6 ms·

Feinstein wants mass domestic spying. Let's get her off intel committee.

65 points by bobsil1 13y ago

Today Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein came out against spying on foreign leaders but for mass spying on Americans. Since she was just reelected and there's no recall procedure, we're stuck with her-- but we could get her off the intel committee with just a Senate resolution.<p>Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian. I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before. Any advice?

jmcguckin 13y ago
Why don't we send her home - permanently. For a democrat, she's practically a law-n-order, big brother republican.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Because we'd have to wait til 2018.
  - samstave 13y ago
    How do we recall/impeach senators?
    - bobsil1 13y ago
      Apparently the only way to get rid of a US senator is if the Senate expels her. That hasn't succeeded since 1862, but 3 disgraced senators since '82 resigned in advance of being expelled. Basically only for major scandals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_...
  - dnaquin 13y ago
    good luck. the last time her election was close was 1994.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed. And I don't mean "wake up and see that the other guys are right" but just "wake up and realize the rules were changed and a different strategy might better get you what you want." If some democrats vote for Dem-who-isn't-Feinstein because they want to lock down the general for Dem-vs.-Dem, and some Democrats vote for DwiF because they agree more with DwiF than F, and enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F, things could look quite a bit different.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed. If she was running for, say, a House district focussed on San Francisco, the primary-system changes might make a difference. Running for a statewide seat, they really don't make a lot of difference -- it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary. > enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary." You'll have to actually make a case here, rather than simply asserting it. In a general election, F vs. DwiF, with Republicans breaking to DwiF, F has much less of a downhill battle than typical. "Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is." They stand a good chance of yet another Republican losing to Feinstein, if they all vote for the Republican. Depending on who DwiF is, that may or may not be preferred. It may very well be that there's no one with the right positioning in the field at present; there very well could be by 2014. None of this is to say that Feinstein is guaranteed (or even likely) to lose in 2014; simply that pointing out that the last races weren't close doesn't tell us much, and I think there is more of a chance then there has been. Of course, she's also 80, so it could plausibly even be that she retires before we find out.
- GameOfTrolls 13y ago
  implying there is any difference between republicans and democrats on important issues.
fleitz 13y ago
First settle on an objective that actually accomplishes what you want, I'm pretty sure your objective is not to get Diane Feinstein off the senate whatever committee but to stop mass surveillance. Second, find other candidates for which this issue trumps all other issues, example, image you could foresee the future, if there was someone running against Feinstein who if elected would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned would you still vote for them instead of Feinstein? What about if they would cause a permanent government shutdown over the issue resulting in the US defaulting on its debt? If the answer is no, then just give up now. Now that you know what you want, and are willing to do anything to achieve it, go start fundraising for people who oppose mass surveillance and will do ridiculous things like shutdown the government to get it.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Thanks for the advice. I agree, but it seems like this is easier to accomplish. Should we aim to stop a system which emanates from Obama on down, and which is already about to get a vote in the form of multiple bills restraining the NSA? Or should we remove someone who represents me, and isn't providing effective NSA oversight? The question is can we peel away enough Dem votes for the #2 in the open primary to be a more liberty-centric candidate rather than her last challenger, Republican Elizabeth Emken. Also even a failed primary challenge could pressure her to swerve left. I do agree that "Stop spying on us" is way more appealing than "Remove Feinstein from the Senate Intelligence Committee" :)
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Aim to get what you want, all politicians are equally horrible, some are doing what you want, instead of what you don't want. Stop thinking locally, start thinking globally, a few thousand dollars could turn a congress race in a close district in the middle of nowhere. You're allowed to donate to where ever and whoever you want, as much as you want, you're allowed to vote once where you live. Which do you think is a more effective strategy? Ideally what you want is a kind of sabre metrics for politics, it's about dollars for seats, not votes. I'd say my idea is easier to accomplish, Diane Feinstein isn't going anywhere, she has consistent 20% margins. Diane Feinstein will only be unseated by her death.
consultutah 13y ago
Don't worry about it. In 3 years there will be a republican president and she will magically be against domestic spying. ;)
- cgtyoder 13y ago
  Sounds like you have some ideas here - who's your money on? Cruz?
  - bobsil1 13y ago
    Cruz could win the nom but he'd never get elected.
    - a3n 13y ago
      Doesn't matter. Although every party wants the Presidency, I've been hearing from grass-grass roots Republicans and fellow travelers that they've figured out they don't need the Presidency, all they want is to get things done. It's easier with the Presidency, but if they can accomplish what they want without then great. The President is just a number on the scoreboard. It makes some things easier, but it isn't the goal. So the primaries and final campaign, for Republicans, becomes a soapbox rather than a serious effort. (And man it shows, doesn't it?)
      - fleitz 13y ago
        That's the thing, if you want to balance the budget all you have to do is prevent the government from borrowing more and it balances itself.
        bobsil1 13y ago
        No, you have to block spending, not the debt ceiling. Have the debate on the actual policy. The ceiling is a dupe var out of sync.
  - stfu 13y ago
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Since she was just reelected and there's no recall procedure, we're stuck with her-- but we could get her off the intel committee with just a Senate resolution. "Just a Senate resolution". So you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree. > Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian. Neither "pro-elite" nor "authoritarian" are likely viewed as a problem by other Senators. > I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before. It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways or resign than to get her off the intel committee (and I'm not saying either of the former options is easy.)
- bobsil1 13y ago
  > you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree. Who'd filibuster in her support? > It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_real...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Who'd filibuster in her support? Since the Senate doesn't require "active" filibusters in practice, just the absence of sufficient votes to invoke cloture, you'd just ask who'd use Senate procedure to keep her. > This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review: That's probably a response to the White House saying that reforms are necessary (which itself is probably a result of recent revelations about what the NSA monitoring of allied leaders and the ensuing diplomatic crisis), not to any public campaign.
    - bobsil1 13y ago
      On second thought, I wonder if it's because of instinctive sympathy for fellow elites. Else maybe it's just the diplomatic pressure from those elites.
generj 13y ago
Feinstein is now apparently opposed - the recent spying on world leaders never was passed through her for approval, and now wants a total review of all intelligence activities the NSA is performing. Not that I'd trust her, I feel that politics and our country would be better with her running a lemon-aid stand. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6631068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6631068
- bobsil1 13y ago
  A total review is just a punt, that's far from a reversal. And it's very telling re: her elite-centric POV that spying on foreign leaders put heat on her, but not mass spying on Americans.
  - generj 13y ago
    I agree. But it's something. She was adamantly opposed before this, actively preventing any members in her committee from answering basic questions about oversight. She steamrolled over any objections Udall might have had, for instance. The fact she acknowledges anything wrong with the NSA at all is a reversal for her. I'm hoping it will serve as flag for other Senators to vote for comprehensive reform legislation that's being introduced this week.
- SCAQTony 13y ago
  For her to change her silly point of view from supporting the program without question to suddenly wanting to review it says to me something happened today that we won't know about for about 2-weeks. Perhaps our allies are reassessing their relationship with us and who they want to do business with? I am not suggesting that Europe or Latin American is planning for a "Byzantine siege" or cold war but rather that we are not boyfriend/girlfriend anymore?
  - bobsil1 13y ago
    Seems pretty clear she only cares about fellow elites: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban-spying-on-heads-of-allied-states.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...
samstave 13y ago
Don't forget that she walks away from questioning when confronted with 4th amendment violations - she claims its legal, then states that they "don't have to put up with this" WRT being questioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI7nHIkD20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI7nHIkD20
jacoblyles 13y ago
It's worth remembering that both California senators Feinstein and Boxer were cosponsors of PIPA. They are no fans of tech. I'm waiting for a tech movement to realize that they are giving their money and votes to the enemy.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Boxer gets lots of entertainment money and some from tech, Feinstein more from military contractors. Boxer: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00006692&type=I&newmem=N http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201... Feinstein: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00007364&type=I http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Most Bay Area techies I know, where I have a sense how they voted, did not give their money or votes to Feinstein.
- tzs 13y ago
  There's more to tech than just internet companies. Tech opposition to PIPA was nowhere near as widespread among tech companies as it is made out to be here.
bobsil1 13y ago
There's a Facebook group to remove Feinstein: https://www.facebook.com/removefeinstein https://www.facebook.com/removefeinstein
throwaway9848 13y ago
Feel free to get the hell off Hacker News and take it to a political site.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Feel free to not upvote.
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    I didn't and I flagged it.
    - bobsil1 13y ago
      Submission guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Upvotes are evidence of hacker interest. TV news would not cover this, too inside-baseball. But I hear you, you're not interested.
      - throwaway9848 13y ago
        Well, with every bit of respect that is due, you're off the frontpage in almost no time at all in spite of 45 upvotes. That means that you were heavily flagged, even though most people didn't waste the time to tell you.
        bobsil1 13y ago
        Bimodal distribution :) Polarizing but plenty of comments. This issue sits at the intersection of big data and politics. It's fundamentally cheap storage and networking which enables this surveillance.
        gabeio 13y ago
        Most coders that I know rather not be involved in the idiotic system that is our democratic government and prefer not to bicker over stupid topics relating to who is going to try and mess up the government more or less so than a different candidate.
dllthomas 13y ago
I'm in favor of this, but I expect one of my senators wouldn't be no matter how hard I push...
palidanx 13y ago
Realistically, if a majority of Californians expressed outrage to her office https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me Then the staff would pay attention. Otherwise, I wouldn't count on much changing.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Phone call works better than email and takes just a minute. "I'm registered to vote in California, and I'm calling because I strongly oppose mass spying on Americans." I'll call tomorrow: (415) 393-0707 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/state-offices http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/state-offic...
duncan_bayne 13y ago
I've posted this before in connection with Feinstein: she is notorious for her anti-gun politics. Why should anyone be surprised that her disregard for human rights extends further than gun bans?
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Because many people do not see gun possession as a human right, rightly or wrongly.
  - duncan_bayne 13y ago
    That's true. But in the context of American politics, Feinstein's position on gun legislation has been blatantly unconstitutional. Why then the surprise when she extends that disregard for the constitution into other areas of politics?
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      A certain amount of it is people convincing themselves that the constitution says what they want it to say. But even if you take the position that Feinstein's disregard of the 2nd amendment is so clear and unequivocal that it must be obvious even to her, all that really shows is that "regard for the constitution" isn't a good model for her. That doesn't mean that anti-"regard for the constitution" is a good model; there could very well be other principles we would expect her to hold true to, which this could be in violation of, which would yield surprise.
- rdl 13y ago
  There are actually some people who are anti-gun but strongly pro specific other human rights (free speech usually, often religion, often various forms of legal defense). There are a lot of reasons for individuals to be anti-gun. There are people who are pro-gun and against many other forms of human rights. Humans aren't necessarily consistent in their positions. (There are people who have much much more contradictory positions than anti-gun but pro-speech; stuff like being pro-economic development and also pro rent control, etc.)
rdl 13y ago
Thank god we're only stuck with Feinstein for 5 more years; she's said she's not going to run for re-election (and is pretty old). Really the best chances of removing her from the intel committee are for her to suddenly decide due to family or health that she wants to leave Congress before her term is up. The most positive way for that to happen would be for a mid-term replacement who could take over the parts of her legacy she cares most about (probably NOT intel committee or anything to do with NSA...) shows up, and the governor and Sen Feinstein agree that this person would be a sufficiently good replacement to justify retiring early.
- bobsil1 13y ago
  > she's said she's not going to run for re-election Link? This Feinstein 2018 graphic seems to indicate she's running: http://www.diannefeinsteinforsenate.com/ http://www.diannefeinsteinforsenate.com/
  - rdl 13y ago
    I think I saw something on cal guns but can't find it now. There was another thing about her daughter retiring...to go into politics herself :(
spikels 13y ago
Dianne Feinstein last week: NSA’s mass collection necessary 'to protect the homeland from terrorism'.[1] Dianne Feinstein today: 'I am totally opposed' to NSA surveillance of US allies.[2] People talk a lot about economic class (1%/99%, rich/poor, etc) but there is another way to think about class: rulers versus ruled. Feinstein is part of the US ruling class and has been for decades. She now has more in common with foreign leaders than US citizens she supposedly represents. Once you understand her mindset her views make perfects sense. Unfortunately these paternalistic views are pervasive with our leaders so I doubt replacing her would help. Rockefeller, next most senior on the committee, is the forth generation of a ruling class family. And Wyden, apparently the only opponent of mass NSA surveillance, would simply be outvoted by the rest of the committee. And I doubt elections will turn on this issue. However I do get the sense that they are getting tired of spending so much time on this issue that it is interfering with their preferred agenda. So perhaps the continued hassle will eventually wear them down. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/20/nsa-call-records-program-sen-dianne-feinstein-editorials-debates/3112715/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/20/nsa-call-re... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillanc...
- molecule 13y ago
  > And Wyden, apparently the only opponent of mass NSA surveillance, would simply be outvoted by the rest of the committee. Senator Mark Udall is another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a longtime opponent of mass NSA surveillance. http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-... http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22271546/colorado-sen-mark-udall-wants-more-info-warrantless http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22271546/colorado-sen-mark-udal...
  - spikels 13y ago
    Thanks for the correction. I forgot about Udall. He has been very good on this issue.
bobsil1 13y ago
This is some major bullshit. Obama is ready to ban spying on allied leaders, but not on Americans: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban-spying-on-heads-of-allied-states.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...
cheese19 13y ago
She also rubber-stamped the 9/11 Commission's lame report. She's basically a pro-Choice gay-friendly Republican and, according to my friend who met all the Senators in the 1990s and dealt with many because of his job, not bright, which is unusual for a Senator. My friend said many dim candidates get elected to the House but not to the Senate. In conversation with my friend, she blew him away with her weak intelligence regardless of ideology. She and her hubby are uber rich and have more in common with limousines, fine dining and rubber-stamping that hemming in evil and rocking the boat.
threepipeproblm 13y ago
Feinstein might have paid very handsomely to be on that committee it seems -- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/21/Congress-Charges-Secret-Fee-to-Land-Top-Committee-Spots http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/21/Congress-...

65 points by bobsil1 13y ago

jmcguckin 13y ago

Why don't we send her home - permanently. For a democrat, she's practically a law-n-order, big brother republican.

bobsil1 13y ago
Because we'd have to wait til 2018.
- samstave 13y ago
  How do we recall/impeach senators?
  - bobsil1 13y ago
    Apparently the only way to get rid of a US senator is if the Senate expels her. That hasn't succeeded since 1862, but 3 disgraced senators since '82 resigned in advance of being expelled. Basically only for major scandals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_expelled_or_censured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators_...
- dnaquin 13y ago
  good luck. the last time her election was close was 1994.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed. And I don't mean "wake up and see that the other guys are right" but just "wake up and realize the rules were changed and a different strategy might better get you what you want." If some democrats vote for Dem-who-isn't-Feinstein because they want to lock down the general for Dem-vs.-Dem, and some Democrats vote for DwiF because they agree more with DwiF than F, and enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F, things could look quite a bit different.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Democrats vote for her because they prefer her to a Republican. However, we recently changed how our primary system works. If there were an anti-surveillance Democrat that ran in the primary, and if enough people were to wake up, things would look very different - a lot of people I talked to last go 'round didn't realize our primary system had changed. If she was running for, say, a House district focussed on San Francisco, the primary-system changes might make a difference. Running for a statewide seat, they really don't make a lot of difference -- it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary. > enough Republicans vote for DwiF because good god please anyone but F Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "it would be just as easy for a Democrat with more appeal to the left to unseat her in the old-style partisan primary than in California's non-partisan primary." You'll have to actually make a case here, rather than simply asserting it. In a general election, F vs. DwiF, with Republicans breaking to DwiF, F has much less of a downhill battle than typical. "Strategically voting Republicans would be taking a pretty big risk of doing that, because that means they stand a good chance of ending up with a general electing of DwiF vs. F, and the realistic anti-surveillance Democratic candidates tend to be more opposed to Republican positions in every other area than Feinstein is." They stand a good chance of yet another Republican losing to Feinstein, if they all vote for the Republican. Depending on who DwiF is, that may or may not be preferred. It may very well be that there's no one with the right positioning in the field at present; there very well could be by 2014. None of this is to say that Feinstein is guaranteed (or even likely) to lose in 2014; simply that pointing out that the last races weren't close doesn't tell us much, and I think there is more of a chance then there has been. Of course, she's also 80, so it could plausibly even be that she retires before we find out.
GameOfTrolls 13y ago
implying there is any difference between republicans and democrats on important issues.

fleitz 13y ago

First settle on an objective that actually accomplishes what you want, I'm pretty sure your objective is not to get Diane Feinstein off the senate whatever committee but to stop mass surveillance. Second, find other candidates for which this issue trumps all other issues, example, image you could foresee the future, if there was someone running against Feinstein who if elected would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned would you still vote for them instead of Feinstein? What about if they would cause a permanent government shutdown over the issue resulting in the US defaulting on its debt? If the answer is no, then just give up now. Now that you know what you want, and are willing to do anything to achieve it, go start fundraising for people who oppose mass surveillance and will do ridiculous things like shutdown the government to get it.

bobsil1 13y ago
Thanks for the advice. I agree, but it seems like this is easier to accomplish. Should we aim to stop a system which emanates from Obama on down, and which is already about to get a vote in the form of multiple bills restraining the NSA? Or should we remove someone who represents me, and isn't providing effective NSA oversight? The question is can we peel away enough Dem votes for the #2 in the open primary to be a more liberty-centric candidate rather than her last challenger, Republican Elizabeth Emken. Also even a failed primary challenge could pressure her to swerve left. I do agree that "Stop spying on us" is way more appealing than "Remove Feinstein from the Senate Intelligence Committee" :)
- fleitz 13y ago
  Aim to get what you want, all politicians are equally horrible, some are doing what you want, instead of what you don't want. Stop thinking locally, start thinking globally, a few thousand dollars could turn a congress race in a close district in the middle of nowhere. You're allowed to donate to where ever and whoever you want, as much as you want, you're allowed to vote once where you live. Which do you think is a more effective strategy? Ideally what you want is a kind of sabre metrics for politics, it's about dollars for seats, not votes. I'd say my idea is easier to accomplish, Diane Feinstein isn't going anywhere, she has consistent 20% margins. Diane Feinstein will only be unseated by her death.

consultutah 13y ago

Don't worry about it. In 3 years there will be a republican president and she will magically be against domestic spying. ;)

cgtyoder 13y ago
Sounds like you have some ideas here - who's your money on? Cruz?
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Cruz could win the nom but he'd never get elected.
  - a3n 13y ago
    Doesn't matter. Although every party wants the Presidency, I've been hearing from grass-grass roots Republicans and fellow travelers that they've figured out they don't need the Presidency, all they want is to get things done. It's easier with the Presidency, but if they can accomplish what they want without then great. The President is just a number on the scoreboard. It makes some things easier, but it isn't the goal. So the primaries and final campaign, for Republicans, becomes a soapbox rather than a serious effort. (And man it shows, doesn't it?)
    - fleitz 13y ago
      That's the thing, if you want to balance the budget all you have to do is prevent the government from borrowing more and it balances itself.
      - bobsil1 13y ago
        No, you have to block spending, not the debt ceiling. Have the debate on the actual policy. The ceiling is a dupe var out of sync.
- stfu 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Since she was just reelected and there's no recall procedure, we're stuck with her-- but we could get her off the intel committee with just a Senate resolution. "Just a Senate resolution". So you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree. > Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian. Neither "pro-elite" nor "authoritarian" are likely viewed as a problem by other Senators. > I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before. It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways or resign than to get her off the intel committee (and I'm not saying either of the former options is easy.)

bobsil1 13y ago
> you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree. Who'd filibuster in her support? > It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_really_screwed_now_nsas_best_friend_just_shivved_the_spies http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/28/were_real...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Who'd filibuster in her support? Since the Senate doesn't require "active" filibusters in practice, just the absence of sufficient votes to invoke cloture, you'd just ask who'd use Senate procedure to keep her. > This campaign would be a form of pressure. She's starting to feel a little heat, today she called for a full NSA review: That's probably a response to the White House saying that reforms are necessary (which itself is probably a result of recent revelations about what the NSA monitoring of allied leaders and the ensuing diplomatic crisis), not to any public campaign.
  - bobsil1 13y ago
    On second thought, I wonder if it's because of instinctive sympathy for fellow elites. Else maybe it's just the diplomatic pressure from those elites.

generj 13y ago

Feinstein is now apparently opposed - the recent spying on world leaders never was passed through her for approval, and now wants a total review of all intelligence activities the NSA is performing. Not that I'd trust her, I feel that politics and our country would be better with her running a lemon-aid stand. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6631068 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6631068

bobsil1 13y ago
A total review is just a punt, that's far from a reversal. And it's very telling re: her elite-centric POV that spying on foreign leaders put heat on her, but not mass spying on Americans.
- generj 13y ago
  I agree. But it's something. She was adamantly opposed before this, actively preventing any members in her committee from answering basic questions about oversight. She steamrolled over any objections Udall might have had, for instance. The fact she acknowledges anything wrong with the NSA at all is a reversal for her. I'm hoping it will serve as flag for other Senators to vote for comprehensive reform legislation that's being introduced this week.
SCAQTony 13y ago
For her to change her silly point of view from supporting the program without question to suddenly wanting to review it says to me something happened today that we won't know about for about 2-weeks. Perhaps our allies are reassessing their relationship with us and who they want to do business with? I am not suggesting that Europe or Latin American is planning for a "Byzantine siege" or cold war but rather that we are not boyfriend/girlfriend anymore?
- bobsil1 13y ago
  Seems pretty clear she only cares about fellow elites: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban-spying-on-heads-of-allied-states.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...

samstave 13y ago

Don't forget that she walks away from questioning when confronted with 4th amendment violations - she claims its legal, then states that they "don't have to put up with this" WRT being questioned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI7nHIkD20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKI7nHIkD20

jacoblyles 13y ago

It's worth remembering that both California senators Feinstein and Boxer were cosponsors of PIPA. They are no fans of tech. I'm waiting for a tech movement to realize that they are giving their money and votes to the enemy.

bobsil1 13y ago
Boxer gets lots of entertainment money and some from tech, Feinstein more from military contractors. Boxer: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00006692&type=I&newmem=N http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201... Feinstein: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00007364&type=I http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...
dllthomas 13y ago
Most Bay Area techies I know, where I have a sense how they voted, did not give their money or votes to Feinstein.
tzs 13y ago
There's more to tech than just internet companies. Tech opposition to PIPA was nowhere near as widespread among tech companies as it is made out to be here.

bobsil1 13y ago

There's a Facebook group to remove Feinstein: https://www.facebook.com/removefeinstein https://www.facebook.com/removefeinstein

throwaway9848 13y ago

Feel free to get the hell off Hacker News and take it to a political site.

bobsil1 13y ago
Feel free to not upvote.
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  I didn't and I flagged it.
  - bobsil1 13y ago
    Submission guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Upvotes are evidence of hacker interest. TV news would not cover this, too inside-baseball. But I hear you, you're not interested.
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      Well, with every bit of respect that is due, you're off the frontpage in almost no time at all in spite of 45 upvotes. That means that you were heavily flagged, even though most people didn't waste the time to tell you.
      - bobsil1 13y ago
        Bimodal distribution :) Polarizing but plenty of comments. This issue sits at the intersection of big data and politics. It's fundamentally cheap storage and networking which enables this surveillance.
        gabeio 13y ago
        Most coders that I know rather not be involved in the idiotic system that is our democratic government and prefer not to bicker over stupid topics relating to who is going to try and mess up the government more or less so than a different candidate.

dllthomas 13y ago

I'm in favor of this, but I expect one of my senators wouldn't be no matter how hard I push...

palidanx 13y ago

Realistically, if a majority of Californians expressed outrage to her office https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me Then the staff would pay attention. Otherwise, I wouldn't count on much changing.

bobsil1 13y ago
Phone call works better than email and takes just a minute. "I'm registered to vote in California, and I'm calling because I strongly oppose mass spying on Americans." I'll call tomorrow: (415) 393-0707 http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/state-offices http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/state-offic...

duncan_bayne 13y ago

I've posted this before in connection with Feinstein: she is notorious for her anti-gun politics. Why should anyone be surprised that her disregard for human rights extends further than gun bans?

dllthomas 13y ago
Because many people do not see gun possession as a human right, rightly or wrongly.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  That's true. But in the context of American politics, Feinstein's position on gun legislation has been blatantly unconstitutional. Why then the surprise when she extends that disregard for the constitution into other areas of politics?
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    A certain amount of it is people convincing themselves that the constitution says what they want it to say. But even if you take the position that Feinstein's disregard of the 2nd amendment is so clear and unequivocal that it must be obvious even to her, all that really shows is that "regard for the constitution" isn't a good model for her. That doesn't mean that anti-"regard for the constitution" is a good model; there could very well be other principles we would expect her to hold true to, which this could be in violation of, which would yield surprise.
rdl 13y ago
There are actually some people who are anti-gun but strongly pro specific other human rights (free speech usually, often religion, often various forms of legal defense). There are a lot of reasons for individuals to be anti-gun. There are people who are pro-gun and against many other forms of human rights. Humans aren't necessarily consistent in their positions. (There are people who have much much more contradictory positions than anti-gun but pro-speech; stuff like being pro-economic development and also pro rent control, etc.)

rdl 13y ago

Thank god we're only stuck with Feinstein for 5 more years; she's said she's not going to run for re-election (and is pretty old). Really the best chances of removing her from the intel committee are for her to suddenly decide due to family or health that she wants to leave Congress before her term is up. The most positive way for that to happen would be for a mid-term replacement who could take over the parts of her legacy she cares most about (probably NOT intel committee or anything to do with NSA...) shows up, and the governor and Sen Feinstein agree that this person would be a sufficiently good replacement to justify retiring early.

bobsil1 13y ago
> she's said she's not going to run for re-election Link? This Feinstein 2018 graphic seems to indicate she's running: http://www.diannefeinsteinforsenate.com/ http://www.diannefeinsteinforsenate.com/
- rdl 13y ago
  I think I saw something on cal guns but can't find it now. There was another thing about her daughter retiring...to go into politics herself :(

spikels 13y ago

Dianne Feinstein last week: NSA’s mass collection necessary 'to protect the homeland from terrorism'.[1] Dianne Feinstein today: 'I am totally opposed' to NSA surveillance of US allies.[2] People talk a lot about economic class (1%/99%, rich/poor, etc) but there is another way to think about class: rulers versus ruled. Feinstein is part of the US ruling class and has been for decades. She now has more in common with foreign leaders than US citizens she supposedly represents. Once you understand her mindset her views make perfects sense. Unfortunately these paternalistic views are pervasive with our leaders so I doubt replacing her would help. Rockefeller, next most senior on the committee, is the forth generation of a ruling class family. And Wyden, apparently the only opponent of mass NSA surveillance, would simply be outvoted by the rest of the committee. And I doubt elections will turn on this issue. However I do get the sense that they are getting tired of spending so much time on this issue that it is interfering with their preferred agenda. So perhaps the continued hassle will eventually wear them down. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/20/nsa-call-records-program-sen-dianne-feinstein-editorials-debates/3112715/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/20/nsa-call-re... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillanc...

molecule 13y ago
> And Wyden, apparently the only opponent of mass NSA surveillance, would simply be outvoted by the rest of the committee. Senator Mark Udall is another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a longtime opponent of mass NSA surveillance. http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statement-on-reports-of-compliance-violations-made-under-nsa-collection-programs http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-... http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22271546/colorado-sen-mark-udall-wants-more-info-warrantless http://www.denverpost.com/ci_22271546/colorado-sen-mark-udal...
- spikels 13y ago
  Thanks for the correction. I forgot about Udall. He has been very good on this issue.

bobsil1 13y ago

This is some major bullshit. Obama is ready to ban spying on allied leaders, but not on Americans: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban-spying-on-heads-of-allied-states.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/europe/obama-may-ban...

cheese19 13y ago

She also rubber-stamped the 9/11 Commission's lame report. She's basically a pro-Choice gay-friendly Republican and, according to my friend who met all the Senators in the 1990s and dealt with many because of his job, not bright, which is unusual for a Senator. My friend said many dim candidates get elected to the House but not to the Senate. In conversation with my friend, she blew him away with her weak intelligence regardless of ideology. She and her hubby are uber rich and have more in common with limousines, fine dining and rubber-stamping that hemming in evil and rocking the boat.

threepipeproblm 13y ago

Feinstein might have paid very handsomely to be on that committee it seems -- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/21/Congress-Charges-Secret-Fee-to-Land-Top-Committee-Spots http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/21/Congress-...