Senate leadership pushing a surveillance bill as Americans focused on Covid-19(politico.com)
politico.com
Senate leadership pushing a surveillance bill as Americans focused on Covid-19
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/senate-short-term-extension-spy-programs-132401
127 comments
Good news: due to strong pushback, they've dropped this proposal, and just did a straightforward short-term extension -- https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/16/senate-short-term-e...
Ok, we've changed the URL to that from https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/16/senate-leaders....
The article neglects to mention that the bill already passed the democratic house without much debate.
The President of the United States wants the Senate bill to remove powers given to the executive branch, because he's convinced they were used against him. Yes, that's right, the president of the United States wants the Senate to amend the bill to reduce the power of the executive branch.
In other words, by characterizing this bill as something Senate republicans are trying to do to increase the power of the federal government, the article neglects to mention that (a) the bill has already passed the Democrat-led house (sponsored by Adam Schiff, BTW) and (b) that the head of the Republican party, the POTUS, wants more restrictions on the powers they're giving to him. That would certainly change the headline, but wouldn't satisfy people's republican bashing appetite.
https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2020-03-16/u...
The President of the United States wants the Senate bill to remove powers given to the executive branch, because he's convinced they were used against him. Yes, that's right, the president of the United States wants the Senate to amend the bill to reduce the power of the executive branch.
In other words, by characterizing this bill as something Senate republicans are trying to do to increase the power of the federal government, the article neglects to mention that (a) the bill has already passed the Democrat-led house (sponsored by Adam Schiff, BTW) and (b) that the head of the Republican party, the POTUS, wants more restrictions on the powers they're giving to him. That would certainly change the headline, but wouldn't satisfy people's republican bashing appetite.
https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2020-03-16/u...
I think you're reading far too much bias into this. The only individual being attacked here is McConnell and the primary target of criticism here is "the government". The article specifically mentions there are opponents on both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate, and their dissent has been ignored while it's continuing to be pushed through. It also passed 278-136 [1] in the House with a nearly even allocation of D & R for both yays and nays.
Protecting (or eroding) privacy has always been a bipartisan issue.
[1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll098.xml
Protecting (or eroding) privacy has always been a bipartisan issue.
[1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll098.xml
Indeed. What's more shocking is that the president of the united states (the one to whom the powers are being given) wants there to be more regulation of this power to prevent abuses, but that the law does not include them.
But this presidency also believes in the unitary executive theory of executive power. From that perspective, this bill wouldn't limit the powers of the president to direct domestic surveillance however he sees fit, it would only limit the types of surveillance activities that as a practical matter are directed in the first instance by the DoJ as part of their delegated powers for general law enforcement activities and restrained by the FISA court process.
In other words, all it would do is prevent the type of activities that Trump finds personally threatening, without restraining him at all.
Of course, all of this assumes that Trump actually thinks strategically and analytically. But all the evidence is to the contrary. Even conservative, pro-Trump supporters describe him euphemistically as a "transactional" president.
In other words, all it would do is prevent the type of activities that Trump finds personally threatening, without restraining him at all.
Of course, all of this assumes that Trump actually thinks strategically and analytically. But all the evidence is to the contrary. Even conservative, pro-Trump supporters describe him euphemistically as a "transactional" president.
> In other words, all it would do is prevent the type of activities that Trump finds personally threatening, without restraining him at all.
In other words, the president wants a check on the amount of power the executive branch can exercise. That is all I said. The sorts of activities it would prevent is irrelevant. If the set of activities allowed in the president's desired bill is a subset of those allowed previously, my statement would be true.
In other words, the president wants a check on the amount of power the executive branch can exercise. That is all I said. The sorts of activities it would prevent is irrelevant. If the set of activities allowed in the president's desired bill is a subset of those allowed previously, my statement would be true.
In your heart of hearts, do you think Donald Trump has ever uttered the words "executive branch"? Honest question.
"The Act passed the House late last week, but with significant bipartisan opposition from civil-liberties champions in Congress and from leading privacy, racial-justice and constitutional-rights groups, including my group Free Press Action."
This is the second paragraph of the article.
This is the second paragraph of the article.
So that negates the very clear spin of the headline, sub-headline, and first paragraph? They're burying the lede intentionally to push their own warped narrative of what's actually happening.
>In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives called for meaningful reforms to federal spying powers, including Section 215. Democrats and Republicans who voted against the bill—and even some who voted for it—joined together to say that this legislation didn’t do enough to protect everyone’s privacy rights
>Yet in the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell has prevented Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and others...
And "The act passed the house..." is the second sentence of the article.
Or how about last week's headline
>152 House Democrats Join GOP to Reauthorize 'Abusive Government Surveillance Powers
What are your expectations exactly?
>Yet in the Senate, Majority Leader McConnell has prevented Sens. Steve Daines (R-MT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and others...
And "The act passed the house..." is the second sentence of the article.
Or how about last week's headline
>152 House Democrats Join GOP to Reauthorize 'Abusive Government Surveillance Powers
What are your expectations exactly?
Appeals to reading comprehension are pointless on HN, why are you wasting your time? Nobody expects an intelligent dialogue about journalism from a site that historically leans towards the tech crowd. What's your next trick, pointing out that every professional journalist knows >90% of readers stop after the headline and strategically leverage that to lie?
Correct, but it still passed a chamber of the legislature headed by the opposition party. Hell, it was sponsored by a legislator that is so convinced the current head of state is a criminal that he led an impeachment investigation against him. It indicates a severe lack of integrity when one sponsors a bill meant to give rather extreme authoritarian powers to someone you have decided is a criminal.
> It indicates a severe lack of integrity when one sponsors a bill meant to give rather extreme authoritarian powers to someone you have decided is a criminal.
Not especially. Their primary goal is government power, only then followed by fighting over who gets to wield it.
Not especially. Their primary goal is government power, only then followed by fighting over who gets to wield it.
> sponsored by Adam Schiff
I'd be against any surveillance bill sponsored by Mr. "Russia is out to get us" Schiff, before even reading it.
It's interesting how Congress has in many ways come full circle since the 1950s.
I'd be against any surveillance bill sponsored by Mr. "Russia is out to get us" Schiff, before even reading it.
It's interesting how Congress has in many ways come full circle since the 1950s.
This highlights the crazy, partisan nature of the news these days. You have to really read carefully (and probably from several sources) to really understand which way is up.
I shared your first thought-- why is this article all about the wicked Republican Senate, with no mention of the previous hurdle of the Democrat House? Shameful.
I shared your first thought-- why is this article all about the wicked Republican Senate, with no mention of the previous hurdle of the Democrat House? Shameful.
More indication that the Democrats and Republicans are just a face/heel arrangement.
The two party system in the US behaves an awful lot like good-cop/bad-cop to me.
There's a good cop?
Depends which side you're on. If you're a Democrat, Dems are the 'adults in the room.' Reps are psychomaniacs tearing it all down.
If you are a Republican, Reps are the party of the real Americans, not the elitists trying to prevent you from succeeding. Democrats are a bunch of stuck up snobs that are too book smart to know how to effectively run a government.
Pick a side.
If you are a Republican, Reps are the party of the real Americans, not the elitists trying to prevent you from succeeding. Democrats are a bunch of stuck up snobs that are too book smart to know how to effectively run a government.
Pick a side.
There are more US citizens who are neither of the two than any one of them, if memory serves me right.
As for me - I'd say that Dems are the elitists trying to prevent the masses from getting what they need, and the GOP are their maniac friends tearing things down.
As for me - I'd say that Dems are the elitists trying to prevent the masses from getting what they need, and the GOP are their maniac friends tearing things down.
I am pretty sure the American political party system could be consider to be Bad-Cop / Nietzschean-Cop.
I think so, on the surface, the democratic party seems to fit pretty well with the good cop as described by [0].
But the whole thing is a farce, neither is actually acting genuinely in the interests of the subject. That's the point.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop
But the whole thing is a farce, neither is actually acting genuinely in the interests of the subject. That's the point.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop
It would be funny, if that was not true. Still, for once his very singular approach to issues may be a net benefit to the population at large ( somewhat watered down bill instead full blown one ).
I will admit that I forgot all about it myself. This week is bananas. The distraction is real.
I will admit that I forgot all about it myself. This week is bananas. The distraction is real.
>The article neglects to mention that the bill already passed the democratic house without much debate.
Some important context here, 126 Republicans voted for that bill, and 75 Democrats voted against the bill.
Some important context here, 126 Republicans voted for that bill, and 75 Democrats voted against the bill.
Still, Nancy Pelosi, the head of the democratic party, could have not called a vote on the bill. Totally her discretion.
[deleted]
Spot on.
thanks for sharing that insight, I hate articles that only report their biased point of view and hide other relevant information.
This does seem similar to many bad laws that were passed after 9/11, usually with support of both parties.
Even decades after 9/11 many of those bad laws are still with us. Shockingly, the very broad authorization of military force from 2001 is still the law of the land:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
It's important to be diligent and not get distracted by a crisis. All emergency measures should have sunset clauses.
Even decades after 9/11 many of those bad laws are still with us. Shockingly, the very broad authorization of military force from 2001 is still the law of the land:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
It's important to be diligent and not get distracted by a crisis. All emergency measures should have sunset clauses.
>All emergency measures should have sunset clauses.
I wonder if all laws should have sunset clauses. Even with as simple as murder there are needs for the legislature to discuss if the penalty is appropriate based on current science of rehabilitation and the edge cases like vehicular homicide handled in the correct fashion.
I wonder if all laws should have sunset clauses. Even with as simple as murder there are needs for the legislature to discuss if the penalty is appropriate based on current science of rehabilitation and the edge cases like vehicular homicide handled in the correct fashion.
I would say that’s already functionally the case with the debt ceiling, and that’s a catastrophe every time it comes up.
I guess the problem with with riders and such. If someone adds their own pork to the keep murder illegal bill, it could cause issues. But I think that is a case of pork being the problem, as it also causes issues with many other sorts of bills.
Not really, a sunset clause on the debt ceiling would mean after sunset there would be no ceiling, as it is a completely artificial invention anyway. Most countries don't have a debt ceiling.
It’s similar to the proposal in that not passing a replacement bill (“raise the debt ceiling” : “murder is illegal”) would have very obviously negative results.
The debt ceiling is a functional sunset clause on the ability of the US government to pay its bills.
The debt ceiling is a functional sunset clause on the ability of the US government to pay its bills.
To be fair, they are pretty good about adding sunset clauses to these surveillance laws. This will be the fourth renewal of the Patriot Act after it expired yesterday.
[deleted]
Here is the email I am sending my Senators. Feel free to copy and modify for your own use.
Hello Senator _________.
I'm writing you today to ask you to oppose the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020. I have written in the past to ask you to oppose other extraordinary security measures that have been maintained since the aftermath of Sept. 11 2001. I repeatedly write and request this because it is my opinion that these programs are contrary to the 4th amendment protections that are unalienable to all Americans. And these programs are administered in secret. Any program maintained in secret runs the risk of operating contrary to the public interest. This is because a citizen's most significant recourse is to vote for or against representatives who authorize government action. Any secret government action is therefore unable to be valued by a voter and therefor operates entirely outside public opinion.
I understand that some programs need to be shielded from public opinion for security reasons. But that need for security must be weighed against the need for a republican form of government to be transparent with its citizens. With each passing year that the public entrusts that government with secrecy the burden to justify it should become heavier.
So I ask you to oppose this measure. At the very least I would ask that as our representatives to government you will require that these programs justify their need by releasing some specific information to the public about the benefit they have had. I know that our intelligence agencies have opposed giving specifics examples of benefit. They claim to do so would reveal important sources or techniques. But with all due respect, we have given them the benefit of the doubt for nearly two decades now. Surely there is something significant they can share from years gone by that will not be too damaging to their operations.
Thank you.
Hello Senator _________.
I'm writing you today to ask you to oppose the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020. I have written in the past to ask you to oppose other extraordinary security measures that have been maintained since the aftermath of Sept. 11 2001. I repeatedly write and request this because it is my opinion that these programs are contrary to the 4th amendment protections that are unalienable to all Americans. And these programs are administered in secret. Any program maintained in secret runs the risk of operating contrary to the public interest. This is because a citizen's most significant recourse is to vote for or against representatives who authorize government action. Any secret government action is therefore unable to be valued by a voter and therefor operates entirely outside public opinion.
I understand that some programs need to be shielded from public opinion for security reasons. But that need for security must be weighed against the need for a republican form of government to be transparent with its citizens. With each passing year that the public entrusts that government with secrecy the burden to justify it should become heavier.
So I ask you to oppose this measure. At the very least I would ask that as our representatives to government you will require that these programs justify their need by releasing some specific information to the public about the benefit they have had. I know that our intelligence agencies have opposed giving specifics examples of benefit. They claim to do so would reveal important sources or techniques. But with all due respect, we have given them the benefit of the doubt for nearly two decades now. Surely there is something significant they can share from years gone by that will not be too damaging to their operations.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing!
The Coronavirus crisis is a perfect opportunity for governments to take totalitarian leaps forward.
Look what happened this week in Israel. At 1:00AM when citizens were sleeping: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/03/14/coronavir...
Edit: I would also want to point out the prime minister trial supposed to begin today(!) and was delayed to May because the courts were closed as "non crucial" service. He has been indicted for bribe, fraud and breach of trust.
Look what happened this week in Israel. At 1:00AM when citizens were sleeping: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/03/14/coronavir...
Edit: I would also want to point out the prime minister trial supposed to begin today(!) and was delayed to May because the courts were closed as "non crucial" service. He has been indicted for bribe, fraud and breach of trust.
I live in Israel, definitely do not support our PM, and believe this is a crucial measure that will save many lives. The approval is temporary and conditioned.
Israelis are being mind-blowingly disobedient to instructions. Usually it's funny or mildly annoying. This time - deadly.
I embrace this temporary dent in our fragile democracy with no hesitation.
Israelis are being mind-blowingly disobedient to instructions. Usually it's funny or mildly annoying. This time - deadly.
I embrace this temporary dent in our fragile democracy with no hesitation.
The approval is not "temoprary and conditioned".
This was enacted using legislation from the time of the British colonial occupation of Palestine, which goes against every constitutional principle and assumes basic hostility between the government and the subject populace.
The Israeli parliament actually decides, every year, that Israel is in "a state of emergency" (never ending, of course) to prevent some of these powers from expiring. This has been happening mainly for suppressing the Palestinian population and limiting the freedom of the press.
It's true that over time, a lot of this has been scaled back (e.g. you no longer need a permit to issue a newspaper). But instead, Israel has adopted new draconian anti-privacy legislation, like the "Big Brother law" of 2008 IIRC, which allows the executive branch to access phone and cellular geo-location records without a search warrant, etc.
Also, some of the measures now in place were introduced despite the relevant parliamentary committee for overseeing these matters _rejecting_ fast-track approval, demanding additional information. The government just went ahead and ignored them. It's also convenient that the government is preventing parliament from properly convening (no more than 10 people at a time), and most court sessions from occurring.
This was enacted using legislation from the time of the British colonial occupation of Palestine, which goes against every constitutional principle and assumes basic hostility between the government and the subject populace.
The Israeli parliament actually decides, every year, that Israel is in "a state of emergency" (never ending, of course) to prevent some of these powers from expiring. This has been happening mainly for suppressing the Palestinian population and limiting the freedom of the press.
It's true that over time, a lot of this has been scaled back (e.g. you no longer need a permit to issue a newspaper). But instead, Israel has adopted new draconian anti-privacy legislation, like the "Big Brother law" of 2008 IIRC, which allows the executive branch to access phone and cellular geo-location records without a search warrant, etc.
Also, some of the measures now in place were introduced despite the relevant parliamentary committee for overseeing these matters _rejecting_ fast-track approval, demanding additional information. The government just went ahead and ignored them. It's also convenient that the government is preventing parliament from properly convening (no more than 10 people at a time), and most court sessions from occurring.
> I embrace this temporary dent in our fragile democracy with no hesitation.
Unfortunately, it's temporary exemptions like these that allow the government to chip away at democracy.
Unfortunately, it's temporary exemptions like these that allow the government to chip away at democracy.
A) The step was talked about at the 8PM press conference and is necessary according to all expert opinion.
B) The closing order never included the Supreme court nor the PM's trial. Even the order's date did not apply. The trial was delayed because the judges didn't feel like dying because the opposition required a talking point.
C) The opposition's behaviour has been disgraceful - undermining necessary steps because of the intense political competition, e.g. the argument that the government can't tell people to stay in their homes.
Their election slogan was "Israel over anything". Apparently it's really "getting power over anything". The electorate will have a word with them in the 4th round - unless Gantz, who has been responsible, will prove himself to be a leader and manage to rein in his irresponsible comrades.
B) The closing order never included the Supreme court nor the PM's trial. Even the order's date did not apply. The trial was delayed because the judges didn't feel like dying because the opposition required a talking point.
C) The opposition's behaviour has been disgraceful - undermining necessary steps because of the intense political competition, e.g. the argument that the government can't tell people to stay in their homes.
Their election slogan was "Israel over anything". Apparently it's really "getting power over anything". The electorate will have a word with them in the 4th round - unless Gantz, who has been responsible, will prove himself to be a leader and manage to rein in his irresponsible comrades.
Wasn't there some news days ago about a cyclist being on the suspect list of a burglary because he was cycling on the street next to a house and the app he was using was taking location data from Google?
US government could just order Google / Apple push an update to their OSes thereby making location data always on then gather the data and do contact tracing.
A lot of people would actually self-subscribe to a Google Contact Tracing app if they are instantly notified about crossing paths with an infected person.
US government could just order Google / Apple push an update to their OSes thereby making location data always on then gather the data and do contact tracing.
A lot of people would actually self-subscribe to a Google Contact Tracing app if they are instantly notified about crossing paths with an infected person.
They wouldn't even need to go that far. As long as the phone is talking to the tower its position is known. Perhaps a rise in mesh networks with non cellular devices will be a thing?
Not a very good position though (can be hundreds of feet off), so it depends on what you want to do with that data.
For a single data point it’s not that accurate but over time things change. How many people are within 500 feet of you for 4+ hours a day. In that mindset, building a model to track say every person on a tour bus seems rather straightforward. Even locating people likely to be having an affair seems doable if you have some basic biographic info on the general population.
This is perfect opportunity for citizens to observe totalitarian capabilities of governments and on next election decide which ones are excessive.
How so? Take the current target of the initial article. It has support from both sides and I think of the 4 lawmakers who initially brought it forward, there was a 50/50 split Republican and Democratic. It is more that we get to pick the flavor of totalitarian capabilities we live under, not if we have them or not.
Never going to happen. The general populace is full of bootlickers
Some totalitarian capabilities of government are not excessive? No, this is wrong.
Ability to quarantine seems totalitarian but does not seem excessive.
You're confusing totalitarian and authoritarian.
> Totalitarianism is a political system or a form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.
> Totalitarianism is a political system or a form of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.
No, this is perfect opportunity for citizens to observe totalitarian capabilities of governments and establish a militia for armed protest. Totalitarian governments come by elections and go away with blood.
Franco took power, and was never overthrown. There are plenty more counter-examples to your argument.
Not only was he never overthrown (the only reason Spain is not a dictatorship today is because he died), there's still tons of Spaniards who revere him.
The government has a history of taking advantage of panic and fear to pass egregious legislation. Another famous example is the Patriot act, passed during the height of "terrorism" hysteria.
There's another side to this story.
Americans demand this kind of action during emergencies. The widely accepted idea that the government is capable of protecting us from events like this is tacit acknowledgement of the government's right to closely monitor society.
To put it another way: as soon as you start blaming the government for a terrorist attack (or something), you are rather close to condoning government surveillance of the citizenry (or whatever extreme measure).
Americans demand this kind of action during emergencies. The widely accepted idea that the government is capable of protecting us from events like this is tacit acknowledgement of the government's right to closely monitor society.
To put it another way: as soon as you start blaming the government for a terrorist attack (or something), you are rather close to condoning government surveillance of the citizenry (or whatever extreme measure).
Sure, however this case in particular is a bit of a counter point because covid-19 isn't causing anyone to become a child predator, nor has there otherwise been a recent tidal wave of child predators that appeared out of thin air. Seems they pushed the bill off for a bit but this whole thing was introduced at an odd time.
I would say that the people demand action of some kind, not necessarily action that violates civil rights. A wise leader would know how to satisfy the populace without sacrificing liberty in the process.
yes to action, not surveillance. but i remember the patriot act having lots of popular support (but not from me). it still makes me mad thinking about it.
police powers (internally delegated coercive power) are largely the domain of states and localities, not the federal government (who's responsible for externally targeted force), along with an FBI that's limited to federal concerns, like interstate commerce and crimes against the federal government.
citizens need to be ever vigilant about maintaining those distinctions.
police powers (internally delegated coercive power) are largely the domain of states and localities, not the federal government (who's responsible for externally targeted force), along with an FBI that's limited to federal concerns, like interstate commerce and crimes against the federal government.
citizens need to be ever vigilant about maintaining those distinctions.
I feel obliged to mention that this assumes a correlation between surveillance and protection.
[deleted]
Which was largely written by Joe Biden in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveil...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveil...
Why do you put "terrorism" in quotes? It was/is most definitely a real thing.
Possibly suggesting that countering terrorism was not the real goal.
It's never terrorism when the US government murders civilians. Clearly murdering civilians is simply an accepted practice at this point, and not "terrorism".
In your world does intent matter?
Does intent matter when the US government actively resists investigations into war crimes perpetrated its fighters?
Does intent matter when the US leadership pardons convicted war criminals?
Does intent matter when the US leadership pardons convicted war criminals?
Why dodge the question?
Whether or not intent matters in my world is utterly irrelevant, clearly intent doesn't matter when it comes to the US govt.
Because it's not called terrorism when very similar incidents are perpetrated by citizens or residents, despite having very similar motivations, and especially not when it's the government telling us to call it terrorism going over and doing worse in other places.
Because outside the little western bubble it might be understood more accurately along the lines of self defense, or a response to aggression and political interference motivated by any shady bullshit from proxy wars to controlling oil supply.
Because "weapons of mass destruction" definitely deserves the quotes and was used for a similar purpose.
But mostly because giving something scary a name that abstracts away everything except that it's scary not only makes it super easy to sell publicly, but also makes it super easy to aim the public response to said fear at whatever the label can be twisted into applying to.
Because outside the little western bubble it might be understood more accurately along the lines of self defense, or a response to aggression and political interference motivated by any shady bullshit from proxy wars to controlling oil supply.
Because "weapons of mass destruction" definitely deserves the quotes and was used for a similar purpose.
But mostly because giving something scary a name that abstracts away everything except that it's scary not only makes it super easy to sell publicly, but also makes it super easy to aim the public response to said fear at whatever the label can be twisted into applying to.
I am curious what would you call 9/11 then?
An avoidable tragedy.
The main tangible thing that gave the label it's public power.
And at the same time, did everyone expect an entire geopolitical region to just sit there and let themselves be curb-stomped by various international superpowers without at least trying to retaliate? And in lieu of making a dent on the military front, and noting the impact of curb-stomping on civilian life, where else would you expect the response to be aimed?
The main tangible thing that gave the label it's public power.
And at the same time, did everyone expect an entire geopolitical region to just sit there and let themselves be curb-stomped by various international superpowers without at least trying to retaliate? And in lieu of making a dent on the military front, and noting the impact of curb-stomping on civilian life, where else would you expect the response to be aimed?
The mental gymnastics this must take. I would be impressed to see how you claim flying airplanes full of civilians into building full of civilians is “defense”.
> Because it's not called terrorism when very similar incidents are perpetrated by citizens or residents, despite having very similar motivations, and especially not when it's the government telling us to call it terrorism going over and doing worse in other places.
Similar incidents? I don't recall any similar incidents of ~20 Americans working together for years to hijack 4 planes and collapse multiple large buildings killing ~3000 people.
The patriot act may have been a bad idea but it was a response to a real, significant event and is not based on totally incoherent reasoning. We had surveillance capabilities that detected the 9/11 attackers ahead of time, but arguably due to the separation of foreign and domestic intelligence, that information was not acted on. You can argue the costs of breaking down that separation aren't worth it, but don't bullshit people with word games.
Similar incidents? I don't recall any similar incidents of ~20 Americans working together for years to hijack 4 planes and collapse multiple large buildings killing ~3000 people.
The patriot act may have been a bad idea but it was a response to a real, significant event and is not based on totally incoherent reasoning. We had surveillance capabilities that detected the 9/11 attackers ahead of time, but arguably due to the separation of foreign and domestic intelligence, that information was not acted on. You can argue the costs of breaking down that separation aren't worth it, but don't bullshit people with word games.
9/11 was a terrible thing for sure. Think a little bit about why it might have happened. How many thousands of people have died as a direct result of American intervention in the middle east, or do lives not matter unless they're American? How much cultural and economic regression and political instability have the military inverventions caused? All with super dubious justification pre-2001. How would that not provoke some kind of extremely violent response? Maybe without the intervention there wouldn't have been a response?
Nah mate, pushing past the knee-jerk reaction of fear takes too much effort, empathy is too hard, my life is easy and thinking about what my lifestyle costs other people is too unpleasant. Just slap a terrorism label (or maybe 'think of the children', or maybe 'war on drugs', or...) on it and call it a public license to go round fucking up cultures/demographics/human rights/geopolitical regions with impunity.
I'm not the one playing bullshit word games.
Nah mate, pushing past the knee-jerk reaction of fear takes too much effort, empathy is too hard, my life is easy and thinking about what my lifestyle costs other people is too unpleasant. Just slap a terrorism label (or maybe 'think of the children', or maybe 'war on drugs', or...) on it and call it a public license to go round fucking up cultures/demographics/human rights/geopolitical regions with impunity.
I'm not the one playing bullshit word games.
Don't forget about the corporate welfare. 2008 resulting in 2 bailouts totaling nearly $2T for the banks.
At a time when American's are staying home and not being paid, Trump is continuing to focus on the stock market. He will soon pass a nearly $1T bailout for businesses...American workers will be lucky to see a single check in the next 2-4 weeks.
At a time when American's are staying home and not being paid, Trump is continuing to focus on the stock market. He will soon pass a nearly $1T bailout for businesses...American workers will be lucky to see a single check in the next 2-4 weeks.
It will be tough times for workers and their Social Security funds, and bailouts for the employers who used their last round of giveaway money on stock buybacks.
Banks only got loans in the crisis, not free money.
Let me see if I understand the thought process by this propaganda. Extra loans for unemployed people isn’t really palatable so we use the word “bailout” to make it sound like free money so we can advocate for handouts. Is that right?
Let me see if I understand the thought process by this propaganda. Extra loans for unemployed people isn’t really palatable so we use the word “bailout” to make it sound like free money so we can advocate for handouts. Is that right?
And that is only for big businesses that are listed in the stock exchanges. All other businesses are left to struggle on their own. Thousands of small businesses are going to have to shut down for good.
Billions will be poured into the SBA, so they can claim billions went to small businesses, but that money will all be given to businesses with political connections.
And they will never mention those thousands of small businesses you reference that will go under, just like politicians never once spoke of American's who lost their homes and became homeless, instead mentioning only the banks problems.
And they will never mention those thousands of small businesses you reference that will go under, just like politicians never once spoke of American's who lost their homes and became homeless, instead mentioning only the banks problems.
I'm not a fan of the banks, they were encouraged to loan to risky borrowers, people who bought as much as they could with little more than a pulse. This behavior began under Clinton. This was during the era of easy credit where college kids could get massive credit lines. Source: I was one of these kids and I also worked for a Real Estate Web host during the boom and bust.
>I'm not a fan of the banks, they were encouraged to loan to risky borrowers, people who bought as much as they could with little more than a pulse.
There is so much to unpack in this sentence, this alone could be a book about the financial/housing collapse.
Yes, in Clinton's years the banks lobbied and successfully had regulations rolled back so they could underwrite loans on stated income from broker applications. For purposes of culpability/intent, look no further than these lobbying efforts (I am skipping the other deregulations they successfully lobbied for: 103% financing/nothing down/adjustable rate mortgages).
With these new rules its fair to say banks encouraged brokers to in turn encourage borrowers to make up numbers because now they would not be verified.
When it all blew up, the banks blamed the borrowers for lying on mortgage applications, making themselves out to be the victims.
There is so much to unpack in this sentence, this alone could be a book about the financial/housing collapse.
Yes, in Clinton's years the banks lobbied and successfully had regulations rolled back so they could underwrite loans on stated income from broker applications. For purposes of culpability/intent, look no further than these lobbying efforts (I am skipping the other deregulations they successfully lobbied for: 103% financing/nothing down/adjustable rate mortgages).
With these new rules its fair to say banks encouraged brokers to in turn encourage borrowers to make up numbers because now they would not be verified.
When it all blew up, the banks blamed the borrowers for lying on mortgage applications, making themselves out to be the victims.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
What is this quote from?
Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to Barack Obama: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel
And until last year, mayor of Chicago. You can guess how he’s have capitalized on this, I suppose.
I know Rahm Emmanuel was caught using on a hot mic at some conference.
Churchill, IIRC.
So, the vote was supposed to be last night. Did it happen? Did it pass?
They instead extended it for 77 days due to COVID-19. Basically punting for now
So literally the opposite of what the headline is implying.
Putin's chef calls this the St Petersburg Special.
No, it's correct. These are powers that already exist. The bill is to renew it. Parts were to expire; the bill extends them. That did not pass yet, but they did vote to keep them for a few months.
If the headline is inapt, it's in implying that the bill is something new. And that this is happening now to hide it, rather than because the existing bill's sunset clauses are coming up.
If the headline is inapt, it's in implying that the bill is something new. And that this is happening now to hide it, rather than because the existing bill's sunset clauses are coming up.
So if I understand you correctly, they voted to extend these (existing) powers short term, and will have another vote later on whether to keep them long term.
The headline seems to imply congress is trying to sneak something by while everyone is distracted, rather than maintaining the status quo temporarily.
There's enough to be concerned with congress without being misleading. Framing everything Congress does as some conspiracy theory only dilutes the response when actually shady things are happening.
The headline seems to imply congress is trying to sneak something by while everyone is distracted, rather than maintaining the status quo temporarily.
There's enough to be concerned with congress without being misleading. Framing everything Congress does as some conspiracy theory only dilutes the response when actually shady things are happening.
You are correct: the headline is not-untrue, but it is misleading. The short-term extension is solely a matter of the pandemic; it's unclear what the outcome of the long-term vote will be.
There are many who consider this bill shady regardless, since it's there to extend powers passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Civil libertarians (of whom there are many on this site) always considered it dangerous, and two decades on even more so. So from that standpoint, the alarm in the headline is called for, even if not precisely for the reasons it says.
There are many who consider this bill shady regardless, since it's there to extend powers passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Civil libertarians (of whom there are many on this site) always considered it dangerous, and two decades on even more so. So from that standpoint, the alarm in the headline is called for, even if not precisely for the reasons it says.
While I almost certainly agree with the OP on surveillance overall, it seems like this bill doesn't actually change the status quo in any negative direction? It seems to mostly preserve a status quo that already contains all of this.
[deleted]
Corporate media is being completely silent on this or have I missed any coverage?
Made my call
ruskimir(1)
The majority of the US Senate is a threat to the world, peace, liberties, and people.
How does that work? Isn't the senate elected?
Well at this rate the entire country will be blue this time next year and the representatives will be half their current age. It's kind of silly to just let everyone else come to the conclusion independently and just not say it yet.
This "dangerous surveillance bill" is the status quo. Not to say that it is acceptable, but please realize that there's no new powers being granted, just old ones being renewed that expired this week.
Also, are we really allowing articles from Common Dreams now?
Also, are we really allowing articles from Common Dreams now?
It may be the status quo, but since these powers were intended to be temporary, it is arguably relevant that they may finally be expiring. Many users here care about issues around surveillance and privacy.
Re: Common Dreams, HN guidelines don't limit sources by their political slant, as long as the article in question is interesting or relevant. Frankly I find this to be refreshing, since many places are dominated by articles from sources with a center-right slant.
Re: Common Dreams, HN guidelines don't limit sources by their political slant, as long as the article in question is interesting or relevant. Frankly I find this to be refreshing, since many places are dominated by articles from sources with a center-right slant.
> just old ones being renewed that expired this week.
Aren't they supposed to expire, otherwise why have it sunset? The status-quo is that they were limited powers.
Aren't they supposed to expire, otherwise why have it sunset? The status-quo is that they were limited powers.