6 ms·
US House approves FISA renewal – warrantless surveillance and all
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoIs the Senate expected to pass this blindly?
- 1oooqooq 2y agolike last times?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- CodeWriter23 2y agoWhat a red herring, the argument that there would be too many warrants to process. Build tech, hire judges.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoThe lack of governance and oversight is the desired outcome.
- CodeWriter23 2y agoIndeed. Just calling it what is is. We got a decade or two before people recognize the implications of this "trust us, we're protecting" types of legislation.
- RIMR 2y agoHow about never. In a couple of decades creeping normality will be complete and nobody will ever fight for these rights back because they'll have forgotten they ever existed in the first place.
- atlgator 2y agoNot an excuse but the Judicial Branch is woefully underfunded due to their limited leverage for funding from Congress. Two of my friends clerked for different Appeals district judges. Windows 98 and Lotus Notes were still in use.
- Spivak 2y ago> Friday morning, the holdouts fell in line – sending the Section 702 renewal bill to the House floor for a full vote God party politics will be the death of us. Why even bother electing specific individuals at this point. How is this bill not abhorrent to more Republicans, and to wit how is this bill not fine with more Democrats? In a saner world this bill should have split both parties on auth/lib lines. It is truly a testament that we can make anything partisan along one specific ideological axis, even totally orthogonal issues.
- tocs3 2y agoAn even saner world the bill would be rejected by both parties.
- jayemar 2y agoIs your rational for this proposed party split that it's "big government" and therefore Republicans wouldn't like it and Democrats would?
- mindslight 2y agoI think people are reading OP's comment wrong. They said "abhorrent to more Republicans" and "fine with more Democrats", not 'more abhorrent to Republicans' and 'more fine with Democrats'. The entire point is that support should be less correlated with party. It probably didn't help to abbreviate "libertarian" into "lib", which despite having the same root as "liberty", has been turned into a partisan slur in a truly Orwellian fashion.
- CSMastermind 2y agoMy understanding is that there's a carveout that prevents warrantless surveillance of members of Congress. Which takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to be like, "This is fine for thee but not for me"
- kjkjadksj 2y agoProbably a quid pro quo arrangement they don’t want the FBI to be privvy to.
- psychlops 2y ago> prevents warrantless surveillance of members of Congress While I have a dim view of Congress, even they aren't dumb enough to believe that would hold true. Every other "exception" has been ignored in the quest for gathering every scrap of data.
- koolba 2y agoIt wasn’t ignored. They were accidentally recorded as part of a different, unrelated, simultaneous, totally coincidental monitoring of somebody else.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> there's a carveout that prevents warrantless surveillance of members of Congress Source?
- CSMastermind 2y agohttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/massie-grilled-fisa-for-more-than-an-hour-he-found-a-congressional-carve-out/ar-BB1lpfb8 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/massie-grilled-fisa-... “I take objection with the fact that members of Congress get treated specially in this law over regular citizens,” Massie said.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
- ofslidingfeet 2y agoLiterally just fascist secret police, in real life.
- wutwutwat 2y agoWho expected different? This is the sort of thing that once you give up, you're not getting back. We let fear and paranoia decide it was ok and the people we gave that freedom to are never giving it back, why would they when they were given exactly what they wanted.
- pjfin123 2y agoWhenever there's an emergency, real or imagined, be very careful which rights you give up. Once they're gone they're probably not coming back even once the emergency is over. 9-11 was decades ago and we still haven't gotten our freedom from being surveilled back.
- redserk 2y agoI fail to see how this a productive way to look at this. Rights can easily be restored if people knew that they are impacted by these programs. We "gave up" a number of "rights" during COVID and the restrictions were voluntarily relinquished by the government as they were no longer needed. It helped that the changes were very obvious to the average person -- i.e. mask mandates and inter-state travel limitations. (Note: I personally found some actions reasonable hence the quotes above)
- iAMkenough 2y agoI view this as an overly optimistic way of looking at this. It would not be "easy," nor do I believe it's as simple as raising awareness. Those with power will manipulate people into preserving that power through fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Secret courts, gag orders, and disinformation will be used to keep Americans in the dark at all costs.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Secret courts, gag orders, and disinformation will be used to keep Americans in the dark at all costs We’re discussing a bill whose text is public and which was openly debated in the Congress. None of this was in the dark. It was just, unfortunately, wholly uninteresting to most voters.
- pjfin123 2y agoHow is this legal? Congress doesn't have the authority to void the Fourth Amendment.
- mindslight 2y agoYeah but the Supreme Council does, and they did. If you view the Bill of Rights as a list of test cases, they're basically all failing.
- zoobab 2y agoYou just have to wait 15 years it gets up to the Supreme Court.
- paxys 2y agoAnd will be ruled legal in a 6-3 vote.
- cauefcr 2y agoLand of the free /s.
- mrguyorama 2y agoTurns out if you stick your fingers in your ears and scream loud enough for long enough, people will just accept the words, rather than the actions
- daeros 2y agoWyden needs to filibuster this. Come on obstruction babeh.
- brevitea 2y agoEmbarrassing for the US, again.
- webninja 2y agoTo see which of your congressmen voted yea or nay on this bill so that you can write down in your notes who to vote in or out this November, see this senate.gov link: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00150.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1... This bill is an obvious violation of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In my state, all electors (votors) must swear the following Oath: “I do solomnly swear (or affirm) that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of…” It is my interpretation that anyone that votes for any of the yea-voters in the upcoming election would be a violation of that Oath to uphold the Constitution.