Slashdot Mirror


Patriot Act Spy Powers To Expire As Rand Paul Blocks USA Freedom Act Vote

Saturday, we mentioned that three major spying powers that the U.S. government has exercised under the Patriot Act might be nixed, as the sections of the Act granting authority to use them expires. The Daily Dot reports that Senator (and presidential contender) Rand Paul today used Senate rules to block a bill which would have extended those powers, which means that as of midnight Sunday on the U.S. east coast, sections 206, 207 and 215 of the Patriot Act will have expired. Says the Daily Dot's article, linked by reader blottsie: The reform bill, which the House passed before leaving town for a week-long recess, would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records under the Patriot Act's controversial Section 215 but leaves the other two provisions intact. ... Sunday's procedural meltdown was the second narrow defeat for the USA Freedom Act. In a late-night session on Friday, May 22, the bill fell three votes short of an initial procedural step after [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell lobbied hard against it. The Senate's failure to meet its deadline was a blow to President Obama, who on Friday had warned lawmakers that the country would be vulnerable if the USA Freedom Act did not pass.

30 of 500 comments (clear)

  1. RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Noah+Haders · · Score: 4, Insightful

    he's got my vote.

    1. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

      True. Actually requiring Congress to declare war before you can attack another country? Ridiculous. Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

    2. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need Sanders to use the same tactics to block any Republican cuts to Social Security.

    3. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rand Paul isnt for any of those things. They are sound bites.

      Look at his budget proposals some day. They paint a different picture

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      im fine with all of them. especially because he is not trying to push any of that

      alot of pro lifers simply believe what they do, say what they say, and if you STILL wanna do it, go for it. - thats rand

      his stance on marriage??? you mean following the constitution and leaving it to the states????

      How can you claim hes for world police when everyone of his detractors claims (wrongly) that he is an isolationist???

      try harder

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Brulath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

      Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing, as they're going to encourage politicians to look for places to be employed once they're finished with their term (as a primary focus for the entire term). They also reinforce short-term thinking, as the individual politicians won't need to deal with the fallout of their decisions if they have no chance to be re-elected. Finally, the networking and experience required to get anything done in any political environment takes quite a while to build up – if you replace people at too high a rate they'll never reach the efficiency stage, which may or may not be a bad thing depending on your views.

      Most simple solutions are horribly flawed, which is often the main reason they haven't been employed previously. Cutting taxes isn't likely to help much with paying off the 21 trillion dollar debt, for example, unless new taxes on richer people are introduced.

    6. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the cutting taxes one is pretty insane.

      The country can't afford to provide health care for everyone. It can't afford to look after its veterans. It can't afford to keep its freeways in serviceable condition (in fact, in such bad shape that the bridges are collapsing!).

      America doesn't need tax cuts. It needs tax hikes, and military spending cuts.

    7. Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary is misleading; the act will probably pass on Tuesday, and the provisions will be restored. It's depressing how completely dishonest this story is.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    8. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by Alomex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.

      To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.

      So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.

    9. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maintain a wise diet, exercise moderately, get laid off, then get hit by a bus. And live. Then, be glad the government was there to pick you up.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    10. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic.

      So they are, but the president does not unilaterally decide economic policy.

      A Paul in the office would primarily mean two things. First, he'd dismantle as much of the executive as he could within the boundaries that are set out by the Congress (just to give one example in addition to this whole NSA thing - he could legitimately, by executive order, remove cannabis from all DEA schedules, effectively legalizing it on federal level). And second, he would veto most Congress bills, so only supermajority bills could pass. I suspect that budgets would ultimately fall into that category.

      I'm somewhere between liberal and libertarian with a dash of socialism, personally (e.g. I support universal basic income guarantee), but I'd be willing to tolerate Paul's cookery on economic issues if this means a major advance in individual rights, more sane foreign policy, and further democratization of government (through electoral reform and decentralization). Hell, if US stops waging endless wars overseas, that alone will have a greater positive effect on the country's economy than any fiddling with taxes.

    11. Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state. To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below

      By that logic Greece should be paradise.

      Right now most big, rich, western countries with high quality of life are supporting themselves either via oil or via debt. That is not sustainable, which is why many European countries are either significantly cutting back the state or being told they really need to by various creditors. Balanced budgets as in Germany are sustainable, but Germany is also a fair bit poorer than people realise: wages have hardly gone up there for many years.

  2. Re:so what by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least now the pretense will be gone.

  3. Useful technique by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

    That's a useful technique - agreeing or conceding the immediate issue, while making nebulous unsupported statements about everything else. Look to see this for the next year or so. "I agree with him on this issue, but everything else is crazy".

    ...problem is, that "agreeing on this one issue" seems to happen a lot. Like, for most issues.

    Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

    1. Re:Useful technique by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

      Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.

  4. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This would have a lot more meaning if the NSA had anything to fear if they break the law.

  5. Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.

    Don't worry - they're almost certainly still doing it. They just won't be bothering with any FISA rubber stamps or procedural filings.

    I mean, come on. They obviously weren't concerned even with the Constitution up to this point in time; why would they start worrying about more ephemeral congressional votes now?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Re:Not usually an (R) but... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    couldnt be any worse than the current "progressive" and previous neocon

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  7. I feel proud as an American! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's

    This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime

    I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I feel proud as an American! by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      :-) Which PEOPLE are you talking about?

      "If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" said Tom Charlton, 64, a retired sales training manager for a tire company, who was first in line at a book-signing with Paul in Davenport. "If this can stop one attack, it's worth infringing on legal citizens' rights."...

      "I don't want the mall to get bombed because they didn't get the information they needed," said [Vivian] Martin...

      Sally Cram, 62, said after leaving a town hall meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that she supports the NSA program because "I'm a person who believes our government tells us the truth."...

      These are the American citizens who keep this stuff alive, because they believe... It doesn't matter if Rand Paul is occasionally right. Being "right" has very little to do with anything.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Lemme ask you this ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co ...

    Please spare me the history lesson, dude

    I do need to ask you a question, tho ...
     
    Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

    Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. The mantra of Blame Bush is so old and tired. Yeah, I blame Bush for what he did, and I blame Obama for making the crap Bush did the new normal, which is actually worse. GWB was seen as on the radical side of exercising presidential powers -- Obama's making that the new baseline makes reform much less likely and so Obama's presidency is ultimately even a worse disservice than GWB's was. Unless of course you want to live in a US where most all power, eventually all, lies in the Executive branch.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by cavreader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The President is the Commander and Chief of the US armed services. Under the War Powers Act he can declare war without getting Congressional approval. The President has 90 days after the start of the war to convince Congress to support his decision. If they do not agree they have the power to stop providing the money needed to prosecute the war. The drone strikes are carried out with the permission from the countries where the attacks take place. Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghani governments have given the US permission to conduct drone attacks in their countries. No matter how much those governments try to deny it to their general public they have approved the US drone operations. And it does not matter one bit if the Patriot Act or any similar act exists because the national security agencies will still do pretty much anything they want any way. I doubt seriously whether the NSA really cares about losing the ability to collect metadata. And any similar program that involves collecting large amounts of data will also be no big loss. The NSA and CIA can pretty much do anything they want outside of the US just like every other intelligence service in the world can come to the US and nose around. I personally think the US should eliminate the TSA and let you keep your shoes on when you go through airport security. I think the government should do what the people want and roll back all of the security measures put in place since 9/11. I am willing to take the risk of becoming a victim from a terrorist attack. If there is a terrorist attack that kills a sizable number of people the government should just track down those responsible and kill them with absolutely no large military deployments or prolonged presence in a foreign country. When the public starts complaining that the government should have prevented the attack the government can honestly say they discontinued all of the over reaching domestic related national security measures just like the US public wanted.

    3. Re:Lemme ask you this ... by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that when Obama is President, Congress using it's Constitutional powers to withhold funding is cast as, "Republicans holding guns to the heads of the American People." So don't count on that working.

  9. Re:So What! A Roadmap... by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

    The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.

    1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
    2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
    3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
    4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)

    The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:

    There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.

    That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:

    Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

    NSA should not have wanted th

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  10. Re:Who are the fascists?? by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Progressives in America are totalitarian, use whatever label you prefer. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. No intrusion into daily life by government is forbidden, as long as it's for the common good.

    "We're going to have to take things away from you for the common good"

    "The problem with letting the people decide is that they often make the wrong choice."

    "It should be illegal to broadcast false claims relating to a political debate."

    "I'm all for free speech, but hate speech isn't protected."

    "I don't want my neighbor to be able to own a firearm - he's more dangerous, if just by accident, than any criminals."

    "It's not right to make a rape victim testify to the cops or a court, or to make her face her accuser - it's just too emotionally traumatizing"

    More and more this is the stuff of the mainstream American left, not just the progressive extreme.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. Re:Who are the fascists?? by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

    The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  12. When all the choices on the ballot by waspleg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    are carefully selected by corporate money/the rich who own them then there is no real change since it's the same hand up the ass of both party puppets.

  13. Except of course... by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this won't stop the NSA and FBI, CIA, etc from continuing their unconstitutional surveillance state...

  14. Re:Who are the fascists?? by totallyarb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

    I stand open to correction here, but my understanding was that Jefferson inherited the vast majority of the slaves that he owned, and his only known purchases of slaves were in order to reunite family members who had been separated by sales to different masters. It's true that he didn't free many of his slaves, but that was (apparently) because life for an ex-slave in Virginia in the 18th century was arguably nastier than being nominally "owned" by a caring owner. He also attempted to pass laws through the Virginia state legislature that would have abolished slavery (his bill was defeated), and included an anti-slavery diatribe in the original Declaration of Independence, which was cut by the committee before it was published.

    When you get right down to it, there is not a lot one man - even a President of the United States - can do when the culture of the time is against him. But he seems to have done about as much as he could in the circumstances, so criticising him from a perspective more than two centuries later seems a bit unfair.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --