Republicans Block Latest Attempt At Curbing NSA Power 445
Robotron23 writes: The latest attempt at NSA reform has been prevented from passage in the Senate by a margin of 58 to 42. Introduced as a means to stop the NSA collecting bulk phone and e-mail records on a daily basis, the USA Freedom Act has been considered a practical route to curtailment of perceived overreach by security services, 18 months since Edward Snowden went public. Opponents to the bill said it was needless, as Wall Street Journal raised the possibility of terrorists such as ISIS running amok on U.S. soil. Supporting the bill meanwhile were the technology giants Google and Microsoft. Prior to this vote, the bill had already been stripped of privacy protections in aid of gaining White House support. A provision to extend the controversial USA Patriot Act to 2017 was also appended by the House of Representatives.
So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on, we know that it was dead before word one was written. I'm just curious when libertarians will admit their people are just as in bed with money as the rest of us so we can finally fight the money together. The ones with money are the ones taking all your guns and taking all the jobs.
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians don't admit that because they typically don't admit to voting republican in the first place.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans vote because, "I got mine, fuck everyone else."
Libertarians vote because, "Roads, schools, hospitals, and fire departments are big Government, and therefore bad."
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Good to see Illiberals target libertarians on a regular basis now... Only 10 years ago or so, we were simply dismissed with mild amusement.
There is hope for America yet.
Re: (Score:3)
"Statist" as if that's a political philosophy.
That's the problem with you. You can't even address ideologies that aren't libertarianism as separate and distinct from one another. You create a false dilemma between the state solving everything and no state.
It's clearly stupid, and yet it's the first place you go.
As far as "reality denying assumptions" go, let's start with giving you the benefit of the doubt, and asking you how you think free markets work.
Re:So basically (Score:5, Informative)
He used the chicken shit excuse that "It didn't go far enough", as if a fantasy bill that went even farther was a realistic alternative.
According to your link:
Paul said he voted against the bill because it would have extended the Patriot Act provision that allows the NSA to search Americans' phone records. He has consistently opposed the Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It curtailed some domestic spying, but extended it in other areas, and also extended the PATRIOT Act. My guess is you would have criticized him if he voted in favor of it as well.
Re: (Score:3)
and also extended the PATRIOT Act.
Oh, in that case I would have voted against that also. In other words, it's a bill that does opposite of what its name suggests.
And here we are distracted over whether Republicans or Democrats are better.
Re: (Score:3)
More the media. TFA is biased. The bill was pushed on bipartisan basis and it wasn't just Republicans that voted against it; further it passed the Republican controlled House and its main sponsor is a Republican. So I'm unsure how we got the headline "Republicans block...."
Re:So basically (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem.... There were TWO bills, ONE of which was introduced by Jim Sensenbrenner, a republican in the House. I don't know how it started, and Sensenbrenner is the guy that helped WRITE the Patriot Act, who later said "oops". He gets credit for that in my book. Anyway, the HOUSE (R controlled) version went through committees and THAT version extended the Patriot act and didn't go far enough.
The OTHER bill was introduced by Patrick Leahy, a Dem in the Senate. THAT version was stronger, and THAT version unequivocally was BLOCKED by Republicans in the Sentate.
If you'd care to look for yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
So, it seems you don't know what you're talking about....
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, no you don't... You keep him. A Republican would not have withdrawn all troops from Iraq
Bush drafted the pullout plan...
A Republican [politifact.com] would not have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine by lifting all sanctions [washingtonpost.com] imposed over a similar invasion into Georgia.
You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?
A Republican would've continued to detain terrorist suspects [theguardian.com] — in Guantanamo or elsewhere — rather then order extrajudicial killings [commondreams.org] — most infamously one of Osama bin Laden [theatlantic.com] himself.
1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.
No, Obama is an Illiberal Democrat through and through. But such people — yourself included — are famous for inability to recognize each other — so far are their deeds from their proclaimed ideals.
So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.
Re:Facile nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you need to take a breath and realize that there are people trying to enable corporate power, and there are people trying to enable responsible agency for intelligent beings, and that they are not the same people, but they both find themselves under the libertarian banner.
NO, they don't. At all. The former are not even remotely Libertarians, even if they are trying to associate themselves with the Libertarian name.
Those are Republicans trying to pretend to be Libertarians. And by the way: progressives over the last years (Obama and friends are great examples) have been as supportive of "corporate power" as the Republicans. Just usually different corporations. But it's all the same game.
And honest Libertarian, however, is for free markets, with reasonable antitrust laws to keep the markets free. The latter part is integral to the capitalist system, and when it is lacking (as it has been under both Democratic and Republican rule since at least the late 90s), then what you have is oligopoly and monopoly (i.e., "corporate power"), not free markets.
So don't be fooled. Corporatists are NOT Libertarians. If they claim they are, show them where the Libertarian philosophy actually supports free competitive markets, not corporatism. They are not the same things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So basically (Score:4, Informative)
The problem here is that you just no true Scotsmanned away over half the people with your ideological alignment.
Besides which, the data on libertarian voting isn't very ambiguous. Self identified libertarians vote for republican candidates at about the same rate as self identifed republicans. 75% vs 80%.
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarianism is just Big Government renamed to Big Government Inc., with less accountability to the people.
Power always finds a vacuum.
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why most of us grow out of our Libertarian phase by our mid-20s.
Re:So basically (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a contradiction? I'd think a libertarian government would not want anyone, owners of large corporations included, to take over governance. That's kind of the definition of libertarianism, I thought.
Additionally, I'm having a hard time reca
Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
The implicit theoretical side effect of libertarianism is that the wealthy, those with the means and resources, would do every well and those with out wouldn't. If you don't have people paying taxes for schools, libraries, roads, etc. How do things get better? When you've got concentrated wealth, what's stopping the wealthy from taking over?
Violent insurrection is a fine idea in that case, but, I wouldn't bet on it.
Re:So basically (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make me a crony capitalist or a welfare queen when I decide I'd rather the power go to those I can vote out of office than those I can't?
If you think voting significantly changes the government, that just makes you naive. The bureaucrats run most things and are unaccountable.
If the entire government became Libertarian today, it would take less than 10 years for corporations to take total control of governance
Do you mean they'd have private armies in the streets? Like in the US from 1776-1870, befo
How did your senator vote? (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282 [senate.gov]
As you can see, it was pretty much along party lines.
Re: (Score:3)
Recall that the first Republican President waged the country's bloodiest war to prevent the central government's domain from shrinking. The war turned a federation of sovereign states into a compulsory chain of provinces.
Have you always been a southern apologist jerk-off or was it something you picked up in college?
PATRIOT Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
yet none of those senators have the guts to bring up repealing PATRIOT.
That needs to be repealed, it's 100% evil and they all know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, though, that the vote happened after the election, when it was known who would control the Senate in 2015 and 2016. And interesting that those that are losing power oppose surveillance while those that are gaining it support continued surveillance.
This might suggest the possibility that each side fears the use of the NSA against them by the other side.
I'd hate to think the USA has gotten to that point but I don't think anything would surprise me now.
Re: So basically (Score:5, Insightful)
This happened now because the Democrats knew it would fail (if they'd thought it would succeed, they'd have pushed it BEFORE the elections just past), and wanted to get the good publicity for being AGAINST THE NSA!!!
The Republicans voted against it because the Democrats were for it.
Neither Party's position had anything to do with their opinions about the issue (they're both in favour of the status quo) - it was a purely tactical vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So basically (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This happened now because the Democrats knew it would fail (if they'd thought it would succeed, they'd have pushed it BEFORE the elections just past), and wanted to get the good publicity for being AGAINST THE NSA!!!
The Republicans voted against it because the Democrats were for it.
Neither Party's position had anything to do with their opinions about the issue (they're both in favour of the status quo) - it was a purely tactical vote.
If they knew it would fail and it was just done for good PR then why wouldn't they do the vote before the election? Seems to me that good PR is kinda wasted at this point.
If I'd read anything into scheduling something as a lame-duck vote it would be that they think it's bad PR.
Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that ISIS is our enemy now. They have always been our enemy.
Ignore those who say they used to be our ally in Syria and we were sending them weapons and aid. They want the T E R R O R I S T S to win!
Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:3, Insightful)
Those dummies.
From the WSJ article: "the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matthew Olsen, disclosed in September that terrorists tracked by U.S. intelligence services have started encrypting their communications in ways that defeat detection, and that the government has lost track of several."
Not sure how the continued bulk collection is going to help anyone.
Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US, they'll know where the voters & rabble rousers are.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how the continued bulk collection is going to help anyone.
Traffic analysis [wikipedia.org].
Not saying I agree or disagree with the underlying policy; just saying that historically traffic analysis has proven to be fruitful.
Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:4, Informative)
Ignore those who say they used to be our ally in Syria and we were sending them weapons and aid.
Who said that? One of the reasons we were reluctant to send aid to the so-called moderates was because we were afraid it would fall into the hands of groups like ISIS. In retrospect that was probably a mistake; of course one could go further back and say that it was a mistake to help destabilize Assad in the first place. Devil you know and all that. Did you happen to catch Assad's interview with Charlie Rose? He called this happening; he may be a scumbag but he knew his country better than we ever did. Realpolitik might have been the best play, though it's a bit late for that at this stage.
Incidentally, they're not just our enemy; they're enemies of all of civilization. You're willing to sit on the sidelines while ISIS engages in a campaign of genocide and ethnic/religious cleansing? Go watch this [pbs.org], assuming you have the stomach to get through it. They're barbarians and they need to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
If you can't get behind the moral imperative to intervene, well, they've killed multiple American citizens and that's all the casus belli we need.
Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:5, Interesting)
You're willing to sit on the sidelines while ISIS engages in a campaign of genocide and ethnic/religious cleansing?
Why were we fine with doing this when the warlords of Africa were doing it? Or Bosnia?
Or anyplace else on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Idealistic answer: We shouldn't be fine with anyone doing it.
Cynical answer: African warlords haven't used the gruesome execution of American's (and American Allies) for propaganda purposes.
Re:Beware the T E R R O R I S T S !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Unrealistic answer: Invading other countries to play world police will fix the problem.
Idealistic answer: Government thugs shouldn't be using emotional propaganda to manipulate Americans into supporting yet another war in the middle east that will accomplish a whole lot of nothing except to waste our money.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why were we fine with doing this when the warlords of Africa were doing it? Or Bosnia?"
In all fairness, it doesn't seem that everyone was fine with it happening in Bosnia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Why were we fine with doing this when the warlords of Africa were doing it? Or Bosnia?
No one is fine with that. Who is fine with that?
The reason Obama is helping against Syria is because the Kurds have a very strong multi-national lobbying group. So that's why.
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS hates everyone and is a threat to everyone. Why should America have to lead the charge? Because we're the only ones willing to? ISIS is a graver threat to European countries who are content to keep their hands clean. ISIS is an even graver threat to other Middle Eastern countries like Turkey and Iran, whose agendas are different from our own and whose actions may provoke us against them so they aren't going to want to make themselves a target. You see? America being the first to act in every military s
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS is a graver threat to European countries who are content to keep their hands clean.
They're content to keep their hands clean? Europe has joined the air campaign against ISIS. They'll doubtless join the ground campaign that's coming sooner or later, regardless of what our President thinks.
America must not be in the business of policing the entire world.
We're not in the business of policing the entire world. For better or worse we are in the business of policing the Middle East. The reasons for this are too lengthy to describe in a /. post but if you have a plan to extricate us that doesn't leave our critical interests vulnerable (or those of our Al
Re: (Score:3)
You're against ethnic/religious cleansing but want to "terminate with extreme prejudice" an entire very large group of people largely defined along ethnic and religious lines .........
words fail me
Re: (Score:2)
"You're willing to sit on the sidelines while ISIS engages in a campaign of genocide and ethnic/religious cleansing?"
This has been happening in the Middle East for more than 1000 years. If you think ISIS is something new then you really need to get an education.
Murdering each other is a way of life in the Middle east. Their holy books demand you kill non believers.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is
Re: (Score:3)
This has been happening in the Middle East for more than 1000 years. If you think ISIS is something new then you really need to get an education.
Murdering each other is a way of life in the Middle east. Their holy books demand you kill non believers
Christian Bible (2 Chronicles 15:12-13) - "They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek
the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Christian Bible (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) - "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They(and their constituent subgroups) were never our ally in Syria. The groups we have given material support to in Syria have ended up fighting both Assad and Isis, which is just what Assad wants: rebels fighting each other over ideological differences are rebels not ousting him from office. There have even been accusations that he strategically ceded the most rebellious territories to ISIS so that international support for his being in power waxes.
ISIS got the American military equipment they did by s
Re: (Score:2)
When exactly do you believe material support to Syrian groups began?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically, they're saying "the land of the free and the home of the brave" should sacrifice our fundamental liberties and allow the government to ignore the constitution to keep us safe. Why don't they just move to North Korea? It has everything they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oceania have always been at war with EastAsia.
Where are the vote results? (Score:2)
Just wondering, I can't seem to find them.
I found this, but the last action mentioned was when it was introduced on 10/29/2013.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Seems like the right link, I'm guessing it hasn't been updated.
Well of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sigh. (Score:2)
I always identified as a republican.. a moderate -- but still republican.
Not anymore. :(
NSA supported this bill, whistleblowers didn't (Score:3)
The NSA supported this bill. Various whistle blowers signed a joint letter against it.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c... [firedoglake.com]
The original version several months ago had some significant good points, but after negotiations with the administration removed the primary protections, what was left was mostly a bill extending the Patriot Act. Republicans might be right to vote against this and let the Patriot Act expire.
How is that even legal? (Score:2)
Seriously. (and it's not only in US). If *any* person did the same thing, the courts would be all over them. But when NSA or CSIS do it it's OK?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
DID ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE? (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, I ask you: did anyone read the article?
Both Democrats and Republicans voted against this bill. So this was, tongue in cheek, a bipartisan effort against liberty. For what it's worth, Democrat Mark Udall seems to have opposed it because it doesn't do enough, which can be a frustrating, yet respectable position.
But the days when at least every other Slashdot headline and summary actually reflected what was contained in the article are gone. So you TL;DR types dominate the discussion with nonsense partisanship that is not based on fact. And that fact is that, as usual, the schmucks in charge value their power over liberty and do not serve us.
Re:DID ANYONE READ THE ARTICLE? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair (Score:2)
They might not have succeeded with more attention to the issue. If, for example, Slashdot had posted the story [slashdot.org], we might be reading a different story today.
Only two votes were needed and one was a Democrat (Score:2)
Geeze, we couldn't get TWO votes...one of which was a Democrat? (Nelson of Florida)?
Senate Rules require 60 to pass (Score:3)
It's probably important to note that the vote was not 58 against and 42 for. It was 58 for and 42 against, with 60 "yes" votes needed for passage.
Bad bill. (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly? In its final form? The FREEDOM act was BADLY compromised. To the point where it would, in some ways, be achieving the OPPOSITE of the bill's original intent and could compromise our rights
I'd rather a bill like that get left on the floor.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the status quo is better because in the status quo the PATRIOT Act automatically expires earlier than it would have under the "FREEDOM" Act.
Blaming Republicans, huh? (Score:4)
Sounds like the most crucial parts were stripped out to get the President's pre-approval. What party is Obama from, again?
Vote for cloutre, not the bill (Score:3)
What every article seems to bury if not outright ignore is that this was the vote for cloture, not the bill itself.
Cloture is a vote to end debate and call the question. Under current US Senate rules it takes 60 votes for cloture where it applies. A bill take 51 votes to pass.
Of the 42 votes against cloture, 1 was a Democrat. Of the 58 votes for cloture, 4 were Republicans.
Since the Republicans had enough votes to block cloture, the question could not be called. This means that either debate must continue until quorum fails (fillibuster) or debate is tabled with no vote and the agenda proceeds to the next item.
However, whether the votes against cloture were because the individual senator felt work on the bill is not complete and it would be worse than the status quo or that the individual senator desired to just stall the vote cannot be determined only from the vote results.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is fair to say that dems, are repubs, are responsible for this.
Trying to imply that Obama is the good guy in the mess is pure bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to imply that Obama is the good guy in the mess is pure bullshit.
He was mocking the astroturfed memes that blame Obama for every perceived wrong in the world, even if the supposed wrong or its justification makes you spin-dizzy. But you knew that.
Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote. That does not mean Obama is the good guy in the NSA-powers scandal, it only means that Obama is not responsible for this law initiative or this down vote.
Similarly, the Republicans are responsible for this down vote. That does not mean they are solely to blame for the NSA-powers scandal, or that everything should be explained in terms of Democrats versus Republicans, it only means that in this case the Republicans are responsible for this down vote.
Re:Thanks Obama... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Obama has deported *more* illegal aliens than his predecessor. The ones that aren't being deported aren't being deported because the *LAW* says they're entitled to an asylum hearing, but the courts which handle those hearings are *beyond* understaffed because Congress won't do it's job regarding appointments to those courts.
Obama wrote an executive order delaying *enforcement* of those deadlines. Republicans are all upset about those executive orders, even as they argue for those *same* delays, but won't actually put a bill to effect those delays up for a vote.
On the third point, yes, Obama could, 'with the stroke of a pen' write an executive order to disallow what the NSA is doing. He may or may not 'want to'. However, much of what they're doing is *expressly* legal according to the law as written (even if those laws may not necessarily be Constitutional) due to the incompetence of Congress in passing laws which they haven't read and didn't understand. Likewise, Congress could 'with the stroke of a pen' make what the NSA is doing expressly *illegal*, but they haven't, and they won't because one party wants to be able to blame Obama for it. In fact blaming Obama is *much* more important to that party's congress-critters than actually *doing their freaking job*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am filled with a deep sense of schadenfreude as I watch the US drive itself into the ground.
At some point the Republicans and Democrats got the strange idea in their heads that the last party in charge before the country collapses wins.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Dems (including Obama) expanded and extended the patriot act at a time when they could have pushed it through with little resistance.
As much as the talking heads are going to try to make this seem like a partisan issue the fact of the matter is that there is heavy bi-partisan support for controlling the slaves of the USA and any resistance to this is largely lip service to keep the sheep filling the party coffers.
How many times do we have to go through the "It's the Democrats!" "No, no, it's the Republicans" mantra before we get sick of the game and smash the established sacred idols of the jackass and the elephant? We, The People, have become of the dog chasing its own tail. The sad thing is that the vast majority think that they're fighting the good fight when they're just being kept busy while the real powers that be loot and pillage.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sort of.
It's so that they can politically grandstand coming and going: "democrats brought a bill helping terrorists" and simultaneously to other voters "We blocked that bill because it was watered down and wouldn't protect the country".
And if it wasn't for the numerous powerful members of their party who'll be delivering that first argument, the second would be a pretty valid fucking point.
Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt (Score:5, Informative)
A couple more Republican's voted against it than Democrats.
"insightful"?
If you look at the data [senate.gov] (scroll down to "grouped by vote position", all but three Republicans voted against it, and all but one democrats in favour of it. So, a lot more than "a couple".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait so he id fooled into thinking 40 is only a "few" more than 1?
I think the problem may be you.
You can call for a vote on something even if you disagree with it. In fact that should be how the government is ran. If you like something or not, if it has the votes to go to the floor bring it to the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
Keystone is just political grandstanding.
Big oil doesn't care about it anymore because we have all the oil needed from fracking.
The people running the environmental groups don't care but know that enough people are uniformed that they will poor their own dollars to those causes.
Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt (Score:5, Interesting)
Um... every day?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm I think you are confused.. It had ONE democrat who voted against it, and only 4 repubs and 2 independants for it:
It was also a Republican in the white house who started this expansion...
Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll start this off by stating I'm non-partisan and have no particular party affiliation. That said, the AC above is being disingenuous at best.
Domestic surveillance of the American populace by the NSA as almost certainly been in place since its inception, but it didn't really come into full-force until Bush signed the order to begin domestic spying on Oct.4, 2001. (see https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying... [eff.org] say that its reached "new and unimagined levels" under the current administration is true, but only because the program has grown and expanded steadily since 2001.
But all of that is history to be rewritten by those with the motivation to do so, and relearned by those with short memories. As Americans, our forefathers built a nation upon the idea that we could create and maintain a country free of political tyranny; that those with power could not subjugate those without; that as humans, we have the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that its laws will provide justice and protection for all its citizenry; and that those citizens will be brave in the face of those who would try to take those ideas from us, and fight to preserve what we have built.
The Senate had the chance to take a stand to honor the sacrifices made by so many, and everything that we've fought and bled for 238 years; but they did not. Perhaps that is fine. Perhaps ISIS, and Al-Qaeda before them, have shown us that the idea of America is a false one. That all it takes to shake our country to its foundation is to sneak in and blow up some buildings. Maybe we were delusional in thinking that we could really ever be free? Maybe it's all been romanticized through movies, literature, and rewritten history books; and that we never really were a "land of the free and home of the brave". Maybe that's just song lyrics. Maybe it is the best form of government on the planet, or maybe that doesn't matter because it's government of and by an animal driven by greed and fear. And maybe it's always been that way since we came out of the caves.
That's what I take away from this vote, and all the other votes on all the other measures that either erode our freedoms, or prevent that erosion from happening. That it doesn't matter what we do, no form of government can overcome our failings as species.
Re:Bill Rejected with Bi-Partisan agreeemnt (Score:5, Interesting)
Failure to pass this bill means we'll get another chance. The pressure is on. Once they pass a bill, nobody is going to want to pass another one for a while, so the first one has to get it right. The ACA is an example of a bill that was slammed through, and got a lot of things wrong. Let's not do the same thing with limiting the NSA.
Also, Rand Paul does not claim to be a libertarian, and if you actually knew anything about libertarians you should have known that libertarians tend to give him a giant stink-eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and need we point out that Republican votes were required to get it out of the house and all that failed was a cloture vote to cut off debate...
Not to mention that a number of Republicans actually voted FOR cloture...
Re: (Score:2)
Two things you never want to see manufactured. Sausage, and Legislation.
Lawmakers get paid to apply an angle to anything to get legislation that benefits them and screws everyone else through all the time. That is their role. You can attack the Affordable Care Act all day long, but how much has the public been lied to over the Invasion of Iraq, The PATRIOT Act, and so many many more pieces of legislation over the years.
Lincoln's most recent film exposed deception back in the Civil War to free the slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is misleading. Some Republican Senators voted for cloture. This bill also was passed by the Republican controlled house. It's failure to proceed was bipartisan, and included a number of democrats not voting for cloture. Like it or not, Republicans are NOT YET in control of the Senate. The new congress is not seated until January 2015.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, everybody knows the terrorists use Pintrest.
Re: (Score:2)
NOBODY is that stupid!
While I think you have a point, I just don't think this bit above is something anyone should ever say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm .... (Score:5, Insightful)
My answer is that both parties have decided that security at any costs, and privacy be damned is the way of the future.
While I hope my cynicism is misplaced, I personally don't think they give a fuck about security. If they did, they'd do the math and realise there are higher priorities in terms of preventable deaths. What they give a fuck about is power. Specifically, getting it, keeping it, and increasing its scope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because everybody is too swept up in party politics to care about content and actually fixing things. It's much more fun to be part of a rivalry.
Seriously, this bill was bad, but too many people here on Slashdot are incapable of seeing how. It AUTHORIZES mass data collection and surveillance, just puts some extra parameters around it. Shouldn't our goal be to shut down mass data collection and surveillance?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the link: http://www.senate.gov/legislat... [senate.gov]
From a quick scan of the yeas and nays, I only found one Democrat who voted against it and four Republicans voted for it.
Re: (Score:3)
This was not the vote on the bill. This was the vote for cloture.
Cloture is a vote to end debate and call the question. Under current US Senate rules it takes 60 votes for cloture where it applies. A bill take 51 votes to pass.
Of the 42 votes against cloture, 1 was a Democrat. Of the 58 votes for cloture, 4 were Republicans.
Since the Republicans had enough votes to block cloture, the question could not be called. This means that either debate must continue until quorum fails (fillibuster) or debate is table
Re: (Score:3)
There is no amount of freedoms they can take away which will actually make us safer. There is always a way around their plans to be destructive. In the end we are no longer free and we are not safer. Al we have are systems of control and power that we cannot hide from.