Lawmakers Threaten Legal Basis of NSA Surveillance 206
Nerval's Lobster writes "The author of the Patriot Act has warned that the legal justification for the NSA's wholesale domestic surveillance program will disappear next summer if the White House doesn't restrict the way the NSA uses its power. Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire during the summer of 2015 and will not be renewed unless the White House changes the shocking scale of the surveillance programs for which the National Security Administration uses the authorization, according to James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), an original author of the Patriot Act and its two reauthorizations, stated Washington insider-news source The Hill. 'Unless Section 215 gets fixed, you, Mr. Cole, and the intelligence community will get absolutely nothing, because I am confident there are not the votes in this Congress to reauthorize it,' Sensenbrenner warned Deputy Attorney General James Cole during the Feb. 4 hearing. Provisions of Section 215, which allows the NSA to collect metadata about phone calls made within the U.S., give the government a 'very useful tool' to track connections among Americans that might be relevant to counterterrorism investigations, Cole told the House Judiciary Committee. The scale of the surveillance and lengths to which the NSA has pushed its limits was a "shock" according to Sensenbrenner, who also wrote the USA Freedom Act, a bill to restrict the scope of both Section 215 and the NSA programs, which has attracted 130 co-sponsors. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has sponsored a similar bill in the Senate."
Fuck the beta (Score:4, Insightful)
"MOVIN’ ON UP" my ass
Re:Fuck the beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I did before I came here, every single one of the "beta sucks" stories, just posted a "beta sucks" /. journal, and sent them an email informing them that when classic is gone, so will I be.
I suspect all that will be left after classic is gone is APK, ethanol-fueled, the goatse guy, the GNAA guy, and that guy who wants you to clean his PC, Oh, and don't forget Bert, and the other two trolls Bilbo met.
Re:Fuck the beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
NSA?
we want to throw eggs at the 'beta' from slashdot. we've heard enough about the NSA.
we can't change the NSA and congress won't do a damned thing. we won't ever trust our government again (not that we ever really did) and whatever they say, they will be lies.
if obama wants to get back in our favor, he should have a talk with the Dice guys and straighten them out.
(yeah, I'm not holding my breath on that one, either).
Re:Fuck the beta (Score:5, Interesting)
Beta must die
Re: (Score:2)
Just want to add, this is not the voice of the truely concerned slashdot users. But likely being done to detract attention from the more sensible posts about classic slashdot. If posts like these are going to dominate the comments then the true reason for the other slashdot site will be silenced.
Re: (Score:2)
No, what he said echoes my sentiments. Going from a 19th century mansion to a Habitat for Humanity house is NOT "moving up." It's a shame Dice wants slashdot dead. I'll miss it.
Beta kills children (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I had a daughter a few days ago. But then I also found her dead. This time she had been murdered. The autopsy came back: She had been mauled by Slashdot Beta.
This must end!! Think of the children! Kill the Beta!
Re:Beta kills children (Score:4, Insightful)
well, slashdot... this is now up to the "funny" level - i mean, 90% of comments being about suckiness of beta :)
get a geek to tell designers and coders how it should be. and give him/her the right to kill... ok, throw out of the building anybody suggesting stuff like the "beta".
Re: (Score:2)
well, slashdot... this is now up to the "funny" level - i mean, 90% of comments being about suckiness of beta :)
Huh. I guess we may have actually achieved "nerd rage" here. :P
-- Common Joe
Slashdot Valentines Day Massacre: Boycott Slashdot because "Fuck Beta!": February 10 - 17
And Support Okian Warrior's Alternate Slashdot [slashdot.org] Idea!
Re:Beta kills children (Score:4)
Thank you for your concerns! I am not sure if you read my post. My dear son - and also my daughter - they both died! The Slashdot Beta was clearly at fault! It was confirmed scientifically by autopsy and also by investigation of the suicide note my dear son left.
Please, I want no other children to get hurt by the Beta. If even this has small chance of working - it will be worth it.
Thank you, I hope you understand my urgent pleas!
Re: (Score:2)
If Slashdot didn't die the LAST three or four times they revamped the site (no matter how much everyone knew it would), it sure as hell won't die with this one.
Each of the last times, they made some things better and some things worse, and they fixed the worst regressions before they forced everyone to move to the new version. Now, they have made the site basically unusable. I've been here for about 10 years and was in the top 5 most active commenters for a couple of quarters of that, and I'm still no on beta. If I do get forced to move to beta, then goodbye Slashdot.
And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Interesting)
That's only useful in a specific case, though, where one piece of legislation is the sole authorization for a government action. That's pretty rare (to the point where I doubt this is even such a case).
For everything else, having an expiration date means that the actual state of the law would change even more than it does now, so everybody has to spend more money and work even harder just to make sure that they're still in compliance with the newly-revised rules that are subtly different that the previous rules, because the politicians wanted to look like they were actively improving things.
Similarly, the increased volatility of the law means that legal precedent is also more volatile, so the cost of a court case gets worse as there's more room to argue about how a rule's expiration affects previous judgments. While a criminal case is waiting for the court to settle, the legality of the alleged crime could even change, especially if it's politically beneficial for the legislators to override the judicial branch.
Mandatory expiration dates for legislation fall into the large category of "ideas that cause more problems than they solve".
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
> Mandatory expiration dates for legislation fall into the large category of "ideas that cause more problems than they solve".
By raw numbers, perhaps. But the problems that they solve are so large and pervasive that they're worth considering. The sheer bulk of existing legal codes, dating back to the Constitution itself, makes sensible analysis of existing law infeasible for even a reasonable legal researcher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That is the stupidest idea I've ever read on /. (Score:5, Interesting)
It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos.
Actually: I would favor a constitutional requirement, that every new tax, revenue bill, regulation, OR grant of rights to any government entity has to be written so that the bill must be re-authorized or automatically expire by the house a minimum of three times, no sooner than 2 years after the original bill was passed, no longer than 6 years, AND at least 3 of the required re-authorizations separated by a minimum of 14 months.
That way, if the current session of congress does something stupid --- the NEXT congress has to continue to support it after the next two elections, OR the default is that the new experimental law goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos.
Actually: I would favor a constitutional requirement, that every new tax, revenue bill, regulation, OR grant of rights to any government entity has to be written so that the bill must be re-authorized or automatically expire by the house a minimum of three times, no sooner than 2 years after the original bill was passed, no longer than 6 years, AND
at least 3 of the required re-authorizations separated by a minimum of 14 months.
That way, if the current session of congress does something stupid --- the NEXT congress has to continue to support it after the next two elections, OR the default is that the new experimental law goes away.
You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?
Hm.. good point... on second thought.... put the bills to a popular vote for re-authorization within 2 years?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like George W. putting patriot act in place and Obama renewing it?
Hm.. good point... on second thought.... put the bills to a popular vote for re-authorization within
2 years?
Nah that would be democracy - which is not the American way of doing things.
Re: (Score:2)
Government entities to not have Rights. They only have Powers. And only such Powers as are granted to them by the People.
The People have Rights.
At least, that's the theory.
Re: (Score:3)
It may make sense to have an automatic expiration on bills like the PATRIOT ACT, but as a general rule for law that would result in complete chaos. Good God, we would never get anything done if we had to rehash out **EVERYTHING** every 5, 10 or 20 years.
I think that would be a great idea for exactly that reason. It would create a limit on how big the active body of law could get. That would be a good thing. You could create a system where laws could get a longer term if, for example, they were put to a public vote.
Re:And this is why (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why it can be smart to put time limits on bills, even if you think they are a good idea at the time. In that sense, the original authors of the Patriot Act were smart.
This will be something like the third re-authorization [wikipedia.org]. (It expired piecemeal, making it easier to re-authorize it piecemeal).
We not only need sunset into bills, we need to require an ever increasing majority to re-authorize these laws.
(As well as (nearly) unanimous consent to lower those requirements.)
You can bet that at the time grows near, there will be an "incident" that just "happens" to come along which will have the usual useful idiots demanding more protection, and tighter scrutiny. The drumbeat of fear will be revved up again. Someone will put forth minor meaningless tweaks and tell us the problem is solved. Opponents will be vilified and demonized in the press, mistresses will surface. You name it. Its not like we haven't seen this before.
And we need to enact penalties for judges that fail to uphold their oath of office.
Re: (Score:2)
I have some serious doubts that the "drumbeat of fear" ever really existed in the first place. Opinion polls are worthless and depending on who shapes the questions can be spun by both sides of the argument. It would be great if the polling firms were required to provide the detailed methodologies being used to reach their conclusions. Using relatively small sample sizes and then extrapolating and applying the results against 350 million citizens requires some details to test the accuracy of the results.
Re: (Score:2)
The fear hasn't existed for a long time.
The drums of fear are still being pounded hard and loud. Just read a few of the administration's fear talk about why we have to have continued data gathering.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of people mistake fear with pissed off. The government can ramp up their oversight using either emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
I have thought that some kind of third legislative branch, whose only power was to rescind laws older than 2 or 3 years, would be a useful check and balance on the current system, which seems only capable of expanding the size of the law. This branch too, would probably need some checks and balances.
Pardon me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
which court is going to say no to that?
Hopefully the Supreme. It is their job, after all, as dictated by the Constitution (for whatever that's worth, these days).
One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 215 of the Patriot Act will expire during the summer of 2015 and will not be renewed
Its time to put this experiment to bed. Like prohibition, which lasted 13 years, the Patriot act (now 13 years old), and damage it has caused needs to be rolled back. Not just Section 215, but other major portions of the act as well.
We are not safer now. We are simply less free now. It has not prevented terrorist attacks, either here or abroad. Boarder security continues to be a utter joke, and secrecy provisions are the antithesis of our supposed freedoms.
Its probably time to start yanking your congressman's chain. Its time to point out that the simple fact we are not asleep any more is basically all that is needed, and all that was ever needed. Its time to point out that 13 years of lies and secrecy is enough. Its time for them to stop carrying the governments message to their constituents, and start carrying their constituents message to the government.
Do I expect this to be successful? No. Not as long as a single one of those congressmen were in office for the initial passing, or the prior re-authorizations. They are too heavily invested in the act, and the administration has too much control over them.
Time to clean house. Stop fearing your district's loss of seniority by electing new people. Vote them all out. If we do it piece meal, career bureaucrats and career politicians will just co-opt the new members. Remove the leverage.
Re:One can only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop fearing your district's loss of seniority by electing new people. Vote them all out. If we do it piece meal, career bureaucrats and career politicians will just co-opt the new members. Remove the leverage.
All that will do is make the next batch of puppets cheaper to own. Until corporations are muzzled, nothing will change.
Re: (Score:2)
"wow, I keep replacing this fuse and each time I replace it, it blows."
but lets not try to understand why the circuit is faulty. lets just keep revoting in new 'fuses' and hope that this one does not blow....
(the system is broken. voting new for old is not going to do anything other than play musical chairs.)
Re: (Score:2)
Until corporations are muzzled, nothing will change.
I'll copy-paste a section from another of my comments in another thread and article that addresses this point.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
The US doesn't have a Left/Right, (R)/(D) problem as much as it simply has grave, ongoing, massive and broad civil rights violations being committed by the government against the entire population under both major political parties.
If the government can be reined-in and brought back under the people's control and end the massive corruption, then corporations and banks, etc would also be brought under control, once you have a government that will actually prosecute corporations/banks/financial institutions and their heads who violate the law, and without any favoritism.
I believe that two of the things that *must* be included in any proposed solution for it to have any credibility whatsoever are term limits for all in Congress to end "career politicians" and strict rules with criminal penalties for going from a government post/office/position into a private sector job/position for any entity over which/whom you had power/influence, in order to stop the revolving-door corruption in D.C.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason." - Mark Twain
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Its time to put this experiment to bed. Like prohibition, which lasted 13 years, the Patriot act (now 13 years old), and damage it has caused needs to be rolled back. Not just Section 215, but other major portions of the act as well.
Like Cointelpro, they'll just rename and reshuffle the programs while still doing exactly what they want. You can't reveal they're back at it without committing a felony after all...
Confessions Of an Ex-SLASHDOT BETA user (Score:5, Funny)
Day 1: It wouldn't stop, the redirecting. At first I thought it was malware. Had my first drink in a long time.
Day 2: Barely had the strength to carry on as the BETA REDIRECTIONS continue.. trying not to talk to hallucinations at the bar and in the bathroom which laugh at me about these redirections.
Day 3: Discovered the BETA redirections were random, and while at first they looked somewhat usable, when I looked at me and my monitor screen in the mirror, a horrible woman with flesh hanging off of her body looked back, trying to lead me into a dance as the word BETA appeared across her rancid breasts.
Day 4: These BETA corridors go on FOREVER! On the plus side, I've taken up disassembling vehicles to corner this BETA beast and sacrifice myself rather than lead others to discovering it. I ate some red snow.
Day 5: Finding it harder to concentrate. I've ate some more of the red snow. The taste is starting to grow on me.
Day 6: This typewriter is the only entertainment I have, apart from throwing things at the walls, trying to get some response from the BETA which is now taking over my mind.
Day 7: Hahahahahha! Would you believe it? I'M STILL BEING REDIRECTED TO SLASHDOT BETA PAGES! AHAHhahahaah! Type, type, ding, ding! Wooo!
Day 8: The hallucinations are actually real! Would you believe it? They have offered to help me if I agree to work for them. I'm thinking about patenting this delicious red snow, the taste is unreal!
Day 9: Having black out sessions where I cannot remember large passings of time. Found some makeup, thought I'd paint a joker smile on my face to amuse the people only I can see!
Day 10: Productive today, part of what I wrote for my new screenplay:
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slashdot BETA!
I cannot opt out of Slas
(drops of blood on paper)
Finally a solution (Score:2)
Really about NSA surveillance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this REALLY about the NSA surveillance? Or is it about leverage for Congress critters, particularly Republicans, on the Executive branch?
"You want your PATRIOT Act renewed? You need to cut back on your surveillance. And my surveillance, we mean repeal Obamacare (or whatever the bill(s) du jour are)."
Besides, whether or not the NSA surveillance is authorized, do you think the NSA gives a fuck. They are going to do it anyways. They'll just have to be sneakier.
Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actor Maximilian Schell died last week. He played the defence lawyer in Judgement at Nuremberg. It's a film about the trial of judges who were around before Hitler came to power and stayed on rather than resign. It's a great, great, film. Here's a bit of Spenser Tracey's verdict at the end:
'There are those in our own country, too...who today speak of the protection of country...of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation...at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy...to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. The answer to that is: Survival as what? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult.'
The trouble is, there is no practical existential threat from Al Qaeda. There is no unified command structure amongst the Muslim nations - many of which have the same ethno-linguistic-political-economic divisions that have the western nations bickering all of the time. They have no army. No navy. No air force. They are not a fundamental threat to the west and the overreach of this sector of government needs to be brought back into perspective.
Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble is, there is no practical existential threat from Al Qaeda.
This can't be reiterated enough. The response to 9/11 was completely out of proportion to the actual threat posed by the perpetrators. GWB said they hate us for our freedom so what do we do? We turn around and reduce our freedom. What kind of sense does that make?
Re:Anyone remember Judgement at Nuremberg? (Score:5, Insightful)
This can't be reiterated enough.
It can be. We mustn't make this issue about the efficacy of the programs, but about freedom. Mentioning that the programs are ineffective is fine, but we must make it clear that they would be unacceptable even if they worked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes sense if you realize Al Qaeda was never the real enemy. It was just a very convenient excuse for the government to grab more power. And it worked. The majority of people are sheep and took it hook line and sinker. It's all straight from Orwell's 1984. Give them a great war to distract them from their current troubles and the failure of the government to do anything about it so the politicians can keep stuffing their pockets and their friends pockets.
Re: (Score:3)
There was no "existential threat when the Nazis invaded Poland or when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In the long term jihadist islam may be more of a threat than either of those.
Re: (Score:3)
And no I'm not defending the NSA. I think they have gone way to far. However, I do believe that radical islam is a threat that must be exterminated just as surely as Naziism and the radical Shinto warrior sect that controlled Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
radical islam is a threat that must be exterminated
Wrong choice of words.
Radical anything needs to be controlled and sidelined. Not exterminated. In many nations immigrants don't melt into the culture anymore, they're insular. The populus needs education. The "right to free speech" isn't to criticize your fellow man but to critiized and call out abuses w/in the governement. To say that the minority can't abuse everyone else; no beating your SO. Do want you want in the privacy of your home. but you can't dictate or pass laws what I do in public.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Protest Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Dice, I am protesting the beta site. I will not follow any links from a beta redirect and I will not participate in any meaningful discussion.
Your new Slashdot design is hideous. The comment layout is an abomination which is /.'s strong point, its why we come here. This isn't twitter or Facebook, we come here to get away from that. Please abandon your attempts to cash in on this site, you will loose more members then you will ever hope to attract with your new and unimproved design.
Fellow /.'ers, join me in this protest. Do not post a comment related to a beta redirect article or click any links. Instead, post a comment in protest of the beta design.
Re:Protest Beta (Score:4, Insightful)
I concur: They should have simply put in the OMG Ponies! design and been done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody already agrees that this is illegal (Score:2)
So, what is Congress going to do? Oh, I know. They'll allow this law to "time out" - a law that doesn't allow this, anyway - and then it'll be even more illegal! Yes, it'll be so illegal that......... what? Eric Holder will finally get off his ass and investigate?
Here's what makes this stop. Rather than saying "you no longer have statutory authority to do _______" (which they don't have now, anyway, but stick with me) we need to write a simple law that says "the government may not do ______, and if the
What about the NSA (Score:2)
Is anyone going to address the NSA surveillance issue behind the law? It's pretty well established that they're sucking up every possible piece of information because their world view is based in maximum paranoia (if the other guys are capable of doing this, they're probably doing this). Yet their info-vacuum yields little to no results. If we judged their potential for abuse like they judge the world's threats, there would be no NSA. So what kind of intelligent intelligence agency do we rebuild the NSA
If Congress won't renew it (Score:2)
Obama will "act on his own" using his phone and pen.
No one has stopped our nascent "emperor" from ruling by Diktat yet...
Patriot act smokescreen (Score:2)
With third party doctrine relied upon almost exclusively to produce with little or no showing what everyone in modern society assumes and thinks to be their property as constitutional basis to legitimize what otherwise would be constitutionally illegitimate what really could one expect legal effect of the patriot act going away to be?
The linchpin seems to be the third party doctrine you pull that patriot act, stored communications act and all manner of accumulated doublespeak becomes unconstitutional overni
I'm just a dumb foreigner... (Score:2)
... but I had the impression that nowadays the only legal justification anything needs is that the Fuehrer (sorry, President) wants it to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MOD UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen to your users.
Re:MOD UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's never too late to do the right thing. Please reconsider killing classic. It's instantly recognizable as Slashdot. A "trademark" of Slashdot if you will. It is a big reason why people come here to comment and lurk. It is loved. FFS, beta is the New Coke!
Re:MOD UP! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone tried to email the editors directly to see if the can talk some since into their DICE pointy haired boss's or maybe we could find the email of the DICE PHB responsible and we could slashdot his inbox...
Re:first (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. Those of us who've been around for a while remember when the current batch of editors came onboard, and compared to the original crew they're useless; about as effective at editing as patent examiners are at examining patents.
I used to have most of them filtered out, but unfortunately if I kept those filters Slashdot would be (more) content-free.
So, fuck 'em. And fuck beta, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw Beta Slashdot. Stupid dumb asses.
Someone sold this to their bosses, so there is no way they can back down now. 2014, the death of slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
2014, the death of slashdot.
and, I'm sure, netcraft will confirm it, eventually.
Re:Useful feedback? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is literally *not one single thing* that works in any manner that can even begin to approach what is commonly referred to as "usability". That in and of itself is constructive criticism because it would be impossible to enumerate every problem with the new site.
But to answer your question, here is the official thread with plenty of detailed criticisms and suggestions [slashdot.org]
Re:Useful feedback? (Score:5, Informative)
Every time I've tried the beta and try to see the comments, I get
Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!
signed another long time user who will be gone if the classic interface goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I've tried the beta and try to see the comments, I get
Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments. Try again... na-nu, na-nu!
signed another long time user who will be gone if the classic interface goes away.
The lawmakers ARE the threat.
Re: (Score:2)
The beta doesn't add any useful new features. All it does is remove them and severely fucks up the best part of this site: the commenting and moderation system. If the commenting system goes out the window, why would I come here? The stories are always several days or a week old, the editors are terrible at their job, and all of the actual articles are on other sites I could browse instead.
What the hell, Dice?
Re: (Score:2)
You must have some weird kind of Stockholm Syndrome to be linking the official thread as beta.slashdot.org
Just say no to beta: http://slashdot.org/~slashdotblog/journal/634763 [slashdot.org]
/and no to shortened urls: http://slashdot.org/~slashdotb... [slashdot.org]
testing beta comments (Score:5, Insightful)
dude beta sucks big giant hairy goat balls
Re: (Score:2)
Or mod points. I cannot see if I have some, how many ect.
Sorry but I tried it and found it unworkable in 10 minutes. If it takes longer than that to find the functionality they are doing it wrong...
Re:Empty threat (Score:4, Funny)
The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.
Unless there's a Democrat running those intelligence related activities. Then there's actually a good chance.
Reminds me of that time when Slashdot hired a gang of meth-addled rhesus monkeys to redesign their site.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.
Unless there's a Democrat running those intelligence related activities. Then there's actually a good chance.
No. Unfettered spying ^B^B^B^B^B^B intelligence gathering is the most bipartisan issue there is. Repubs and Democrats have both controlled houses of Congress with the other party in the White House. Have they actually done anything, even to score political points? No. No, they haven't. Will they? No. No, they won't. And no, voting Ron Paul won't fix it either -- sorry guys. Basing the whole thing on the promise and integrity of one guy doesn't work if there's no one to hold him accountable. Until Congress i
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently don't pay much attention to defense matters. You should look into the "peace dividend" in the 1990s, and the current defense sequestration cuts [usatoday.com].
Re:Empty threat (Score:5, Interesting)
The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.
You haven't been paying attention. The Republicans are up in arms over this, with the RNC calling the NSAs activities straight up unconstitutional and calling for their end with no mention of terrorism nor other weasel wording.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, they're only up in arms about it because it's democrats doing it. The same would be true the other way around.
No one actually seems to care about the freedom aspect of this whole situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place.
Don't be an ignorant fuck.
H.R. 3162 aka "THE PATRIOT ACT" passed the House in 2001 with 357 Yay votes and only 66 Nay votes. 145 of those Yay votes (40%) were Democrats. Only 15% of the House voted against it.
Then it passed the Senate 98 Yay to 1 Nay. The only Senator to vote against it was Feingold from Wisconsin.. yes, a Democrat.
Somehow I can amazingly find information on the internet such as which Representatives and Senators voted for which bills. Good thing indeed. It allows me to not exist in
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to turn this into partisan dick wagging, I'll point out that the largest number of opponents of the bill and it's extensions, both in quantity and proportionally, have been Democrats. The most recent
Re:Empty threat (Score:5, Informative)
>James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.)
A laughably empty threat. The Republican bloc is unlikely to do anything that would curb military or intelligence related activities.
The two prior extensions were pushed through by Democrats [wikipedia.org]. After 8 years, its time to stop blaming Republicans.
On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:
Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.
Its useful divisive idiots like you that keep trying to make this a partisan issue rather than getting you own party to actually READ the constitution.
Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Admitting your side is wrong, too, is the first step.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.
The house has an impeachment power.
Re: (Score:2)
Article 2, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Even more on point, you may want to go back to the Constitution and reread it if you're going to be basing your argument off it:
Article 1, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Re: (Score:2)
They just don't have anyone with enough brains to understand THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL REASON.
Correct... "I have a pen and a phone" implies a willingness to sign an unlawful order; that is, to say, an order to a law enforcement body, to begin or continue conducting activities that are in violation of the constitution, or unlawful.
It is a matter exclusively for the judgement of the House, as to make the finding of law whether this is such a high crime as to warrant articles of impeachment
And then
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. It implies a willingness to sign an Executive Order, which has nothing to do with unlawful or unconstitutional behavior.
No, you're wrong. Whether or not an executive order is related to unlawful behavior, depends on the content of the order.
The president can sign as many executive orders as he or she wants, but none of them have the force of law. The executive has absolutely no power to make law or interpret law.
However: in the event that the president signs any executive order directi
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, Clinton was successfully impeached [wikipedia.org], just not convicted by the senate (he was in fact acquitted).
Re: (Score:3)
Violating the oath to defend the Constitution would fall under high crimes and misdemeanors.
Re: (Score:2)
They just don't have anyone with enough brains to understand THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REAL REASON.
Like, for example, that the president lied about blowjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama has a pen and a phone, and he's not afraid to use them.
The Republicans have been looking for an excuse to impeach President Obama that would pass the laugh test. If Obama openly defied a shutdown of surveillance programs, that would give them not only a good reason, but one that might actually have some bipartisan support.
What I think is more likely is that the NSA would keep operating the way they are anyway, with or without Presidential or Congressional authorization. Short of completely de-fundin
Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's it? Impeachment is the check that provides the balance? It's not effective if Congress isn't willing to use it. To impeach the first black would be racist!
Re:So what if Congress doesn't reauthorize it? (Score:4, Interesting)
And if Congress decides that the NSA gets a budget of $0?
Re: (Score:2)
The power of the purse was how the English Parliament became all powerful. Congress can defund or trade funding to neuter the executive.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bush didn't have recess appointments overturned in court because he made them while Congress was actually in session."
Congress wasn't screwing around with sessions when Bush was in either since they were on the same team.
"Bush didn't have his Attorney General held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents."
Congress was on his side and his attorney general justified all the illegal stuff released by Snowden that's comi
Re:James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Score:5, Interesting)
What about all the other Democrats that pushed through the last reauthorization?
The scale of the surveillance and lengths to which the NSA has pushed its limits was a "shock" according to Sensenbrenner, who also wrote the USA Freedom Act, a bill to restrict the scope of both Section 215 and the NSA programs, which has attracted 130 co-sponsors.
The author of the Patriot act has seen the light, and yet you do nothing but call him names?
What has YOUR guy been doing all this time? Oh yeah, reauthorizing it year after year. [wikipedia.org]
How can you be so ignorant of the truth, yet so quick to post insults?
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be so ignorant of the truth, yet so quick to post insults?
Pot. Kettle. Black:
What has YOUR guy been doing all this time? Oh yeah, reauthorizing it year after year.
Never have I voted for Obama.
Re: (Score:2)
Small point, you meant to say Minnesota's 6th district [wikipedia.org] which is stuck on crazy, not Minnesota's 5th District [wikipedia.org] who elected the first Muslim to serve in the house of representatives in the form of Keith Ellison. The two districts are close geographically, but very far apart politically.