NSA spying bill stalls in Senate vote

[Blue_Tires]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance a bill that would stop the National Security Agency from collecting the phone records of millions of Americans who are not suspected of any crime.

Senators voted 58-42 in favor of a motion to allow the USA Freedom Act to come to an up or down vote in the Senate. The motion required 60 votes to pass. The bill is effectively dead for this year and is unlikely to be revived when the new Congress convenes in January. However, the controversial NSA program will most likely be debated again next year as Congress decides whether to renew sections of the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law that are set to expire in June.

The Freedom Act would have brought an end to the NSA's mass collection of phone data more than a year after the program was revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations outraged both liberal and conservative lawmakers, who decried the NSA's "big brother" snooping on innocent Americans. But some analysts said that anger has lessened as terrorist threats against the USA by the Islamic State and other extremist groups have gained attention.

"In the past five or six months, we have witnessed heightened U.S. national security concerns with terrorist threats, geopolitical problems, and cybersecurity challenges from Russia and China," said David Fidler, professor of law at Indiana University's Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research. "Addressing these concerns requires strong American intelligence and surveillance capabilities — creating the potential for stronger opposition to the Snowden-inspired reforms today than existed only a few months ago."


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/18/leahy-usa-freedom-act-nsa-spying/19222895/

---

So how's that "Stand with Rand" thing working out for y'all? Funny how for all the big talk, spotlight whoring and bluster, Sen. Paul is the usual gutless wonder when the moment of truth arrives...

[R.Quinn]

1. Actually...

This bill was WEAK and riddled with problems. It would have extended the sunset clause of the PATRIOT Act through December of 2017, the very same legislation under which the NSA has justified mass spying. Not good at all. Terrible, in fact. This bill needed to be put down, and put down fast.

[Blue_Tires]

2. Oh, I'm sure Paul will get his perfect, untouched bill through congress next year

with no problems whatsoever

[R.Quinn]

3. Come on now. That's not the point. This is not a partisan issue.

Eliminating the NSA does us no good if the PATRIOT Act is still there to create another monster to take its place. If the bill was really about restoring our privacy, then why did it extend the PATRIOT Act? Riddle me that.

[Blue_Tires]

5. If Paul felt that strongly about it

he should have fought harder for it while the bill was being crafted...Even if that bill only made things 2% better instead of 10%, I don't see how someone who is a self-styled defender of civil liberties could vote against it, unless there was demonstrable proof that the bill would make things markedly WORSE...Unless, of course, Rand Paul is truly the overhyped fraud I pegged him as from day one...

And if this didn't get through, I promise you something that much stronger would get through next year...

I get it...Paul (supposedly) made a stand on principle and voted no...But now he has to reconcile the fact that he has jack shit to show for his efforts, and no one knows if he'll ever get as good a chance as this again...

[Psephos]

12. Ahh, another sheep who wanted the Patriot Act extended.

Which is what the bill would have done.

baa-aaaa-aaaaah

Clue: if Feinstein backed it, it was stuffed with crafty gifts for her MIC buddies and nasty surprises for us.

But sure, make it all about Rand Paul or some other red team/blue team bullshit so we do not have to pay attention to the actual issue, which is DO NOT FUCKING EXTEND THE PATRIOT ACT.

[Blue_Tires]

16. So nothing changes...Got it

EDIT: Fuck it...On to the ignore list you go, tough guy...I don't have enough hours in my day and you are not worth it

[Psephos]

21. I feel honored. ;-) n/t

[billhicks76]

13. You're Counterproductive

All you care about is the man and not the policy. It's ok when Obama commits grave rights violations but bad when Bush does. That's so foolish. My understanding is the bill sucks...period. And if the don't get a bill passed the spying provisions expire and they can't do anything. Am I wrong? If I am I'll admit it. If I'm not then you look not so good.

[Blue_Tires]

17. I care about hypocrisy

If Obama and Bush can get called out for it, then I can call out Paul for it

If you don't believe me, then go see what people on twitter are saying about it...

You're telling me there was nothing decent whatsoever in this bill?
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/18/7241987/usa-freedom-senate-vote

[billhicks76]

18. No Im Asking Politely

There are a few watered down good things. Didn't Snowden call it a whitewash? It's better if it just expires. But I'm sure Rethuglicans will then call for a vote in July to extend and a new bill will be up then but it could be worse or better. But Obama can veto along with the extension. He's obviously part of the problem and Rand could be playing politics to curry favor with Senate Repubs.

[Blue_Tires]

20. FWIW, Edward Snowden never said he wanted to endorse candidates or

influence policy...All he ever said he wanted was a public debate, right? All he said he wanted was for the people to have a chance to decide, right?

Well that was a big chance the other night...

[billhicks76]

23. Yes That's Right

He also said this bill was so weak it could have the opposite effect and don't support it.

[Blue_Tires]

26. And that's his perrogative...

His people made this an all-or-nothing proposition (and we all know how often *those* pass through congress), and they got nothing...They should be satisfied and accept it...

[billhicks76]

28. We Also Know About Watered Down Bills

They end up giving protection to crimes instead. I recall Bill Clintons Omnibus Crime Bill and the Salvage Rider. Quit trying to pay yourself on the back and maybe fight for real results. There is a reason only 1/3 of citizens voted.

[Blue_Tires]

22. Oh, yeah did I mention this bill was endorsed

by the ACLU and EFF?

Are they a bunch of Surveillance State Shills as well?

[R.Quinn]

25. If the bill is bad, doesn't matter who endorses it.

Fact of the matter is, any extension of the PATRIOT Act is an absolutely horrific thing. It wouldn't be worth whatever else the bill might have offered.

The bill was truly a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Blue_Tires]

27. Fine...So next year when the Patriot Act quietly gets renewed anyway

what have you really gained?? That's the major pitfall of absolutism in congress, since there is almost always a work-around...

Or are you naive enough to think that isn't going to happen?

[Android3.14]

4. Dear Senator, is this defending the Constitution?

That is the question.

[pampango]

6. " Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a sweeping overhaul of the once-secret National Security

Agency program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans who supported the measure failed to secure the 60 votes they needed to take up the legislation. The vote was 58 to 42 for consideration.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, worked hard to defeat the bill, which had the support of the Obama administration and a coalition of technology companies, including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

But Tuesday’s vote only put off a debate over security and personal liberties until next year. While a Republican-controlled Senate is less likely to go along with the kinds of reforms that were in the bill, which sponsors had named the U.S.A. Freedom Act, the debate could further expose rifts between the party’s interventionist and more libertarian-leaning wings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/us/nsa-phone-records.html?_r=0

[JDPriestly]

7. I predict that there will be a huge scandal, some mix-up, some reports leaked, and the American

people will become so disgusted that they demand some changes in the program.

It's just a matter of human nature -- that tends to test things to the limits and then get pushed back -- and time.

[elias49]

10. Sure. Maybe next year. Or next decade.

Eventually, something will happen. And I can't tell you how warm and fuzzy that makes me feel.

[davidn3600]

8. Government never gives up power

They will never effectively clip the wings of the NSA.

[Reter]

9. Not really his fault

Besides Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, the rest of the neo-cons hate him.

[TomCADem]

11. Wait? I Thought Republicans Were For Smaller, Restrained Government?

They express shock and surprise over surveillance, but then kill a bill that would limit such surveillance.

[billhicks76]

14. They are Hypocrites But

Our bigger problem is that Obama is all on board with them much like he can breathe a sigh of relief they took the Senate and the Torture Report will be blocked. Obama promised to release the redacted 28 pages of the 911 report about Saudi involvement. He went silent inexplicably after which is sad because that part would ruin the BUSH name forever and mean no Jeb in 2016. What's the explanation for Obamas flip flops? I don't believe the man to be a liar. I feel he is being threatened.

[Lodestar]

15. Why it's irrelevant

THE IRRELEVANCE OF THE U.S. CONGRESS
IN STOPPING NSA MASS SURVEILLANCE:
WHAT MATTERS INSTEAD

BY GLENN GREENWALD

(excerpt)

....So the pro-NSA Republican Senators were actually arguing that if the NSA were no longer allowed
to bulk-collect the communication records of Americans inside the U.S., then ISIS would kill you
and your kids. But because they were speaking in an empty chamber and only to their warped and
insulated D.C. circles and sycophantic aides, there was nobody there to cackle contemptuously or
tell them how self-evidently moronic it all was. So they kept their Serious Faces on like they were
doing The Nation’s Serious Business, even though what was coming out of their mouths sounded
like the demented ramblings of a paranoid End is Nigh cult.

The boredom of this spectacle was simply due to the fact that this has been seen so many times
before – in fact, every time in the post-9/11 era that the U.S. Congress pretends publicly to debate
some kind of foreign policy or civil liberties bill. Just enough members stand up to scream “9/11?
and “terrorism” over and over until the bill vesting new powers is passed or the bill protecting civil
liberties is defeated.

Eight years ago, when this tawdry ritual was still a bit surprising to me, I live-blogged the 2006
debate over passage of the Military Commissions Act, which, with bipartisan support, literally
abolished habeas corpus rights established by the Magna Carta by sanctioning detention without
charges or trial (my favorite episode there was when GOP Sen. Arlen Specter warned that “what the
bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some nine hundred years,” and he thereafter voted in favor
of its enactment). In my state of naive disbelief, as one Senator after the next thundered about the
“message we are sending” to “the terrorists,” I wrote: “The quality of the ‘debate’ on the Senate
floor is so shockingly (though appropriately) low and devoid of substance that it is hard to watch.”
So watching last night’s Senate debate was like watching a repeat of some hideously shallow TV
show. The only new aspect was that the aging Al Qaeda villain has been rather ruthlessly replaced
by the show’s producers with the younger, sleeker ISIS model. Showing no gratitude at all for the
years of value it provided these Senators, they ignored the veteran terror group almost completely
in favor of its new replacement. And they proceeded to save a domestic surveillance program clearly
unpopular among those they pretend to represent.

...//...

All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most important point from all of this: the last place one
should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S. Government is . . . the U.S. Government.
Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and that’s
particularly true of emp

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/11/19/irrelevance-u-s-congress-stopping-nsas-mass-surveillance/

[elias49]

19. Thanks for this. Let the Greenwald haters appear!

Most of the loudest here hate GG. I wish some of those haters would tell me what they don't like about the above. Does it mean he's a - gasp - Libertarian??? Does it mean he's irrelevant?
Is he a scum-sucking dog?
I think what GG said here is appropriate and right on point.
This would be a good OP of its own.

[ucrdem]

24. Turns out Randy doesn't actually want to close Gitmo, either

once you get down to cases:

Wednesday, April 17, 2013:

“I don’t know that I have a great answer, to tell you the truth,” said the Kentucky Republican, later adding, “I have not come down on the position of closing Guantanamo Bay.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/17/paul-father-and-son-differ-on-issue-of-closing-gua/?page=all

Fancy that.

[hughee99]

29. Don't worry, the president can fix this with an Executive Order. n/t