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."

Comments

Fuck ALL those assholes!

[mrchaotica]

The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[AntronArgaiv]

Hard to argue with that statement.

I am sick and tired of our elected representatives passing laws like this and the USA PATRIOT ACT, claiming they "make us safer".

It's easy to pass these, hard to repeal them. We as a country are going to be living with this erosion of our rights for years to come.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[AntronArgaiv]

Oh, and didn't the FBI investigate the Orlando shooter TWICE, and found nothing to justify further interest? So, how would passing this amendment have prevented Orlando?

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[Fire_Wraith]

I's not necessarily fair to say that all Republicans are for more FBI/etc domestic spying - the Libertarian wing of the party certainly isn't. The leadership is though, and in fairness too, so are some Democrats. That said, the right wing does tend to be more sympathetic to law enforcement/authoritarian stuff that doesn't involve taking rich peoples' money - they're inclined to support the cops. The left wing has its nanny-state types too, but also tends to not fall immediately on the side of law enforcement.

As for the other side of things, I think it's a bit exaggerated. Not all Democrats are for a complete ban on guns (which would involve repealing the second amendment) - I'd hazard to say they're a minority, and certainly a minority among elected Democrats. Most of the push is for greater controls and restrictions, which shouldn't be unreasonable - and yet it is, apparently, even for minor ones. I'm a gun owner, and I like going to the range, but it seems ridiculous to me that there's more regulation on operating a vehicle than there is on operating a deadly weapon, or that if I want to go hunting, there's more paperwork involved in getting the approval to kill the animal(s), not buying the firearm to do it with.

What was really fascinating in this latest round of votes in the Senate, was that the Democrats tried to cross the streams, by suggesting that people on the Terrorism watch list be restricted from buying guns. The ACLU lobbied against this, because of the obscurity/undemocratic nature/etc of the watch lists (you don't know if you're on, they won't confirm, and it's near impossible to get removed from it). At the same time, everyone in the Senate pretty much wound up voting on party lines - which I suppose shows that gun control is a stronger issue than the rest of it, at least at the moment.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[Trailer Trash]

The Democrats want to take our guns (totalitarianism); the Republicans want to spy on us (also totalitarianism). Can't one goddamn politician react appropriately (by recognizing that embracing totalitarianism means the terrorists WIN), for once?!

Plenty do, such as Gary Johnson. They're derided as kooks, of course.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That is what gets me in all of these cases. In almost every one the government really screwed the pooch. We were told by the Russians to be on the look out for the Boston bombers but we fucked that one up. The mastermind of the Paris attacks was featured as pig fucker of the month in Daesh's monthly magazine. The Orlando shooter was investigated by the FBI a few times and supposedly was reported by a gun shop owner for suspicious behavior attempting to buy ammo in bulk and body armor. So instead of the government doing their fucking job and actively investigating these people that really seem to need a closer look they instead seek to take away rights from everyone else.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[rock_climbing_guy]

"Never let a crisis go to waste".

-Rahm Emanuel

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[AntronArgaiv]

I am sick and tired of our elected representatives passing laws like this and the USA PATRIOT ACT, claiming they "make us safer".

It's easy to pass these, hard to repeal them. We as a country are going to be living with this erosion of our rights for years to come.

The USA Patriot Act had provisions that had "sunset provisions." That is, they were to expire after a certain number of years, variously. In subsequent years, Congress has renewed most of them when they were about to go out-of-force.

You are right about "easy to pass; hard to repeal," but that isn't even the case for the USA Patriot Act. It's worse.

Oh, yeah. The people who passed it initially were smart enough to put the sunset provision in. Regardless of whether I think they should have passed it initially, the sunset provision was a very intelligent move. REMOVING it...not so much. I sometimes wonder if there shouldn't be an intelligence test for our elected representatives. Or, at least, a basic Civics class, with emphasis on governments and how they can, with the best of intentions, become Bad.

CSB: A friend of my daughter's works in the Sgt-at-Arms office on Capitol Hill. She has to explain, repeatedly, to Senators and Representatives, why her office can't arrest the President (for alleged crimes against America, but really, because he's black and they don't like him). Seriously.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[schnell]

The Second Amendment does not affirm our right to own guns for "personal defense;" it affirms our right to own guns for defense against tyranny.

Read the Second Amendment again and spot the word "tyranny" for me. Don't find it? Because the SA says that "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." It's easy to ignore the first half of the sentence and just pay attention to the second, but that's disingenuous.

Furthermore, you have to take it in the context of the times in which it was written. The United States at this point had no standing army. (Historical aside: the US was very averse to keeping a standing army until after World War II. On the eve of the Civil War, the whole strength of the US Army was 15,000 men; just before World War II, in 1940, the US Army's size was smaller than that of Belgium.) Much of this aversion was due to the fact that it was Britain's desire to keep a standing professional army in the colonies that necessitated the Intolerable Acts which taxed the colonists to pay for said army.

At any rate, the presumption of the framers in 1791 would likely have been that the US needed to call on a citizen militia if it was invaded (or if it had to put down internal rebellions, such as the Whiskey Rebellion or Shays' Rebellion). Therefore, the citizens of the US should be prepared to take up arms as needed under the direction of the government (i.e. a well regulated militia), not against it. I know it's easy to have a romantic view of the Founding Fathers that they somehow encoded into the Constitution the seeds of the government's demise if it became too "tyrannical," but it's just not there in the text of the Second Amendment.

Personally, I like guns. I don't think there's anything wrong with responsible gun ownership. But please don't try to use the Second Amendment as a source for saying Americans should be armed and prepared to fight their own government with military-grade firearms.

Re:Fuck ALL those assholes!

[mrchaotica]

It's easy to ignore the first half of the sentence and just pay attention to the second, but that's disingenuous.

What's disingenuous is failing to acknowledge that in the 16th Century, "well-regulated" was synonymous with "well-trained." If you want to "regulate" guns by, for example, instituting marksmanship training as part of the public school curriculum, that'd be fine with me!

Furthermore, you have to take it in the context of the times in which it was written.

The context of the times was that the Second Amendment was written by a bunch of terrorists* who had just finished violently overthrowing their government.

(* If the revolution were happening today, that's certainly the term King George would be throwing around -- whether it accurately described the revolutionaries' tactics or not.)

I know it's easy to have a romantic view of the Founding Fathers that they somehow encoded into the Constitution the seeds of the government's demise if it became too "tyrannical," but it's just not there in the text of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is a remarkably terse document (as opposed to some of the later Amendments, which became more verbose). Therefore, I certainly agree with you that it must be understood in context with the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers! But from that context, it is abundantly clear that they envisioned the militia as a check against the power of the State (and against the threat to freedom posed by a professional standing army in particular).

Jefferson has been quoted to death, so I'll cite others instead. Here's Washington's thought on the subject:

"At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion."

If that's not advocating for the use of arms as a defense against (your own) tyrannical government, what is it?

Patrick Henry is even more explicit:

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?"

And here's Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist #28:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."

Elbridge Gerry is a relatively obscure figure, but he didn't mince words:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Finally, here's George Mason, who helped write the Second Amendment itself:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

I could keep going, but that should be more than enough evidence to prove my point to all but the densest (or most disingenuous) debater.

So...

[robcfg]

If you are the silent type of guy and just go grab your gun and shoot people, how would all this surveillance help?

Orlando Shooter was a rent-a-cop

[SkyLeach]

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.

Re:Orlando Shooter was a rent-a-cop

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

He was denied a sale at a gun shop who also reported him to the FBI as they had a really bad feeling about the guy, they felt really uncomfortable with some of the questions he was asking and his general behavior. It wasn't the first time he had been report either but look what good that ended up doing.

And yet...

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

despite ALL the evidence gathered prior to the shooting, no one (gov't agency-wise) did anything.
It's almost like they knew, but waited, so they could use it as an excuse to get more power... ...things that make you go "hmmmmm"

Re:And yet...

[Desler]

Huh? How did they do nothing? The FBI checked him out multiple times but had no actionable cause.

Unless you want the FBI more flagrantly violating civil liverties there was nothing they can do. And these expanded powers will do fuck all either.

FBI interviewed suspect twice

[rmdingler]

It's the noise, dummy...You cannot see the intelligence for all the noise.

Counting the 50+ deaths in Orlando as the act of an Islamic terrorist, which is at least debatable, there have been fewer than 100 deaths in the US since 2001.

This is not exactly the sort of threat that sane men forfeit their liberty for.

Re:FBI interviewed suspect twice

[Sir Holo]

It's the noise, dummy...You cannot see the intelligence for all the noise.

Counting the 50+ deaths in Orlando as the act of an Islamic terrorist, which is at least debatable, there have been fewer than 100 deaths in the US since 2001.

This is not exactly the sort of threat that sane men forfeit their liberty for.

Wasn't Timothy McVeigh at least a self-proclaimed Christian? Why is he not referred to as a "Christian Terrorist"?

Pick up the phone

[Lawrence_Bird]

And call his office and call your own congress critters instead of just spouting off here.

Re:email..

[cbiltcliffe]

dear lawmakers. count to 10 before doing something really stupid after a major event.

It won't do any good, because that's exactly what they'll do: count to 10, then do something stupid.

Re:expanded

[Shortguy881]

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.

Re:expanded

[Opportunist]

If I only have the choice to hand over my gun or my privacy, the choice is pretty easy.

And please, don't gimme that "but the gun can defend your privacy" bullshit. My assault rifle against the US army. Yeah. Sure. The only reason you still have your guns is that they know pretty well that it's not even offering the pretense of you being able to defend against your government's whims.

Legislation Can't Fix Incompetence

[Xyrus]

This should be obvious, but I guess politicians need to be seen doing something, and apparently reasonable gun control in a country that makes up a 1/3 of violent gun crimes just isn't going to fly.

The guy was nuts. He had a documented history of being nuts. His friends thought he was nuts. His family thought he was nuts. And yet, he could still get plenty of ammo and guns. The problem wasn't that there wasn't enough surveillance. The problem is that no one was paying attention to the information that was ALREADY AVAILABLE.

"Oh, I see you have a history of being bat shit insane. Here, let me get you a special discount on our Sandy Hook signature line of guns."

Re:Legislation Can't Fix Incompetence

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, you favour arresting people if their ex- calls the FBI? Interesting theory of Due Process you have.

Do note that what we're complaining about in this thread is a Bill proposing to allow the FBI to get around Due Process. Which means that suggesting alternate ways for them to get around Due Process probably won't be received all that well.

And who proposed this abomination ?

[Salgak1]

" Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and sponsor of the amendment"

Why am I not surprised. McCain never saw a tyrannical action he couldn't embrace. . .

Because of course...

[damn_registrars]

We can't possibly do anything to prevent (or even slow down) people from getting guns, because reasons. So instead we'll expand domestic spying, which we all know works so well and never has any negative consequences. That's the ticket, right there.

Re:Because of course...

[Jason Levine]

And they already flagged him twice, interviewed him, got additional reports on him.... But if only there was MORE domestic spying, they would have actually stopped him. They swear it. Don't pay any attention to whether or not their fingers are crossed behind their back - that information is classified.

This is called the Shock Doctrine

[turp182]

There's a good book of the same title by Naomi Klein.

It's a simple concept,. and the summary summarizes it for this situation: exploit a mass shooting in order to expand the government's digital spying powers.

Here's what we know:
1. Born in the US, thus a US citizen (child of immigrants, but most all of us are)
2. Had two wives (and one divorce) and a small child
3. Worked in security (where they carry guns)
4. Was investigated twice by the FBI (someone he attended religious things with had reported him)
5. Was legally able to purchase firearms

I'm sorry government of the United States, you weren't going to stop this guy. Except, he had been investigated and vetted as not a threat. THAT IS WHERE THE SYSTEM FAILED!

Could the system have been successful? We will probably never know. But:
* Him researching guns wouldn't have raised any eyes (it shouldn't have anyway).
* is father was rather wordy and seemed supportive of some "bad" groups (him searching for such things could have easily been painted as "know thy enemy" or simple curiosity).

He's basically Timothy McVeigh but against the gay community rather than the Federal government (and also no where near as deadly as Timothy).

Re:expanded

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:expanded

[Shortguy881]

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.

Re:expanded

[Dan East]

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.

Re:expanded

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

...

Glad to see you love using secret lists with no due process for controlling the population.

Re:expanded

[tripleevenfall]

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.

Re:expanded

[danbert8]

Depends on who the rebels are. It doesn't matter how much the budget is if the soliders refuse to fight their own citizens.

Re:expanded

[Kierthos]

I have to say, I'm not a gun nut by any possible stretch of the imagination, and I'm glad the bill that would restrict firearms purchases for people on the no-fly list got blocked.

It would have been declared unconstitutional so fast, it wouldn't even be funny. Mind you, the fact that a bill is clearly unconstitutional on it's face has never really stopped a fair number of Congresscritters (or state legislators) from trying to pass bills.

Gun control absolutely, positively does work

[dskoll]

Second reply: Yes, a determined killer will kill. But easy access to guns makes it much more likely that an unhinged person will take down a whole bunch of others. It's exceedingly unlikely that a guy with a glass bottle or a knife would kill 49 people before being stopped.

Look at Australia's experience with gun control. In the 18 years prior to 1996, they had 13 mass shootings (defined as 4 or more victims.) Since 1996 when they brought in draconian gun laws, they have had zero mass shootings. Zero.

Not only have mass shootings been drastically reduced, but the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That's because a lot of homicides and suicides are not planned, but occur in the heat of the moment, and are much likely to take place if there's easy access to deadly weapons. Here's the reference (PDF).

Where I do agree, though, is that gun control probably will not work in the US. You have way too many guns in circulation, and you're poisoned by 200+ years of the Second Amendment. Fixing that is well-nigh impossible, but just ignoring the problem is not going to help.

Re:expanded

[Mass Overkiller]

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.

Federal Law my ass

[Lead Butthead]

Hint: the men guarding the Japanese internment camps containing both naturalized and natural born citizens during WW2 are not civilians.
The government obeys law when it's convenient.

Re:expanded

[cayenne8]

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.

So is (or should be) privacy....

Remember, the US Constitution does not "grant" rights....its purpose is to enumerate the supposedly LIMITED powers and responsibilities of the Federal Govt.

The bill of rights is an odd duck...in that it does actually list some rights...there was a lot of argument on that at the time, as that the founding fathers didn't want there to be the misconception that it granted rights.

But I would argue that privacy, is a right, not for any one purpose and that for privacy, you also "don't need a reason"....

Re:expanded

[bobbied]

How much of your guns helped out in Orlando?

Now that's a question we cannot answer because the bar was a "gun free zone" legally. Meaning that law abiding folks who enter the establishment where not able to bring their weapons along. Concealed Carry Permits in FL do not allow you to carry in establishments where adult drinks are sold. The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.

Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.

But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically. We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade. According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.

So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions... However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties. But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...

Re:expanded

[dave420]

The security had guns, but clearly one can't start shooting into a crowd and hope to only hit the perpetrator. Throw some more guns into the mix and you'd end up with people trying to be the "good guy with a gun" they hear so much about, and shooting the shit out of each other every time a car backfired or a champagne cork popped.

If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.

Re:expanded

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re: expanded

[TimMD909]

Bear arms? Pfft. In Russia, you have right to whole bear.

Re:expanded

[Ogive17]

To too many people in the US, it seems like all they care about (or know about) is the 2nd amendment. Just a quick look at the Bill of Rights (original 10 amendments)

Amendment 1 is pretty much toast.
3 is not really applicable any more.
4 is a joke now.
5, gone.
6, nope.
7 is very dated, not really applicable.
8 is up for interpretation
9 is a joke
10 is a blanket statement.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/bill_of_rights.htm

But dammit, let us keep our 2nd amendment!

I'm going to start telling the gun lovers they should have used their firearms to protect the rest of our rights.