Slashdot Mirror


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.

11 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. republicrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or better known as assholes

    1. Re:republicrats by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    2. Re:republicrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:republicrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Not just about terrorism by bulled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not just about terrorism by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Re:Message from the Ministry of Love by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Funny

    ungood refs unplaces; update fullwise.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  4. Once a power is granted... by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Write your Congresscritters by Rastl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Good old Republicans.. by Rigel47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. Not one to call names by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.