Slashdot Mirror
Invoking Orlando, Senate Republicans Set Up Vote To Expand FBI Spying (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell set up a vote late on Monday to expand the FBI's authority to use a secretive surveillance order without a warrant to include email metadata and some browsing history information. The move, made via an amendment to a criminal justice appropriations bill, is an effort by Senate Republicans to respond to last week's mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub after a series of measures to restrict guns offered by both parties failed on Monday. Privacy advocates denounced the effort, saying it seeks to exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers. The amendment would broaden the FBI's authority to use so-called National Security Letters to include electronic communications transaction records such as time stamps of emails and the emails' senders and recipients. NSLs do not require a warrant and are almost always accompanied by a gag order preventing the service provider from sharing the request with a targeted user. The amendment filed Monday would also make permanent a provision of the USA Patriot Act that allows the intelligence community to conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" suspects who do not have confirmed ties to a foreign terrorist group. A vote is expected no later than Wednesday, McConnell's office said. Last week, FBI Director James Comey said he is "highly confident that [the Orlando shooter] was radicalized at least in part through the internet."
CNN article: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/1...
For what it's worth, this has been down-played in media (haven't seen it blasting twitter and stuff much)
So basically NONE OF THE PROPOSALS would have prevented him from getting a gun.
As a voter, I'm sick of intelligent and informed voters being sidelined by media and legal cowboy politicians.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws? We have both parties successfully chipping away at each side. Soon there will be nothing left.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Did I miss the article on Democrats expanding gun control laws?
There is enough stupid going around that there is no need to make up new stupid to supplement what is already there.
The Democrats proposed 4 bills in the senate fully knowing that they would not go anywhere due to GOP opposition in both the house and senate. However, if you look at what the bills proposed, there really wasn't much "control" in them. One was universal background checks, which is a measure that over 80% of Americans - and a majority of gun owners - support. Another was to prevent purchases by people on the FBI no fly list, which also has broad support.
Nowhere was there a bill proposing to take away an existing gun from an owner who is legally entitled to have a gun. Nowhere was there a bill that would restrict sale of guns between legal owners. Nowhere was there a bill that would make guns or ammo more expensive or difficult to obtain for legal purchasers.
If you don't like what was proposed, that's fine. At least be honest about it, rather than making up shit and pretending that the proposals contained things they did not.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I don't know what you know about concealed carry, so I'll note this: it is illegal in Florida to carry in an establishment whose liquor sales qualify it as a bar. That is an admirable law and I don't disagree with the idea. My point is, no one at the night club could have help. None of them could have been armed.
More importantly, carrying a gun on my person is so that I am not reliant on the police to solve my problems. I find myself in a bad situation where deadly force is required, I'd rather have my gun than wait on the police to come and save me.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
My assault rifle against the US army.
Federal law forbids the use of the military for domestic purpose. If the US army is fighting citizens on US soil then we have far, far greater problems than privacy.
Better known as 318230.
-Rahm Emanuel
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Keeping and bearing arms is a right. They aren't "for" any one purpose. You don't need a reason. That's what a right is.
The military oath specifically states to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign or domestic. Also, the Constitution specifically allows the people to dissolve the government and setup a new one if the government doesn't meet the needs of the people.
No, there is one, and only one, reason for that right. It's right there in that part of the sentence that gun advocates often leave out.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Federal law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, restricts the use of the United States Army and the United States Air Force in enforcing US Federal Government domestic policy in the US - it does not cover the US Navy, nor the US Marine Corp, and it does not apply to the National Guard (Army or Air) when invited to act in a law enforcement capacity by a state governor.
The Insurrection Act can be used to deploy US military capability within US borders against US citizens without violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
That's true but in the case of Washington declaring war on the general population you may find it interesting to know that in officers training you are taught about"illegal orders" and how to counter them. The conflict you all have been discussing won't be like the Civil War where a few folks decide to leave and take half the country with them. More likely it will be the majority of the country standing up to stop the corporations and our officers corps will not fire on American citizens for the sake of Microsoft or Shell.
Look up how often a police officer in the US will ever be shot at and how often they'll ever have to draw their weapon on duty over the course of their careers. The vast majority will never experience either. Now of course there are some exceptions to this, for example, certain parts of Chicago, but for the vast majority of the US, gun violence is actually incredibly rare. I know that doesn't jive well with your view of things, but sometimes reality doesn't match your opinion. Where I live there was a memorial for officers fallen in duty. The number one cause, car accident. Number two, heart attack. In fact an officer was killed on duty by a shooter about 3 years ago, it was the first one in 25 years for the region. That's how frequent police shootings are in most of the US. Now of course you have the gang hot spots where it's much more frequent, but those are not representative of the whole.