary, including certain (but not all) financial industry regulations, and net neutrality; and unfortunately they still support morality regulations. #4 leans heavily in favor of the Democrats, because while Democrats support social agencies, it's been Republican support for the defense and security industries that has really exploded the size and cost of government in the past 15 years, for almost no social gain whatsoever.

Party platforms on policy don't matter nearly as much as _actual_ policy.

The situation could easily change. I'd have no problem voting Republican in the future. But as it currently stands, and based on a weighting of all those factors and more, I basically try to vote a Democratic ticket at the federal level.

I'm familiar with the Arrow Paradox regarding prioritized ordering and voting. But simply because some method is proven to be technically impossible in all cases doesn't mean it's not functional or practical in actuality.

Re:republicrats

[theArtificial]

Nothing but an attack on the intelligence of the poster based on....a single fucking word.

It's not so much that it's a word, but a phrase which subtly changes the meaning. My hunch is it's a phrase they've heard and not read. As always the devil is in the details. Have you heard someone slip up with their units (TB and KB)? An innocent slip or not it makes them sound foolish in a technical discussion, likewise using a phrase improperly taints the points they're making and brings into question and how informed they are. Perception is reality. Without people pointing this crap out, how will it get better? The use of irregardless is on the rise ffs.

Online posts are such absurd crapshoots of appeals to authority and opinion as fact, even people (myself included) who seem to know what they're talking about spout so much profound misinformed nonsense and outright fantasy it's hilarious to take anything read online seriously. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog, nobody.

Re:republicrats

[Jason Levine]

Before 9/11, terrorism was some nebulous thing that happened in some far off land. It was sad to watch on the evening news but then you changed the channel to a sitcom and everything was alright again.

Right after 9/11, the horrors of terrorism came up close and we couldn't ignore them. This, in itself, is fine. The problem was that these people saw that we were scared and jumped in promising to stop terrorism. All they needed in return was a little of this liberty - just a little bit - we wouldn't even notice it was gone. We quickly agreed in our panicked state - shouting down the minority who said it was a bad idea by yelling "Are you taking THE TERRORISTS side? Are you with THEM?!!! DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!!!!!"

Slowly, we began to come to our senses, but were still on edge enough to be scared into approving anything if the politician said "Terrorism" enough times.

Hopefully, by now, we've regained enough sanity that we can a) smack around any politician who tries to claim that removing liberty will prevent terrorism and b) start the long, hard process of getting back the liberty we were scared into giving up years ago.

Second!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about no. I'm not okay with this law being extended. I want my constitution back.

Not just about terrorism

[bulled]

This isn't just about terrorism and the summary does a disservice to the discussion to imply otherwise. This surveillance is used by many other three-letter-agencies for far more than investigating terrorism. One of the key problems with this program is that the American people have no idea how deep it goes and who is using it for what. Opposing this program is about opposing the blank check that has been given to all governmental agencies to use mass surveillance against average citizens when there is no reason to suspect they are involved in anything illegal.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[gstoddart]

Opposing this program is about opposing the blank check that has been given to all governmental agencies to use mass surveillance against average citizens when there is no reason to suspect they are involved in anything illegal.

And don't forget subsequently using that information to commit institutional perjury as they engage in "parallel construction" so that the information they didn't legally obtain can be laundered into making it have the semblance of being legal, and make sure when they do charge you they can hide the facts of the case.

Papers please, comrade.

Sadly, these people who are sworn to defend the Constitution need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy of it -- because they don't seem to understand what the fuck it says.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, they understand it just fine.. they just don't care or feel it should apply to them. this country has such a deeply rooted problem with power that I am starting to think the only way to fix it is to start over.

Re:Not just about terrorism

[fustakrakich]

...need to be beaten with a hard-bound copy...

Or, you know, need to be voted out of office, not reelected to a 40 year career by people only looking for a bigger 'tax cut'(handout)

Once a power is granted...

[surfdaddy]

Once you give government some power it is almost impossible to get it reversed. That's because the foot is in the door, so to speak. This is just like taxes - once in existence, very hard to kill. I'm hoping that this is defeated but am not holding my breath.

Write your Congresscritters

[Rastl]

Time to write your representatives and tell them you oppose this bill. Seriously. Go to their web sites and write them. The only way you can attempt to derail this thing is to be proactive and tell the people elected to represent your interests what your interests ARE.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Anonymous Coward]

Write them on paper. It gets better results.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[Chris Mattern]

You'd be surprised. One letter with no contribution from an unknown doesn't do much, no. But you better believe a Congresscritter keeps track of what he gets large amounts of such mail from his constituents on. Because, while you can't get elected without money, having money doesn't guarantee you election (as the number of people who have tried throwing massive amounts of money at an election only to fail miserably shows). He may or may not do what they want, but he *will* pay attention.

Good old Republicans..

[Rigel47]

Small government, personal liberty, Constitutional adherence.. and hypocritical jackasses.

Re:Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican party.

[g0bshiTe]

You act like there's a party that doesn't want that. Please do keep in mind this type of shit knows no party lines.

Not one to call names

[StikyPad]

I'm not generally one to call people names, but Mitch "The Bitch" McConnell needs to sack up or shut up. I will admit, it takes a lot of bravery to willfully ignore potential surveillance information on principle when the costs could be high. Nobody's saying that surveillance can't work. But we're supposed to be the land of the brave, not the land of the Chicken Littles engaging in surreptitious and unconstitutional spying because we're worried that a couple of jihadists might attack us in what amounts to the existential equivalent of a stubbed toe.

Besides, I don't trust anything that hides inside it's own shell at the first sign of trouble. And God help us if he gets stuck on his back again.

No Point to 2nd Amendment if Ignoring the Others

[Maltheus]

Republicans like to talk up the Constitution, which I'm a big fan of, but they really only care about a single amendment. And the only point of having that is to defend against the loss of the others. But what's the point of it? If they won't even vote to defend the others, they sure won't fight for them.

Paging Mr. Hamilton...

[mrchaotica]

So I was going to make a joke about how somebody should "appropriately deal with" Senator Burr, but then decided against it because the jackbooted thugs at the FBI (or whatever) might not be amused.

Let this just be one more example of the damage the so-called "Patriot Act" has done to our formerly-free society.

Re:the voting blocks in america kind of decide thi

[Anonymous Coward]

> Uses Elderly instead of Boomers
> Thinks GenX watches Glen Beck
> Thinks GenX is conservative survivalists
> Thinks Millenials owned houses
> Thinks Millenials don't culture war

> Modded +5 insightful.

Remember when Slashdot wasn't filled with idiots? AC remembers.

Re:It's simple...

[Fire_Wraith]

Communism is an economic system, not a political system. The word you're looking for is Totalitarianism.

Now, it's true that the two have been synonymous in that it took a Totalitarian government to impose a communist economic system (or something close to it) in practice, but you can just as easily pair Totalitarianism with other economic systems, including Capitalism.