Marco Rubio Wants To Permanently Extend NSA Mass Surveillance (nationaljournal.com) 352
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.
Fundamentals (Score:5, 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.
Re:Fundamentals (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Fundamentals (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue with bringing the combatants from Gitmo to US soil is not about them getting loose, it's about them getting extended constitutional rights because they are not in the custody of the Armed Forces anymore.
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds great, only taking them out of the hands of the military is essentially the same as letting them go. They won't be found guilty of a crime because there will no legally admissible evidence for a court to convict them and as soon as their foot touches US soil, you will need to charge them, try them and convict them or they walk away free in our legal system.
Neither option is ideal, but if you intend to hold them, the military holding them on foreign soil is the only legal option that works. Thus we
Re: (Score:3)
the military holding them on foreign soil is the only legal option that works
it doesn't work. But there isn't any viable way to hold the US military accountable with politics the way it currently is. The US is committing WAR CRIMES on a daily basis with the continued holding of TEENAGERS in supermax prisons. The VAST majority of Guantanamo prisoners are there because we facilitated people narking on their enemies. That we have tried and true examples of people in Guantanamo that have absolutely no proof of any wrong doing besides someone else saying so...and we still don't relea
Re: (Score:2)
...it's about them getting extended constitutional rights because they are not in the custody of the Armed Forces anymore.
If only the US military ran their own prisons [wikipedia.org], eh?
Re: (Score:3, 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.
The only option that legally works and keeps these people locked up is Gitmo, a military run prison/detention facility.
So, would you
Re:Fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
No shit! And here in America, our cultural values are FREEDOM and JUSTICE! You can go take your sniveling, cowardly, authoritarian ass and fuck off to North Korea where you belong!
People like you are the enemy, and a greater threat to the American Way and whatnot than ISIS ever could be!
Point of Order (Score:2)
German and Japanese POWs that were housed on American soil, I know of camps that were in Maine and Kansas, were not extended rights under the Constitution. If the Gitmo prisoners are POWs why would they be extended rights not extended to the WW2 POWs?
Re: (Score:3)
Because they are not POWs. They are unlawful combatants which is legal wrangling to appease both US law and treaty. They already have won a habeas corpus ruling and do have some constitutional rights which is why they started the tribunal process.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a different situation in some ways. POW's can obviously held during a war and I don't think any court would mind that, however, the Gitmo guys are not quite POW's in that they didn't wear uniforms, represent no specific nation whom we are at war with and where not conducting a "war" in the legal sense, but where unofficial/illegal combatants who picked up arms.
TECHNICALLY, they are not covered by the Geneva conventions as POW's, but fall into a separate group, which do not have POW status. As ano
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. American legal rights. Such as the alleged assumption that you're innocent until proven guilty.
Not everyone in Gitmo was captured on the battlefield or in an act of war. Some got there because US "Allies" railroaded them. Some people who would now commit acts of terror wouldn't have if they hadn't been stuffed in prison without due process. Just to get even.
The Home of the Brave sees terrorists as magical supermen immune to the normal means of handling criminals and enemies alike. Never before in the
Re:Fundamentals (Score:5, 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.
Re:Fundamentals (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
That's directly related to the post. It's literally what the argument in it is:
1. If we bring them into US, they get "extended constitutional rights" (basically, due process)
2. If they get due process treatment, we'll have to let most of them go because there's not enough evidence to lock them up.
3. But they're bad guys who want to hurt us! I want them locked up.
4. Therefore, keep them at Gitmo where we can keep them locked forever without bothering with proving their guilt.
And yes, I'm well aware that the
Re:Fundamentals (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps what we need to do is round up a thousand random conservatives a year and hold them in indefinite detention for potentially no reason as the vast majority of gitmo detainees were, and see how fast they come to understand that that is simply morally wrong. You either are for the rule of law, or you're not. Anyone who thinks gitmo is a good idea is NOT for the rule of law, and betrays some of the basic tenets of this country.
Re:Fundamentals (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.
Re:Fundamentals (Score:4, Insightful)
Regime changes to install US friendly governments tend to piss a lot of people off.
Read a report from an ex-jihadist who had become radicalized because he was upset when the US didn't intervene quickly enough in Bosnia. So it really doesn't matter what the US does, it can be used by jihadists for recruiting purposes.
Rubio didn't say that. That misquotes the spin of (Score:5, 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.
There's an XKCD for that... (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Link to the Op-Ed Piece (Score:5, Informative)
And not just a summary of summary of the op-ed.
How about we treat the rest of the world better? (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.
Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Our post WWII conduct with other countries was often extremely shameful.
Trust me .. it didn't start with WWII. Even Hawaii was a business deal framed as a military action.
Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Middle East has been a mess since long before the Sykes-Picot Agreement, granted that didn't help but is wasn't the start by any means. See the Crusades.
Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree with your sentiment in terms of how we should treat the other peoples of this planet, I don't believe the radical Muslim world's hate for the US and the West - and what they represent, for that matter - has anything to do with how the West has treated them.
I mean, come on. They attack and destroy girls' schools, just because they exist. They destroy irreplaceable historic monuments, just because they exist. What did either of those do to them to "earn" their wrath?
Re: (Score:2)
Girls schools are where girls learn to be independent women. That's too Western for many of the locals.
The guys blowing up the monuments are, by and large, westerners. Lots of French and Belgians, but also quite a few Brits and no small number of Americans. They are fighting in Syria and Iraq largely because the West has no use for young men who never went to college, and tends to be really hard on unemployed brown men. At least this way they can be more then a pothead.
All this said, I don't think there's a
Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the hawkers of this isolationist ideal in foreign policy have a really short sighted view of the world and don't understand the real reasons why the USA is not viewed kindly in some places.
I don't think we are prepared to fully go isolationists or that we understand what that looks like. I think those that push this idea want their cake and eat it too. On one hand they will decry the so called abuses of our past interventions, but in their next breath will bitterly complain about us not taking actions to stop the massive waves of violence and death that would come if we went 100% hands off.
I also think we do stick our noses in places it doesn't belong and are fickle about what actions we do choose to make. Osama Bin Laden spoke of this fickle USA that would intervene one day to stop atrocities, then withdraw, leaving the locals to clean up the mess the next. Where the USA easily gets tired, looses it's resolve and goes away. He was right, we are driven by the news cycles and what's important to us now, doesn't matter next week, so that leads us to things like the Iraq war, where we went in, guns blazing with nearly 100% popular support after 9/11 to voting in some guy advocating we cut our losses and run, before the Iraqis where able to defend themselves. We depart, the situation falls apart as was expected, and now with the advent of ISIS we face a situation on the ground which is horrible for the people we liberated from Sadam. Yes it was and is our fault, and we all can agree on that regardless of if you think the war was wrong or if the premature departure was wrong.
Somewhere in all this there has got to be a balance between just not getting involved and being the world's policeman, between bombing the heck out of one group, arming another group or letting the world to it's own devices, regardless of how bad it looks.
Re: (Score:2)
All true, so why do we "cut and run" then when we KNOW that the mess we leave behind will cost those who are stuck there dearly?
Oh, and blaming Bush went out of style shortly after his successor took office in my book. Yea, there was a mess in Iraq we needed to clean up better, but at some point Obama made the choice to withdraw. The Iraqis where in no condition to dictate terms with the USA and obviously still needed our support so had Obama wanted to stay and "finish the job" or at least leave a stable
Truth (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.
Oh good, a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Never expect anything from a politician, and you might be disappointed by them only half the time
Re: (Score:3)
I hadn't read or heard much about this guy,
Me too. Here I was thinking that he'd be a good foil for Trump's monomania and Cruz's religious extremism, and then he goes and does this.
Re:Oh good, a reason (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.
Re:Oh good, a reason (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? No good candidates? I don't think that's true at all, but it's just you hearing a talking point from somebody who's trying to suppress voter turnout for political reasons.
There where like 12 republicans and 3 democrats in the race up until Iowa, you cannot seriously tell me there wasn't ONE in the list you could have supported. Can you?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. For me the most blatantly obviously unelectable person is Clinton, but the bottom line is that all career politicians are as corrupt as hell and are all untrustworthy. They need to be to even get where they are.
At least Trump isn't a career politician and I think thats what is actually attracting most of his supporters to him. in Iowa, a state that is a very bad fit for Trump, he won second place and only a couple of percentage points behind Cruz who got caught putting a fix in, so I think your
Re: (Score:3)
I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to even vote in the 2016 presidential election. If I do, I'll have to use one hand to hold my nose while I'm voting...
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the point of democracy?
The logical implication of everyone having equal rights isn't that you get to vote for exactly the guy you want, it's that you get to be governed by the guy who compromised enough to get most of your neighbors to vote for them.
So, unless you're a boring-ass loser who has no opinions that are even mildly controversial, you will never have the opportunity to vote without holding your nose. And if you are said boring-ass-loser, then you'll probably hold your nose because you c
Re: (Score:2)
>> If that's the case, you don't have any moral right to comment on politics, the judges of the Federal courts, or any US government policies.
Its called "Free Speech" dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh good, a reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like different meanings for "unelectable".
For example, it sounds like your definition of unelectable is someone who *shouldn't* be elected, while the OPs I think is more along the lines on someone who *couldn't* win an election.
Hillary on the latter criteria is electable. Period.
Sanders... i wouldn't have thought electable, but given the turd-salad the Republicans are fielding... might very well be in this particular race against the right opposition.
I can't see Cruz winning an election against Hillary or Sanders.
I couldn't see Trump winning an election against Hillary or Sanders at one point, but now I think voters might just do it.
Rubio, I don't know, I think he too is electable.
As for desirable... none of them in the republican field. Sanders maybe for the democrats. But lets be honest here, the problem is really not the president and never has been. A Sanders win would be much like a Ron Paul win (back when he ran) even if they win they don't have broad support in congress or the senate to really do anything.
And THAT is where the real rot is, congress and the senate. And it doesn't matter who gets put in the whitehouse, that rot isn't going anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. For me the most blatantly obviously unelectable person is Clinton, but the bottom line is that all career politicians are as corrupt as hell and are all untrustworthy. They need to be to even get where they are.
At least Trump isn't a career politician and I think thats what is actually attracting most of his supporters to him. in Iowa, a state that is a very bad fit for Trump, he won second place and only a couple of percentage points behind Cruz who got caught putting a fix in, so I think your claim that Trump is so unelectable it hurts is very naieve, especially this early on.
Blacks hate Trump. His nativist shtik brings up some really bad memories. The passion has to been to be believed. He'd likely do worse in the black community then McCain, who got roughly 5%.
Latinos are mostly Mexican, and his nativist shtik involves a lot of bitching about Mexicans.
You add white progressives, and the GOP Donor class, and you've got a candidate who'd be lucky to break 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
.. he won second place and only a couple of percentage points behind Cruz who got caught putting a fix in, so I think your claim that Trump is so unelectable it hurts is very naieve, especially this early on.
Trump underperformed the polling by nearly 6%. If this remains the trend, he's in trouble. Remember that 2/3rds of voters voted for somebody OTHER THAN Trump in the Republican caucuses. Also, the extended polling tells us that while Trump does enjoy a lot of support, he doesn't have a majority of it in the republican side AND he is quite literally *nobody's* second choice while polling poorly with the undecided voters. His negatives are nearly as big as Hillary's are within the republican base. This mea
Re:Oh good, a reason (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yikes.
Well, at least he knows his constituency - one has to think it'll gain him more votes than it'll cost him.
Re: (Score:2)
And, interestingly enough, he's not the Republican candidate who got his start in the Dubya White House inventing that shit. That would be Ted Cruz.
The third wheel of the GOP trifecta-of-I-guess-Hillary-isn't-that-badism is the guy whose convinced that banning a religion from entering the country will pass Constitutional muster.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
US politics reminds me of the reality shows where everybody is looking to knock out the dangerous contenders, only to have the joke/outsider option run off with the prize in the final. From what I understand, Sanders is fairly far off the US political center too, at least more than Clinton. But from what I can tell Bush senior is the only one to win a third time from the same party after WWII, after eight years the grass usually looks greener on the other side. So if I was a bookkeeper, I wouldn't count any
Re: (Score:2)
Only one president has ever served more than two terms, and that was FDR, and he died at the start of his fourth term, while WWII was still going on.
Bush Sr. was a one term president.
He's just trying to win the Primary (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. Nobody in the GOP will ever be close to the center. They are all superconservative.
Most of the Democratic party is the closest thing the US has to being 'center'. Bernie Sanders is the only real leftwinger running, which in the US apparently equates to PINKO COMMIE.
It's time to admit ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time people started to accept this very important fact: being sellouts who want to sign away your rights is not a party issue.
They're all pretty much acting like it's better to live in fear in a surveillance state than it is to remember you can't "defend" freedoms by eliminating them.
Aren't these clowns all supposed to take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution? Instead they're all deciding it doesn't apply.
Republicans, Democrats ... they're all happy to spy on everybody and act like it's normal.
Surrending Civil Liberties,All downhill from there (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever Closer... (Score:2, Insightful)
I fear that I will see in my lifetime the event that signifies the beginning of the end of the American Republic as Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon did for Rome's
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you where born yesterday, I fear you already have seen that triggering event, it's just not yet played itself out.
So much bull, so little space... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are 34 seats up for vote, 2/3 of them being GOP seats (They won a ton of seats 6 years ago after the Democrats voted Obamacare into effect).
The GOP has a 4 vote majority in the Senate now. But ignoring the seats that are basically locked in, the GOP has a 3 vote lead, 47 to 44. That leaves That leaves nine seats that are too close to call - Colorado, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Pennslyvania
First, deport all the Canadians (Score:2)
Rubio did what? (Score:2)
The Florida Republican and 2016 presidential hopeful penned an op-ed on Tuesday condemning President Obama's counterterrorism policies...
I have it from a very good source that one of his aides actually penned that. Now, don't ask me how I know that, please don't ask...
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. His name is on it. No vote from me.
I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz, but if the choice is Ted Cruz, Trump or Rubio, he's starting to look pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a joke, Son, ah say, a joke.
(A rooster can't go anywhare in this here barnyard without stepping into some kindda mess..)
Re: (Score:2)
Coincidentally, I just read that Joe Alaskey, the recent voice of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck has died. [cnn.com] I don't know if he also did Foghorn Leghorn, but it wouldn't surprise me, Son, ah say, not one little bit.
Big Bro is Watching (Score:2)
Re:Big Bro is Watching (Score:5, Informative)
>> Shit, there may even be one among us.
Yeah. I strongly suspect that "Anonymous Coward" guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who didn't see this coming? (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.
Cant reauthorize illegality (Score:3)
Pushing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into a domestic setting is not legal.
Just as the Church Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] found back in the mid 1970's
Using one finding, act, transit authority, policy, directive, annex authority, special procedures, executive order does not allow any US court to use color of law to get around the Fourth Amendment.
The US and others collected all with projects like BLARNEY, FAIRVIEW, PERFECTSTORM, STORMBREW, STELLARWIND, PRISM,.
Does collect it all work?
It works well to enrich contractors, offers great over time and lucrative new roles for the private sector. Renting the network collection tools as no bid contracts is also great for profits.
The only way to permanently end it... (Score:2)
Distrust.
So while it might sound like a nice ideal, he's talking about trying to change something that is about as much a part of the human condition as living, breathing, and dying.
Rubio and the NSA.. (Score:2)
End all NSA mass surveillance, now!
This submission has "AGENDA" written all over it (Score:2)
Don't you just love it when some agency is savvy enough to abuse Slashdot to forward the political agenda of its clients?
Another in a long line of . . . (Score:2)
Republicans who want bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government. And how will this bigger government be paid for? With higher taxes, thus showing tax and spend Republicans are no different than Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn To Love It! (Score:2)
R Bashing? (Score:2)
Replay 9/11 (Score:2)
But assume we have Rubio's envisioned monitoring program in place. Could the attacks have been prevented? Doubtful, because everyone involved in country had a clean record and the chatter between 20 Middle Eastern guys would not have stood out as unusual.
After the fact, phone records could have helped to sort out what happened and identify accomplices still alive. But I don't think any of them would remain behind to collect the deposit on a rental van after they made that mistake once. So the same shit wou
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul (Score:3)
Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both oppose mass government surveillance and want the government to get a warrant - just as our constitution dictates.
Rand Paul, however, has dropped out of the race.
Many of the other candidates have the same stance on this as Rubio - Christie, Bush, Kasich, and I believe (but I don't know 100%) Carson as well. Not sure where Carly Fiorina stands on it, I hear so very little about her because she doesn't tell advertisements on the networks the way Trump does.
If this issue is important to you, then there's really only one candidate left who is on the side of privacy - and that is really, really sad. It should be all of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely!!! Cruz, like Paul, voted against it - in fact, that's what Boobio had been hammering him for in the debates.
So if one wants this intrusive policy repealed, the way to do it is vote for Cruz. Trump wouldn't have issues extending it, and guys like Christie, Jeb, Kasich and Carly are all FOR it. The last hope of Libertarians in this race is Cruz.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, his position can be summarized as:
- Obama failed by not spying on the innocent citizens enough;
- I propose we continue to spy on the innocent citizens, as Obama does, forever!
His political need to attack Obama results in an incoherent position statement.
Re:TLDR: I want Obama's policies permanently? (Score:5, Funny)
I see someone's invented a -1, Insightful moderation option...
Re:dont be so sure (Score:4, Interesting)
Where I'm not ready to call them sheep, it sure seems that the establishment is going to line up behind Rubio as their last hope now that Bush has proven to be unable to get *any* votes. But I expect that the newly released voters who support the candidates who are now going to be exiting the Republican field to be switching to their 2nd choice. For the most part this *won't* add much to Trump who is nobody's second choice. How that breaks between Rubio and Cruz is the $1M question, and the establishment is clearly going to do what it can to help Rubio..
What's going to be really telling is how the ex-supporters of Huckabee and Paul fall, given that the candidate tried to throw their support at Trump for some reason that escapes me. Maybe they are not thinking clearly and think that Trump has a chance here and are angling for a VP pick? It's pretty clear that Trump is only going to fade from this point because he won't be able to gather support as the field narrows with people dropping out. He has negatives that rival Hillary's in the Republican party.... Yea, he's going to win a primary or two in the liberal states, but in purple and blue states he's going to be soundly beaten by Cruz and Rubio who are the two viable candidates in this race now. Carson is out of money and only has maybe two more primaries before he's going to be forced to pull the plug, the rest of the field who are still in this (Like Bush) will just ride out the money they have and follow suit. By the end of February we may be down to effectively three contenders, which is when Trump will start to fade into the background..
I'm not ready to call the race between Cruz and Rubio, but Trump will finish this behind them. He has money, but no experience in the "ground game" like Cruz or the Television presence and speaking ability of Rubio. If he continues the shrill "It's not fair" mud slinging fest he's been engaged in with Cruz over the last few days, he may finish way back from the field.
In the end, We are going to have a president of Cuban descent in 2017 because just like Sanders hasn't a prayer being the democratic nominee, Hillary hasn't a prayer in the general w/o an independent or third party candidate to suck away the middle right votes. She's establishment, though and through and this election is about throwing the bums in Washington (DC) out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:dont be so sure (Score:4, Interesting)
With the exception of the last presidential election a LOT of people have been voting Republican, from the Federal level on down. Republicans have gained seats in the Senate, and the house, have more governorships than we've seen in modern history, and made gains in state legislators nation wide almost without exception. Maybe everybody is nuts, but it seems that there are a LOT of people doing the crazy thing here.
I think you are ignoring (perhaps willfully) that much of that gain in the R column is the result of changing the rules, not necessarily an increase in voters. The Republican side is pretty notorious for outrageous acts of gerrymandering, for a start. Continuing on from there, Citizens United has benefitted Republicans *much* more than Democrats. And if you really want to wade into the muck, we have heretofore unseen levels of voter disenfranchisement, primarily at the hands of (you guessed it) the Republicans.
So are there more Republican voters? Maybe. Maybe not. But by most estimations, that's not what has increased their grip on the government. And that is, by my reckoning, circumventing what little democracy we had left in this country.
Re:dont be so sure (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Sanders is a freaking _moderate_. He wants universal health care, education and tighter control of Wall Street. What exactly is insane here?
No. (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.
Re: No. (Score:5, 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.
a clue: Half as much as Clinton (Score:2)
Here's a clue. Clinton gets to the twice as much Wall Street money. Wall Street firms have always been the Clinton's largest contributors. Now you have a clue.
Bonus:
Wall Street hasn't bought Cruz. The largest sector backing Cruz is real estate.
Re:a clue: Half as much as Clinton (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't American politicians learn about basic civics anymore? What about the ideals upon which America was founded? Where's the reverence for principles such as "no unreasonable searches".
I was wondering the same thing. To me, Rubio just demonstrated why he is unqualified to hold the office he is campaigning for. The funny thing is, it was an unforced error. Saying nothing would have been much smarter than coming out against the Constitution.