6 ms·
White House Seems Afraid NSA Defunding Law Could Actually Pass Today
- vinchuco 13y agohttp://defundthensa.com/ http://defundthensa.com/
- hga 13y agoJust don't use a fixed script, your natural words will have more impact. Keep it short and sweet, "Amash amendment", "to HR 2397", and I'd avoid mentioning the Nugent amendment, e.g. the recipient might accidentally mis-remember what you said and make a mark on the tally for it, or both. For extra content I think you'd be better pointing out that the "data about" (rather than "metadata) the phone call you're making right then is being recorded by the NSA.
- unimpressive 13y agoCongratulations. Your comment was the guide I used to call. Think I did it too late though. Sorry guys. EDIT: Dammit I did. Just saw the news. It was close though.
- ajayjain 13y agoI just called the offices of Rep. Honda (who's supporting the amendment) and Rep. Eshoo. It was super easy!
- adventured 13y agoWe need a lot of people in the streets protesting to get meaningful legislation to pass restricting the mass spying activities of the US intelligence system. So far all the efforts seem like shots in the dark. As it is, the politicians will play their standard game of waiting out the uproar. Americans also need to start thinking about international relations as well. It's an outrage how we've been treating our friends. We should be demanding significant restrictions against international spying as well.
- gnaritas 13y agoWe don't have friends; we have frenemies.
- rhizome 13y agoWe need a lot of people in the streets protesting Telephone is fine for now. As it is, the politicians will play their standard game of waiting out the uproar. It's not merely an "uproar" when there is a bill to be voted on. Call your reps: http://www.house.gov/representatives/#byState http://www.house.gov/representatives/#byState
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoTwitter and friendface are okay too. Most of these folks have staffers tending to them.
- EdSharkey 13y agoExcuse me, but I seem to recall there was quite a bit of hooey made over "warrentless wiretaps" in the '08 election by the left. Bush lied, and all that noise. Where is the goddamn noise now? I am wishing that the Left wasn't so full of hypocrites and WOULD actually take to the streets in protest and be the nuisances they normally are. But it's their guy in the WH, and noone likes to admit their guy is a screwup. Go camp out in a park and defile it with your filth for Justice! Make a big stink, do a #2 on a cop car in protest!
- betterunix 13y agoWhat makes you think Democrats are the "Left?" They are sometimes slightly left wing compared to the Republicans, but on the whole the two major parties are right wing parties. Leftists who support Democrats come up with cowardly excuses about the "lesser of two evils" because they are too terrified that the wrong lizard will win. The rest of us, an unfortunately tiny minority, vote third party.
- vectorpush 13y agoExcuse me, but I seem to recall there was quite a bit of hooey made over "warrentless wiretaps" in the '08 election by the left. Bush lied, and all that noise. Where is the goddamn noise now? You're not paying attention. Just about every liberal nexus on the internet is enraged regarding this. Ironically, those who have labeled Snowden as a traitor are generally conservative leaning thinkers, whereas almost every liberal in existence has embraced Snowden as a hero. I am wishing that the Left wasn't so full of hypocrites and WOULD actually take to the streets in protest and be the nuisances they normally are. http://rt.com/usa/nsa-protests-july-4-700/ http://rt.com/usa/nsa-protests-july-4-700/
- eah13 13y agoPoint of order: the bill may pass the House of Reps. Senate would have to pass it and president sign it before it becomes law. Big difference. Crappy headlines like this promote a misunderstanding of how gov't works... OP should read up on civics a little
- WestCoastJustin 13y agoMy understanding of the US political process is based off what I have learned from TV and the news, but even if it passed the House and Senate, the President can still veto this bill, right? So, since we already know the President supports this cause, and it is his last term, the chances of this becoming law are nil.
- mszkoda 13y agoCongress can override the president's veto. "[the veto] can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation."[0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#cite_note-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#cite_note-1
- WestCoastJustin 13y agoThanks. Didn't know that.
- showerst 13y agoYou're basically right, but if it passes both chambers and the president vetos it, they can over-ride that veto with a 2/3 majority of each chamber. That's unlikely, so you're correct in parsing it as a statement being made, not than something that they actually -want- to have happen. This is extremely common in the US congress.
- scottshea 13y agoWhat is interesting is that if the bill passes with a 2/3 majority Presidents are unlikely to use the Veto. Nothing stops them from vetoing it but they usually take the passing with that strong of a margin as an indication that the veto would be overridden anyway.
- cpursley 13y agoNonsense. It's all theater. Edit: in response to the downvotes. When was the last time anything (large) was defunded by the US congress? Be realistic. The natural trajectory for a state is to consume and expand until doing so is no longer sustainable. Fat people like cake. Dogs chase cats. Bears shit in the woods.
- skylan_q 13y agoEven if it get majorities in both houses and signed by the president it wouldn't matter. When was the last time that the executive branch was beholden to congress in matters of national intelligence and security?
- scottshea 13y agoAdmittedly it is theater but even a symbolic defunding like this can help. If nothing else it is impressive to see that this issue has so much bipartisan traction in the most divided House since before the Civil War.
- marshray 13y ago> When was the last time anything (large) was defunded by the US congress? All of those old guys in the NSA will remember when Congress defunded supplying arms to the Nicaraguan Contras and the ensuing Iran-Contra scandal which ended quite a few careers and deeply tarnished even the "teflon" president Reagan.
- adestefan 13y agoCongress has defunded the program to close Guantanamo Bay. They defunded the program under which ACORN was made possible. They defund military programs and bases all the time.
- rayiner 13y agoThat's not exactly the trajectory evidenced by the numbers: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34424.pdf (Figure 4, p. 17). Discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP has declined dramatically since 1980. Discretionary spending in absolute terms (adjusted for inflation) declined through the 1990's: http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012/the-federal-budget-1992-2012 http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2012/10/feder.... Federal civilian employment is at roughly where it was in the late 1960's: http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962 http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-docum..., even though the overall population is 50% larger. Total federal employment, including military, has been smaller over this decade than it was at any time since 1962. About 2 million fewer people worked for the federal government in 2011 as did in 1969. The narrative of ever-ballooning government is almost entirely driven by entitlement spending (i.e. me writing a check that gets immediately sent out again as a check to grandma). Now it's a somewhat philosophical question, but I don't think it's accurate to call increased Social Security or Medicare expenditures an "expansion of the state." When I think of the "state" I think of layers of bureaucracy, weapons programs, etc. I.e. money the government has discretionary control over. The long-term trend of that is one of decline, not growth.
- andyl 13y agoWhite House complains: "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process." Ironic.
- marze 13y agoThat is more than ironic. I don't think the English language has words that can even approach distantly the level of irony here. ...informed...open...deliberative...
- mathattack 13y agoWhere's Orwell when we need him?
- silentOpen 13y agoHere he is < http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/1984.pdf > ... over here, too < https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm >
- coldcode 13y agohttp://orwell.ru/bio/grave/english/ http://orwell.ru/bio/grave/english/
- mey 13y agoCompare what he is saying here about this bill, vs the gun laws attempting to be introduced after the Sandy Hook shooting.
- anaptdemise 13y ago"the president has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens." Yeah, as long as that debate takes place on news casts and meetings and not, you know, the legislature or the courts or anywhere that can possibly do anything about it.
- forgotAgain 13y agoWhether or not this results in actually de-funding the NSA spying on US citizens it is still an important vote. First, every member of the House will need to say whether they support spying on all citizens or not. They are on the clock for re-election in 16 months, less for primaries. Being on record for supporting spying on their electorate will cause more then a few to lose. That's a good thing. Second, if by some chance the amendment passes the House, then the President can no longer claim he is spying on us with the support of the other two branches of government. He will need to acknowledge that he doesn't have the support of the American people. Politics is a process. Things don't change in a day. That doesn't mean we should give up or get frustrated. This is a very good step in the long process to change things.
- vampirechicken 13y agoDoes the Senate ordinarily fillibuster appropriations bills? The Senate still has their secret, hands-free fillibuster. This one could die in the senate, or be the bill that forces the Dems to change the Senate's fillibuster rules.
- vampirechicken 13y agoAnd it was neither. Corporate lobbyists win again.
- macspoofing 13y ago> ...the White House is officially urging Congress to reject it: "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process..." Oh, did we have one of those when it was funded? Must have missed it.
- pcl 13y agoIf you feel strongly about this, call / email / write your representative and senators. It seems obvious to say, but if you don't, they won't know your opinion. http://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup http://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup
- tzs 13y agoI am puzzled by all of this apparent concern people have over privacy all of a sudden. Over a year ago, an essay [1] written by Judge Kozinski was submitted [2]. This was one of the most insightful and important essays on privacy and how we are at risk of losing much of it written in the last quarter century or more. It got NO votes and drew NO comments. (It has 2 points because 2 separate people submitted it). It's currently an open question whether or not what the NSA is doing violates the 4th Amendment. Even if it is a violation of the 4th Amendment right now, it will not be in a few years due to the factors Kozinski discusses. [1] http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/dead-past http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/dead... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3834977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3834977
- rhizome 13y agoThose factors are not inexorable. Even the future has a future.
- gtaylor 13y agoI find "why are we only now getting upset" remarks to be as silly as the "what are you hiding?" ones. The reason there was zero support/interest in that the essay is that it failed to hit close to home to the general population. I had no idea the thing even existed. And therein lies the interesting thing about the Snowden leaks. They were tailor-made to get people riled up over something that they could mostly understand, and the media actually covered it to some degree (although they could have done more). Just like people get cringey when you throw around the "T" word, a government overreaching like this will piss off liberal and conservative American non-politicians alike. What the NSA is doing is wrong, and it doesn't matter WHY people are up in arms now versus X number of years later. That's completely irrelevant. We should all be stoked that we're still seeing discussion about this a month+ later.
- jnbiche 13y agoPuzzled? So do you ascribe the concern among HNers to something else other than genuine concern over privacy and government intrusion and overreach?
- suprgeek 13y agoIn addition to the Irony Rich statements coming from the Whitehouse, they are attacking this from another front http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/01361323896/dueling-house-amendments-over-cutting-nsa-surveillance-funding-one-is-red-herring-to-trick-congress.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130723/01361323896/duelin... The Nugent amendment while sounding very similar is probably meant to gut the "real changes" Amash amendment by splitting the votes. Sneaky ..very sneaky
- nanidin 13y agoI do think something needs to be done. I don't think that something is to completely dismantle the NSA - that's as reactionary as the PATRIOT act was with regards to 9/11. The USA has some of their most brilliant crypto/security/intel guys working at the NSA. What happens with them when they are no longer getting paid? They go private I suppose. Is that in the best interest of the country? Or would it make more sense to reign in the NSA and declare the spying illegal, or some other less radical approach that keeps the good guys around and gives them something better to do than record every phone call and text we make?
- gtaylor 13y agoI'm sure some of the smartest people in the world would have no trouble finding other better uses of their time. Being afraid of what these guys would do if they went private is a boogeyman type argument, just like this scary "terrorism" stuff the politicians love.
- bcoates 13y agoThe next logical step in the progression would be to secretly sponsor Communists to suppress the NSA and their sympathizers. In a decade or two if the Commies get out of control, we'll be able to complete the cycle of history by funding al-Qaeda to fight them.
- michaelt 13y agoMost countries have intelligence apparatus of course, no reason the USA shouldn't have something fulfilling the NSA's role. But if there's one thing this debacle has shown me it's that there's not just a few bad apples playing fast and loose with checks and balances and constitutional safeguards. The rot extends throughout the NSA, the secret courts and secret oversight committees, literally up to the president. I don't know what form the eventual reforms will take, but if they're going to achieve anything they will have to be extremely extensive. They will have to go well beyond a slap on the wrist for the NSA.
- aryastark 13y ago> Most countries have intelligence apparatus of course, no reason the USA shouldn't have something fulfilling the NSA's role. This isn't terribly compelling to me. I've never understood why we don't question the validity of both the NSA and the CIA, post-Cold War. Especially when our government just invented an entire war paradigm based on vague threats and the "terrorist" label, which can be applied to anyone the government wants at will. The old paradigm of state secrets is, IMO, outdated and no longer useful. We should be marching towards total transparency of government. With the Internet and cellphones and cameras everywhere, governments can no longer hide in darkness. They have done very bad things in our name. We know better today, and shouldn't have to accept that this is just the way it is.
- jrwoodruff 13y agoAccording to Amash, the bill doesn't actually defund anything, but instead aims to end blanket surveillance of Americans by requiring that any records being requested via Section 215 are for 'a person under investigation.' See this FAQ from Amash's office: http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/072413AmashMythFact.pdf http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/072413Ama...
- forgotAgain 13y agoNone of the funds made available by this Act may be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) that does not include the following sentence: "This Order limits the collection of any tangible things (including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls) that may be authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject of an investigation described in section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861)." (pdf) - http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml2718131717181718.pdf http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/AMASH_018_xml27... As I read it the amendment forbids the money appropriated via the bill to be used to collect information on an individual not under investigation via a FISA court order. Fees for blanket orders, like that given to Verizon, cannot be paid with via this bill if the amendment is attached.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- caycep 13y agoNext thing you know, the power goes out and Skynet takes over...
- guscost 13y agoNot to play Big Brother's advocate, but even considering improvised explosive pressure cookers and underwear, I'd wager that 100 NSA snoops bring more of a tactical advantage to this "War on Terror" than 10,000 boots on the ground in Kunar province. Whether we're achieving anything by wading into that quagmire is another question entirely.