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]

Um, it does matter. The GOP party leaders and their conservative faction (i.e. non-Tea Party, non-Libertarian) fetishize the military and security establishment. And they will _always_ defend and fund the NSA and similar organizations, no matter what they tell the public, or what the public demands. These leaders are more heavily involved with the defense industry than most politicians, and their electorate is blinded by the notion that the military and police can do no harm (unless they're trying to take your guns way), and gripped more than most by politics of fear.

Yes, the Democrats supported the Patriot Act and its subsequent renewal. They were more than complicit. But you simply cannot equivocate all the various factions. And in this case, the heart of the problem lies squarely in the GOP camp, along with a few outliers (e.g. Diane Feinstein, who is considered a hawk and well outside Democratic and liberal circles on this issue).

I'm tempted to defend Obama here by saying that if Bush were still in office, he'd probably have a televised national speech explaining why the NSA needs these powers to prevent a WMD attack or something. And by contrast, Obama has not publicly come out in favor supporting renewal. However, Obama is clearly working behind the scenes to push renewal. OTOH, every president inevitably fights to hold onto and expand their powers. It's the nature of the office, so it's not worth drawing a distinction between R & D, here. What we can do is blame Congress for clearly abrogating their responsibility of reigning in the executive.

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.

Re:Second!!

[MitchDev]

You want a government that actually OBEYS the Constituttion?
What are you, some terrorist/anarchist???
Think of the corporate profits...ugh.... I mean the children!!!!

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

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Sadly, the attempt that came closest to contesting the Fed's ever-growing quest for power and control failed back in '65.

Re:Message from the Ministry of Love

[TheCarp]

ungood refs unplaces; update fullwise.

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

[amicusNYCL]

I think everyone needs to write to the people of Kentucky and tell them to stop electing Mitch McConnell. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with Congress. He's been a senator for 30 years. He's been involved with politics since 1964, when he was 22, so essentially his entire adult life. In '64 he graduated with a degree in political science and then began as an intern for a senator the same year. 3 years later he got a law degree, and probably decided that some sort of military service would look good on his record so he joined the Army Reserve and spent 5 weeks stationed at Fort Knox while in law school before being discharged. He assisted another senator, then was the Deputy Assistant AG under Ford, then got elected to his first office in 1977. I can't find any record of private employment not associated with a politician, despite the degree in law. Then he became a senator in 1985 and he's still one today.

The Center for Responsive Politics puts him as the 10th richest senator, with a worth between $9.2 million and $36.5 million. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a "public servant" to pull down over 30 years, but that's why it seems like career politicians are there to serve themselves and not the public. That's a lot of votes that have been purchased over the years. McConnell is a great example of why every member of congress needs term limits. The notion of a career politician needs to be retired and replaced by ordinary people coming out of the private sector to help run the country, and then going back into the private sector once their service is finished.

Also, he looks like a turtle.

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.

Re:Write your Congresscritters

[StikyPad]

(Ugh, html stripping.)

email < phone calls < handwritten letters < requesting a meeting

Make sure your communication is proportional to your level of concern.

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.

the voting blocks in america kind of decide this

[nimbius]

So voting blocks in america basically work like this:
Elderly: Fox news told me shariah muslim terrorists are installing isis anchor babies in the fema death camp that controls the war on christmas. I still think communism is a real threat, socialists are identifiable through diet, and poor people are poor because they just dont want to work. The only predictable consistent things in my life are regular voting and wheel of fortune.
Gen X: The only news I trust is Glen Beck and singing woodland creatures. 9/11 was an inside job, the gold standard is a feasible alternative, and once i get my cabin in the woods and gun to match my constitution tattoo i'll stop voting entirely. My candidate of choice still doesnt understand the internet or foreign policy but he primised to make taxes go away so thats good.
Millenials: Im broke, unemployed, and between college debt and rent i have about enough money to show up in court to plead guilty to a misdemeanor pot charge. im a freelance web developer but because boomers turned that position into a mechanical turk, Im also a bartender a painter and a food stamp recipient. I had a house once, but, it got taken by the bank. I had a car, but i never drive it anymore because I had my license revoked for not making the payments I cant make on the student loan that didnt amount to a job. I'd vote, but I was turned away after not having a license. My biggest accomplishment has been health insurance and regular checkups. Gays, atheism, abortion, muslims, and any other recycled culture war bullshit are absolutely meaningless to me.

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.

It's called protecting America

[kjshark]

When they're looking at you, fine. But congress freaked out when the CIA was looking at THEM. It's fair to say they think rules are great for us, but they should be held to a different arbitrary self made standard when it comes to applying the law to themselves:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

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.