Slashdot Mirror


Marco Rubio Wants To Permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance (nationaljournal.com)

SonicSpike writes: Marco Rubio wants Congress to permanently extend the authorities governing several of the National Security Agency's controversial spying programs, including its mass surveillance of domestic phone records. The Florida Republican and 2016 presidential hopeful penned an op-ed on Tuesday condemning President Obama's counterterrorism policies and warning that the U.S. has not learned the "fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." Rubio called on Congress to permanently reauthorize core provisions of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, which are due to sunset on June 1 of this year and provide the intelligence community with much of its surveillance power. "This year, a new Republican majority in both houses of Congress will have to extend current authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and I urge my colleagues to consider a permanent extension of the counterterrorism tools our intelligence community relies on to keep the American people safe," Rubio wrote in a Fox News op-ed.

28 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Fundamentals by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't remember one of the fundamental lessons of the 9/11 attacks being that we weren't watching everyone all the time without a warrant.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Fundamentals by Minion+of+Eris · · Score: 5, Funny

      And next week the chocolate ration will be increased from 5 grams to 3. Remember: War is peace, Freedom is slavery, and Ignorance is strength.

      --
      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
    2. Re:Fundamentals by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Clearly we weren't conducting full mass surveillance prior to 9/11, so we need to do so. Otherwise the terrorists win.

      We also didn't have anyone locked up in Guantanamo, so we need to double, no, TRIPLE Guantanamo. Anyone who says otherwise obviously is a terrorist sympathizer.

      And we're not doing this for our sake - it's for the children. Won't someone think of the children?

      /sarcasm

    3. Re:Fundamentals by bored · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was sitting across from a couple guys sitting in the BBQ joint in Texas two weeks ago. And they were badmouthing the iran prisoner exchange, and then they started agreeing with each other they that bringing the "terrorists" to the US for prison was a terrible idea. I basically asked them "So your afraid of a couple unarmed guys guarded 24/7, who for the most part have less than a high school education who grew up in caves?"

      The thing that kills me about gitmo is the all the "brave mericans" running around crying about how dangerous it is to bring the remaining guys from gitmo to the US. What happened to "land of the free, home of the brave?" I guess that went out of style when GW Bush told everyone to go shopping.

    4. Re:Fundamentals by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe the leadership of this country are the ones failing to understand " the fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 ".

      That lesson being: Quit trying to force your will on the rest of the world. Regime changes to install US friendly governments tend to piss a lot of people off. Maybe the leadership should take a good look at our foreign policy and realize " The more we intervene in the Middle East, the greater the likelihood of retaliatory action. " ( Retaliatory action. See entry: Planes flying into buildings )

      The short version: Don't want to worry about terrorism ? Quit bombing shit.

      I also don't think our leadership understands that they are the only ones truly afraid of a terrorist attack against this country. Most of us realize the odds are right up there with winning the lotto, so we don't tend to put a lot of concern into the matter. To be honest, I am far, FAR more concerned with our own Governments behavior and Law Enforcement than I am any potential terrorists.

      As for any actual terrorists, you guys are targeting the wrong folks. Blowing up people who have zero say so in the decision making process is a complete waste of everyone's time. It may make the news for a day or two, vanish just as quickly and absolutely nothing will have changed. Put some thought into what you're doing and weigh the likely outcome vs what you hope to achieve.

    5. Re:Fundamentals by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They will be given the right to stand trial, PUBLIC trial, where the reasons why they are being detained and how we know that information will be subject to the standard rules of evidence used in criminal court. Likely the evidence will not meet the requirements of our legal system and get thrown out, which will set them free.

      That is what SHOULD happen. They are not criminals, they are not POWs. They should be deported and set free.

      I REALLY don't care how "bad" the government tells us they are, nor even how bad they really actually are.

      We cannot simply take prisoners and hold them forever. And its not like they really pose a threat. Not a serious one anyway, certainly nothing existential, or even substantial. They'll be under surveillance and won't so much as fart in our direction, or they'll disappear into a cave somewhere and never be seen again... either way: fine.

      If they personally orchestrate the fall of the United States, well, then: you were right, we should have held them. But we both know that's ridiculous.

      There are far greater threats in the world then those guys.

    6. Re:Fundamentals by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So basically what you're saying is that due process is just "too good" for some people, and would let them walk even though they're "bad guys". Shoving them into military detention centers that operate outside of rule of law is a workaround.

      Are you also one of those people who always complain about how federal govt doesn't respect your Constitutional rights these days, by chance?

    7. Re:Fundamentals by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the military has prisons where they put their own. However, that's legally a totally different situation from an enemy combatant taken on the battle field. If you put the Gitmo detainees on American soil, they will demand due process as non-military personnel and would likely get it. If you run these cases though out civilian legal system, they are going to walk free.

      So, let me get this straight: you're upset that the American justice system would work as designed, which would lead to a result you don't like. Did I get that right? Okay, in that case, I'll respond in the most patriotic way I know how:

      FUCK YOU, YOU FREEDOM-HATING SOCIOPATH! YOU ARE WORSE THAN ANY TERRORIST!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:Fundamentals by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government might have to prove their charges in a court of law? My god, how evil that idea is. Clearly they must be bad guys if its claimed they are so.

  2. Link to the Op-Ed Piece by GoCrazy · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

    And not just a summary of summary of the op-ed.

    --
    No beer and no TV make Homer something something
  3. How about we treat the rest of the world better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we should have learned anything from 9/11, it's that we should stop pushing terrible foreign policies on other nations. Also, stop meddling too much in their affairs. It is much easier to protect out nation by getting other countries to like us, instead of beating them into temporary submission.

  4. Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Freedom is more important than safety. Privacy is a freedom that you are too willing to throw away. Please stop being such a pussy.

    Thanks,
    An American Citizen.

  5. Oh good, a reason by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hadn't read or heard much about this guy, but since he seems like he'll be the #3 between Cruz and Trump (who are both so unelectable it hurts) it's good to know that he's as awful a candidate as anyone else the Republicans have up.

    Never expect anything from a politician, and you might be disappointed by them only half the time ...

    1. Re:Oh good, a reason by bored · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think Sanders is that extreme, I might be wrong, but by himself (especially with a republican congress) he won't be effective enough to create the kind of environment you envision.
      In that regard as president he would be a good counterbalance to the crap that we have been living with for the last 40 years, that has resulted in massive shifts in wealth in this country. Just reversing or stopping that trend (and no, more tax cut's aren't the answer to our shitty infrastructure, and shrinking middle class) a little would make him massively successful in my book.

    2. Re:Oh good, a reason by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sanders isn't going to be able to wave a magic wand and have all of his desired policies implemented. I welcome the change in attitude that he represents. He can do a lot of good even without fulfilling some of the things that he'd like to see done the most.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Oh good, a reason by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hadn't read or heard much about this guy, but since he seems like he'll be the #3 between Cruz and Trump (who are both so unelectable it hurts) it's good to know that he's as awful a candidate as anyone else the Republicans have up.

      Rubio is the one who is currently running a campaign ad that ends with his talking about sending the military to fight ISIS, shipping anyone that they capture to Guantanamo Bay, and how "they'll tell us what they know".

      Yes, that's right, we have a candidate for president who openly admits that he plans to commit war crimes.

  6. Surrending Civil Liberties,All downhill from there by evolutionary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you get goodies like warrantless searches, you never want to give them up. Like Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Never were truer words spoken. Next we'll be using methods we condemned Germany and China for to "monitor for threats". From this respect, it's true We haven't learned from national or world history.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  7. Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. Our post WWII conduct with other countries was often extremely shameful. I termed my service as 'cleaning up the messes of our parents and grandparents'.

    We should have a policy of conducting ourselves with honor - we make a deal, we keep it. We don't support people who are anti-ethical to our beliefs. Democracy isn't wrong, even if the population doesn't like us. Keep acting honorably and they'll eventually change their minds.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  8. So much bull, so little space... by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Security Fundamental lessons of 9/11/2001: 1) Shoot down any plane if terrorists take it over. 2) Do not ignore notifications that known terrorist are in the states and taking flying lessons. 3) Communicate between agencies. 4) Bolt shot airplane cockpits.

    Security lessons in the post 9/11 world: 1) Airline metal detection is worthless. 2) Espionage is more useful against Congress than against lone wolf terrorists. 3) It is very easy to use the threat of terrorism to get elected.

    Also, throw in some bull about a 'new GOP dominated Senate' on the ridiculous belief that you will win, when the majority of polls continue to show the Democrats leading, and that the GOP would rather vote for crazy people like Trump and Cruz than elect a competent person.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  9. Who didn't see this coming? by Striek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I saw this coming the moment the US enacted the "temporary" Patriot Act, and I've reminded people every time they extended it. Once the government has power, they never give it back. I can't find examples to quote (other than the 1st Rule of Acquisition), but I'm sure everyone can think of at least five cases in history where this pattern has been repeated.

    The only sane course of action when governments try to enact legislation like this, for any reason, is to block it at every available opportunity. These laws never get repealed, and the "temporary" emergency laws always become permanent.

    Fuck 9/11. History already taught me that governments never waste a good opportunity to grab power, that all emergency powers become permanent, and that no government, ever, can be trusted with these powers.

    --
    "Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
  10. Re:Big Bro is Watching by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Informative

    >> Shit, there may even be one among us.

    Yeah. I strongly suspect that "Anonymous Coward" guy.

  11. Re:TLDR: I want Obama's policies permanently? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see someone's invented a -1, Insightful moderation option...

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. Rubio didn't say that. That misquotes the spin of by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Rubio didn't say that. Here's what he said is a fundamental lesson to be learned:

    -- Quote- -
    Syria, Yemen, and Libya are all examples of our failure to learn one of the fundamental lessons of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 -- that failed and failing states breed instability and are potential safe havens for terrorists who will eventually turn their attention toward us.
    --

    Also, now that the mass surveillance of metadata is no longer legal and has theoretically stopped , Rubio also supports keeping the currently-legal intelligence programs. I disagree with him, but I'm not a liar so I'll be honest about where we disagree. The summary posted to Slashdot is a lie misquoting some spin.

  13. Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better by kenaaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And then there's always "War is a Racket" by Marine Corp General and Commandant Smedly Butler. (Two Medal of Honor awards also). He was telling his story in the 1930s after the attempt to recruit him to run the Coup to depose FDR.

  14. Re:a clue: Half as much as Clinton by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was thinking about this today for some reason. I came to the conclusion that wall Street backs Hillary because she was the original modern day wall street banker.

    White Water was a land deal in which many people lost their savings on but Hillary came out pretty good. It was declared that she did nothing wrong so no charges were ever filled. Then she somehow made a mint from cattle futures but no one seems to be able to put how together. Fast forward to the financial collapse and we see similar things. Hillary is them, she was their mentor.

  15. Re:dont be so sure by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Informative

    1. The most gerrymandered districts are democratic. Look at the maps.

    It's not which districts are worse its the NUMBER of districts that are gerrymandered one way or the other. in VA it's been ruled illegal because they stuffed ALL the dems into a few districts to claim they had representation...but the majority of seats are GOP.

    2. Democrats get equivalent amounts of campaign funding, from corporations or unions. Once again, look at the numbers.

    Problem...most GOP money is secret, ala Super-PACs

    3. Voter disenfranchisement? Like putting black panthers with nightsticks outside of polling stations? ID to vote is common place in most western civilized countries.

    Indeed it is. PHOTO Id isn't though. The US Gov does not require people to have any more ID than a voter registration card. It is fundamentally unconstitutional to require anything else. There is NO voter fraud - this is simply not a problem in current existence.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  16. No. by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a socialist trying to give away free everything to anybody

    Sanders is not trying to "give away" anything. Nobody who supports Sanders expects to get things for "free", either. He openly states that taxes will have to go up or other parts of the budget will have to be cut. However, Sanders supporters are intelligent enough to realize that these are - absolutely and without challenge - the best investments that the government can possibly make. Money spent in prisons is never recouped. Money spent on education is recouped on average 5-10 times over (and often much more than that). Money spent on war is almost all lost. Money spent on health care is almost always returned.

    The only people who think that Sanders is going to "give away" anything for "free" are the people who hate him too much to bother listening to what he actually says.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re: No. by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      To back you up. The one major free college program in the US, the GI Bill on average makes back 7 dollars for every dollar spent on it.
      But republicans always conveniently forget the other side of the ledger. They count investments as costs and ignore the returns.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *