Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senators Want Secret Warrantless Wiretap Renewal

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the hey-who-can-blame-'em? dept.

Communications 198

An anonymous reader writes "A group of Senators are meeting in secret today, while most people are focused on the 'debt ceiling' issue, in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which expressly allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S. The law isn't set to expire until next year, but some feel that the debt ceiling crisis is a good distraction to pass the extension without having to debate the issue in public. The meeting is being held in secret, but it's not classified, so people can demand to know how their Senator voted."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And You Know They Will Get It! (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914070)

Welcome to the "new normal" in America, where "Citizen" is a term that is interchangeable with "Felon" or "Enemy".

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914238)

Does that make Iran and North Korea member states?

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914592)

No.

We (our representatives) are desperately trying for membership in that club.

This has been going on for a very very long time and was known to "foreigners" and a few of us. The rest of us just learning it to our shocking surprise.

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915202)

Coalition of the Unwilling

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914444)

Today's top shocker of a headline:

People in power want more power, believe they're standing up for the safety of people with less power, for whatever definition of "safety" suits them today.

People with less power don't want this to happen, believing they're the pitied, downtrodden victims of whatever definition of "victim" suits them today.

Vast majority of people don't care, believing both other groups should just shut up already.

All this, and more, tonight at 11. And tomorrow night at 11. And, in fact, every night at 11 since the dawn of creatures with any concept of the belief of protecting others and/or beliefs of victimization.

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914614)

I think they typed "Terrorists" wrong in that article. It's written starting with a S, and ending in "enators"...

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914798)

Don't worry, the shit will hit the fan soon and all of this will be irrelevant. There will be wire-taps a plenty in the new republic, but the power and wealth will have been redistributed to someone else.

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914842)

Actually, the normal interchangeability is and has always been between 'citizen' and 'tax livestock'.

The rest of it is just additional fences and collars to manage us.

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (2)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915090)

Welcome to the "new normal" in America, where "Citizen" is a term that is interchangeable with "Felon" or "Enemy".

How else are the career criminal politicians going to keep tabs on the voters that hate their guts.

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915534)

or slave...

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916334)

Where's Rand Paul when you need him?

Re:And You Know They Will Get It! (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916642)

I'm just glad my grandfather who fought against this kind of shit in WWII isn't around to witness this shit. WTH has happened to this country? When you have BOTH parties voting AGAINST the people while at the same time practically tripping over themselves to give away the future of this country to special interests for literally pennies on the dollar?

This is why I'm making a call out to every one here at /. since WE are the geeks, the smart ones, the ones our friends and relatives and coworkers listen to I urge EVERY SINGLE ONE HERE to not only vote Green and New Whig straight down the ticket but do everything in your power to get everyone you possibly can to do so as well.

A true multi party system is the only chance this country has short of our own Arab Spring and it is clear that BOTH the Ds and the Rs are not gonna listen to the will of the people. The New Whig Party is made of Iraq vets thinking we should get our boys home and the Greens believe in a true safety net for the poor [greenparty.org] along with affordable housing and health care, things I bet many here would support.

So let us change the system, so that horseshit like this won't be the status quo. I'll even give out a slogan for free "A vote for a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote" because that is EXACTLY what it is, as they no longer listen to the will of the people. So vote Whig and Green, and push everyone in your sphere of influence to do so as well. Let 2012 be a REAL case of "Hope & Change" and not just more empty slogans!

Some senators want this gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914094)

At least one lawmaker from Colorado wanted a provision like this that was in the Patriot Act taken out.

Re:Some senators want this gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914770)

It's nice to think so, and it may even be true. Or maybe he just wanted re-elected -- you can indulge your constituents with all sorts of displays of "opposition" when you know you don't actually risk succeeding.

LOL! American Freedom! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914104)

LOL! Is this the "American Freedom" we secretly heard so much about when I was a youth growing up in Hungary during the Cold War?

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914142)

No, this is the "American Freedom" that went away after the government realized that the public's fear of terrorism was an excellent pretext for a power grab. We (in America) used to be a lot more free than we are now. It's very sad.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (2)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914212)

It's true. Starting in the 80's American freedoms and liberties started taking a backseat to corporate profits. From 80-00 It was a slow decline but from 00-08 it was pretty much a raging plummet.

Re:raging plummet. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914296)

Hiya.

Thank you for confirming that I am not a Tin Foil Hat for thinking this stuff is accelerating.

Re:raging plummet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914992)

They way things are going it doesn't make you a Tin Foil Hat to believe in this stuff, it just means you're paying attention. :/

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914458)

Yeah yeah. Keep pushing your own political agenda. Fuckyouverymuch.
 
If you honestly think that one party or one administration caused this to happen you're a fucking idiot. And if you think this didn't start until the 80s you are either still wet behind the ears of you have your head too far up your own ass to see that this has been going on for decades before this.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914748)

Citation needed please k thx!

the berlin wall silly rabbits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916170)

ever since the berlin wall....

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914230)

If we don't collapse economically thanks to the US senate, there is some small hope that justice and liberty can be restored in time. America needs a valid liberal progressive party instead of the conservative democrats and regressive republicans.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914364)

conservative democrat, haha don't make me laugh. Although I will concede that a voting system that allowed for more than 2 parties, say 4, would be great.
I would really like to see the power split, social issues, and financial issues. Now that would be interesting.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (4, Interesting)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914438)

Hell, I think we would be much better off if we were forced to default. What most call collapse would economically force us to pull our military c**k out of the worlds ass and take care of issues at home. I cheer the coming default, which will happen no matter what Washington does, and I hope those D.C. bastards burn for it.

Mod parent up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914704)

What people don't seem to be realizing here is that what Obama is actually debating on is whether we default today, or default tomorrow.

Instead of just waiting to default until tomorrow, we should be working on cutting our spending so that we never default, at all. This is what the Tea Party is working towards.

Obama has instead decided he'd rather raise taxes. Which won't work: Raising taxes will only succeed in killing the economy. Well, further killing it. Obama's already done plenty on that front what with Obamacare.

So, which do you want: higher taxes and we default tomorrow, or cutting out the massive government waste and never defaulting in the first place?

And to tie this back to the article: which of those plans would cut funding from the ability of the Government to wiretap in the first place? Because they never had the right to in the first place (read the Constitution). The only solution is to take away their toys, not pass another law saying they can't do it.

Re:Mod parent up (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915222)

Default is not inevitable, we can balance the budget, but if we only do a short term debt limit increase the US AAA rating will drop and cost the US another 100 billion a year in interest, making it that much harder to balance the budget in the future. That is what Obama is trying to do. The republicans in the senate are holding our govornment hostage and their only offer is an extra trillion dollars in debt over the next 10 years.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915374)

agreed. fuck everyone. i live in wisconsin. we have plenty of woods i can go live in while the coasts burn. plenty of guns and fresh water too. sure the military will be coming for that though.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (1)

aekafan (1690920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916108)

I live in Wisconsin, too. The state government here already has pretty much fucked everyone, just like the feds. Do you seriously think a default will cause societal collapse? Not hardly. It will simply force the Government to live within its means. Or do you think that we cannot exist without a bloated fed, state, and local government? Wisconsin is again a great example of this. We are in the top 10 highest taxed states in the nation, yet everything but possibly the university system is a mess, and even that is going downhill fast.

Re:LOL! American Freedom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916960)

I live in WI too! Fuck everyone

That explains everything. (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914114)

Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling instead of just voting to fix what should have been a relatively minor and uncontentious issue. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the purpose of government is not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it.

Re:That explains everything. (4, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914188)

I need some input from the Lawn Crowd, did it feel like this in the Watergate days? I'm getting the horrible feeling that after a nice quiet 90's with nothing but a fun little sex scandal we're seeing a whole different class of nastiness today.

Re:That explains everything. (5, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914370)

It was much worse in the Wategate days. You could tell Nixon was a meglomaniac who might start a nuclear war or conduct a coup d'etat to stay in power.

Congress pretty much rallied together to rid the country of this madman.

The current budget stuff is pretty sickening, but really is a throwback to earlier times in the republic when politics was pretty disgusting as a normal way of life. It isn't the same level of insanity as having a completely deranged President.

Re:That explains everything. (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914836)

I disagree, I don't think it was worse in the watergate days.

the wholesale cut-out of personal freedoms - WORLD WIDE (yes, the US controls the intertubes. this is news to you? all core routers go thru US owned datacomm centers, dummy; and every one of them that is on the backbone has taps for (cough) calea use. and other things.

watergate only fucked over the US and not really citizens, but it was mostly politicians doing the hurting to each other.

this stuff we have now is them doing it to US.

far, far worse for us all. its the sell-out of privacy, in official terms!

and yes, I was around in the nixon days; as a child but still was very aware of the tv coverage and even what we were discussing in school. it was still ok to discuss current events in school, back then.

Re:That explains everything. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915320)

Nixon was doing the same kind of corruption of personal freedoms that is happening right now - except all on his own and clandestinely without the knowledge or consent of Congress, for his own personal power. Enemies lists and using the IRS to harass political opponents. Massive use of the FBI and CIA to track US citizens including war protesters and other dissidents. It was and still is illegal for the CIA to track US citizens.

And all of this was for one purpose - to preserve and extend his personal power.

Whatever you think about the current situation it is not anywhere near the level of having the POTUS actively, vigorously and illegally using the mechanisms of the federal government to suppress political dissent in the US in order to preserve his own position of power.

Yes the internet provides various surveillance opportunities that weren't available at the time of Nixon. But don't kid yourself into thinking Nixon wasn't using the massive cold war intelligence apparatus of the time to gather information outside the US and covert operations to corrupt and overthrow governments he didn't like. He was, and in spades. Look up Project FUBELT if you don't believe me.

Re:That explains everything. (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915526)

I hated nixon. of course.

but I still see that as limited damage compared to world-wide surveillance that now passes as 'ok'.

not only is there more spying, but it feels a lot less 'free', now, than it did back then. just in general. we always talked about 'the russians' and how they were a 'papers please' kind of society and government. but today, them is us! the things we held up as differentiating are no longer. I see that much, much worse.

Re:That explains everything. (1)

toutankh (1544253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915622)

It was much worse in the Wategate days. You could tell Nixon was a meglomaniac who might start a nuclear war or conduct a coup d'etat to stay in power.

Congress pretty much rallied together to rid the country of this madman.

This sounds a lot like the Nixon depicted in Futurama - apparently the caricature is closer to the original than I thought. Funny how clueless one can be about recent history. Clearly not being a U.S. citizen and not being born at that time doesn't help, but still, it's recent history...

Re:That explains everything. (4, Informative)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914716)

I need some input from the Lawn Crowd, did it feel like this in the Watergate days? I'm getting the horrible feeling that after a nice quiet 90's with nothing but a fun little sex scandal we're seeing a whole different class of nastiness today.

No, it wasn't like this.

Watergate was a relatively singular event, which elicited widescale public outrage. You couldn't go anywhere without it being a topic of convesation and dispute.

This is one of ten-thousand such outrages, perpetrated over the past decade. Like most of them, people don't know of it happening, or why it might even be wrong.

Sleep tight, America.

Re:That explains everything. (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914346)

Suddenly, it makes sense why all the senators and representatives are making so much noise about the debt ceiling

No, not really. Despite what many on slashdot think, warrantless wire-tapping isn't terribly controversial with the most of the US. Remember, the only time we hear about public discontent with the TSA is when they grope a baby or a grandmother - the bullshit constitutional smokescreen of "administrative searches" isn't even mentioned, much less questioned. No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that this meeting had been scheduled months in advance. But even if it wasn't, it's just opportunism to schedule it now, not the cause of the debt ceiling fiasco, just a side-effect.

Re:That explains everything. (1, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914494)

No one is getting groped over the phone, so most people don't give a damn.

You mean most Americans are too stupid to realize they're getting groped over the internet.

Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914118)

It's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing things like this in secret.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (5, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914132)

FTA:

        Dianne Feinstein, California (chair)
        Saxby Chambliss, Georgia (vice chair)
        John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
        Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
        Ron Wyden, Oregon
        Richard Burr, North Carolina
        Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
        James Risch, Idaho
        Bill Nelson, Florida
        Daniel Coats, Indiana
        Kent Conrad, North Dakota
        Roy Blunt, Missouri
        Mark Udall, Colorado
        Marco Rubio, Florida
        Mark Warner, Virginia

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914200)

This list includes all the senators in the meeting. Not all of them support the warrantless wiretaps.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914266)

Not all of them support the warrantless wiretaps

[secret citation needed]

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914416)

TFA good enough for you? No one reads it, so it might as well be secret :P

Anyway, it singles out Wyden and Udall as opposing the wiretaps, and there could be others too, since that list just consists of everyone on the committee.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914282)

Please review the subject line.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (2)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914292)

At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair. She also hates the 2nd Amendment... Freedom of Speech (If someone wants to call a gay person a fanny bandit, goddamnit, he should have the right to do so...) :)

But then again, she's a Senator... that means she's more out of touch than Helen Keller on acid.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915124)

Uh...Second Amendment is "right to bear arms", not speech. Freedom of speech is in the First Amendment.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

DoomHamster (1918204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915426)

I'm fairly certain he meant 'and' freedom of speech...but you never know.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915974)

At least one "For the People" caucus asspile (Feinstein) is for it... because she's the chair.

I keep hoping California will get just a couple of competent Republicans running for major offices so we can get rid of Boxer and Feinstein, but instead, the Republicans keep giving us people like Meg Whitman (who ran one of the most evil companies of the Internet age) and Carly Fiorina (who nearly bankrupted two major technology companies in a row before trying her hand at politics...).

It's purely the illusion of choice. California Democrats give us incompetent candidates that don't represent the state, and California Republicans give us incompetent candidates that don't represent the state. Simply amazing.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914492)

Thats a strange order to be presenting them in (not alphabetical), until you dig down:

Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Democrat

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914862)

Well, the first 2 are the chair and vice-chair. I am guessing after that it has something to do with the way the parties assign members to the committees, which is probably alternating parties, by seniority.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (4, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914344)

Seeing as warrantless wiretapping is clearly unconstitutional, it's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing it at all.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915110)

CORRECT

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916002)

Constitution? You mean that fancy toilet paper with writing that they have in the Senate bathrooms?

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36916502)

That would be true if the act actually allowed warrantless wiretapping.

Prohibits targeting a foreigner to eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
Requires FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 [wikipedia.org]
But don't let the truth get in the way of your internet rage.

Re:Which Senators was in the secret meeting? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916688)

Seeing as warrantless wiretapping is clearly unconstitutional, it's thoroughly inappropriate to be doing it at all.

Warrantless wiretapping for national security purposes has been found Constitutional by courts repeatedly. You don't know what you are talking about.

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping [washingtonpost.com]

A special federal appeals court yesterday released a rare declassified opinion that backed the government's authority to intercept international phone conversations and e-mails from U.S. soil without a judicial warrant, even those involving Americans, if a significant purpose is to collect foreign intelligence.

Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps [wsj.com]

the special FISA appeals court, which in a 2002 sealed case upholding the constitutionality of the Patriot Act held that "the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." The court said it took the president's power "for granted," observing that "FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

For your viewing pleasure, some of the more recent developments regarding would be "Jihadis" in the US:

Yet again: Fort Hood Suspect Mentions al Qaeda Cleric Believed to Have Inspired Previous Attack, Official Says [go.com]

A U.S. serviceman is in custody after he allegedly admitted he was planning an attack on his fellow servicemen at the U.S. Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, the same base where 13 people were killed in a 2009 terror attack.

Reservist Charged in '10 Building Shootings [nytimes.com]

WASHINGTON â" The Marine Corps reservist arrested in Arlington National Cemetery last week with suspicious materials in his backpack was charged Thursday with firing shots last year at five military buildings in the Washington area, including the Pentagon.

Investigators said they linked the reservist, Yonathan Melaku, to the shootings by determining that the bullet fragments recovered at those scenes came from the same gun as the spent shell casings found in his backpack last week.

Minneapolis Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Offense - July 18, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Pennsylvania Man Indicted for Soliciting Jihadists to Kill Americans - July 14, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Accused al Shabaab Leader Charged with Providing Material Support to al Shabaab and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - July 5, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Two Men Charged in Plot to Attack Seattle Military Processing Center - June 23, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Chicago Businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana Guilty of Providing Material Support to Terror Group and Supporting Role in Denmark Terrorism Conspiracy - June 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]

North Carolina Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Charge - June 7, 2011 [fbi.gov]

FBI Announces Identity of Transitional Federal Government Checkpoint Suicide Bomber - June 9, 2011 [fbi.gov]

Two Iraqi Nationals Indicted on Federal Terrorism Charges in Kentucky - May 31, 2011 [fbi.gov]

And of course Iran is helpful as ever: U.S. accuses Iran of aiding al-Qaeda [washingtonpost.com]

FTFY (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914136)

in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which unconstitutionally allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.

Re:FTFY (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915278)

But the constitution is a "living document" meant to "change with the times" and stuff... they tell us this all the time.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915500)

It is a living document, changeable at any time. As long as both houses agree to the amendment and the amendment is ratified by the states.

Performing activities outside of the constitutional confines is illegal and should be fought against vigorously by all Americans. The ones in office should be guarding against working outside the confines of the constitution being they swore an oath to 'support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'

Working outside the confines of the constitution makes one an enemy of the constitution.

Re:FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915802)

But the constitution is a "living document" meant to "change with the times" and stuff... they tell us this all the time.

And when the constitution is changed, the law should pass. Until then, it's unconstitutional and therefore not something that should be allowed in the US.

Re:FTFY (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915864)

in order to try to rush through a renewal of the FISA Amendments Act, which unconstitutionally allowed warrantless wiretapping in the U.S.

Don't worry, with the Roberts court, if you sacrifice yourself and push the issue, the Supremes are sure to have a nice 5-4 split vote that will, indeed, prove it's constitutional. It happened with Citizens United, it will happen here.

The court via Clarence Thomas is up for sale [huffingtonpost.com] , what less would his sponsors expect?

Re:FTFY (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36917206)

Bad news. Things are only unconstitutional if SCOTUS agrees that they are. And given authoritarians like Scalia and Clarence "Strip-search-teenage-girls" Thomas, I doubt warantless wiretapping will become unconstitutional any time soon.

Awful, (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914152)

warrantless anything is wrong and such acts should be punished for attempting, people should be burning with anger about this subject! Thanks for the info slashdot.

Coward Politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914164)

Welcome to America's Coward Politicians. Do not have the ballz to face the public on matters like this.

But, can stuff their pockets with money from Special Interest groups. I wonder how much money is "contracted" to AT&T to maintain the data collection tap for the federal government?

From the summary text: +7, Informative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914168)

"A group of Senators are meeting in secret today, ".

Then why is the story on Slashdot?

Your first premise is wrong. There is NO U.S.A. It has collapsed. Your criminals-in-CONgress have simply decided NOT to
announce the collapse.

Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
K. Trout [youtube.com]

Read The Shock Doctrine (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914686)

Read The Shock Doctrine [youtube.com] . Then weep. Then vote for anyone other than Republicans or Democrats.

I wonder how much of a cut... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914178)

I wonder if they cut the budget here. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican. We really need to work whatever powers we can away from big brother and with all haste. We need smaller government on several levels and if we don't get to it soon we never will.

Suspected Terrorist (1)

glittermage (650813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914196)

You are all suspected terrorists. Where is that phone number for the local FBI office...

The number. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914300)

Please send all comments to 127.0.0.1.

Re:Suspected Terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914474)

I found it. It says "867-5309".

ugh... (2)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914224)

Fuck Congress and their contempt for the common man.

Re:ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914424)

HERE HERE.
Congress is Fucked up and we must FUCKING stop them.
Vote RON PAUL.

Re:ugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914654)

HERE HERE. Congress is Fucked up and we must FUCKING stop them. Vote RON PAUL.

Dude, Ron Paul is part of congress.

Re:ugh... (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914814)

And a teabagger, determined to screw over the common man with theatrics and appeals to nationalism.

Re:ugh... (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914864)

sigh.

its not about ballot box; that obviously does not work.

its not about soap box; they don't listen to us.

its not about ammo box; their guns are bigger than ours

you know what its about? IGNORE THEIR SO-CALLED LAWS.

they ask for it and so we give it to them. they have ruined the respect of the rule of law; so we are not obligated to follow their made-up bullshit laws.

yes, you risk 'problems' in life; but so did so many patriots in our past. be patriotic and IGNORE CONGRESS' LAWS.

we already ignore the copyright bullshit. we copy things 'right', actually (lol), but we don't follow bullshit made-up laws.

civil disobedience: we have a long history of it. its needed, now, folks.

Re:ugh... (2)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915770)

Civil disobedience is not ignoring the law. Civil disobedience is flagrantly and publicly violating the law with the full knowledge of and the willingness to accept the consequences of doing so. This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore, strengthening the demonstrators' chances to land in the spotlight and hopefully find widespread support for their cause.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that downloading stuff for free that you must legally pay for is an act of civil disobedience. It isn't. It is only ignoring the law. For it to become civil disobedience you would have to sit with your laptop on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "I am downloading MGM's entire library and not paying them one red cent," preferably in the company of a few dozen others doing the same thing.

Re:ugh... (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36916678)

This is why demonstrations are most often done en masse--one guy publicly violating the law is a nutjob or a nuisance; several hundred create a spectacle that is much harder to ignore

Also: it is harder to catch every one of the demonstrators, so there is some sense of "safety in numbers."

For the same reason, fish school. I really like that one, actually: the fish is not getting up close to his neighbor because he's being friendly; he's doing it so that when the predator comes, there's a greater chance of his neighbor gets eaten first.

We can learn a lot from nature. :)

(Similarly, the joke whose punchline is "I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.")

Why hasn't (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914234)

Anyone assassinated any of these senators yet for treason? I'm sure a jury of peers would find someone not guilty in doing so. Not that I'm advbo

Re:Why hasn't (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914904)

Because it wouldn't do any good - at worst they would be martyrs, and at best they would be replaced by someone else just like them. Violence is rarely the best solution, and they were elected after all, so if you want to make a change then campaign for someone else. If you can't find someone better then run for office yourself.

Re:Why hasn't (1)

Zomalaja (1324199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915094)

anyone planted a bug in the meeting room ?

Paranoid, much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914352)

THIS IS NOT A SECRET MEETING!!!

Yes, it's a closed meeting, but closed and secret imply two different things! Think, for just a second, about the response you would have to learning that courtroom was closed during a trial--in my case, it would be "that's interesting". On the other hand, consider how you would respond to learning that someone had been tried in secret--everyone should be outraged by this possibility.

I am decidedly against the FISA Amendments Act, but come on ! This kind of ridiculous FUD is more in line with what I expect from proponents of the act. It is a publicly scheduled meeting, even if it is closed to the public, of the Senate Intelligence Committee, not some back-room deal brokering by shadowy players. Take a chill pill, and join me in the fight against FUD in all its incarnations, not just the ones you disagree with.

Re:Paranoid, much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914498)

'Secret' is a word widely used in sensationalist headlines across the board in media, whether news, opinion or lifestyle. "Secret torture camps in country X", "Policy proposal X secretive meetings", "X's hot dating secrets". It's meant to draw attention primarily, to imply a "back-room deal brokering by shadowy players" as you put it. The way it frames and polarizes the subsequent discussion is also one of the wonderful effects of human nature, since less than 10% of people RTFA before discussion and less than 1% wish to fight the totality of FUD - not just from the politicians, but also FUD from summarizers, opinion leaders and uninformed discourse from the general public.

Your Washington weasels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914390)

You need to get these Washington weasels out of office, out of power and freeze the debt ceiling so there is no money for DHS, TSA and all the other 3- and 4- letter agencies that waste money and the Congress with its snout so deeply in the trough that Jefferson must be spinning in his grave.

Wire tap of corse they do what government dont? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914392)

Its the proof America is a failed state if the people wont stand together and tell them no.

To anyone will still vote for one of the senators: (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914410)

I hate you.

Re:To anyone will still vote for one of the senato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915288)

Unfortunately, most voters in the States don't read the news, and a significant portion of those who do are the oh-well-I-dont-want-to-make-a-fuss type. Besides, Senators get reelected 90% of the time thanks to the magic of gerrymandering.

Re:To anyone will still vote for one of the senato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915480)

why? Ron Wyden is AGAINST warrentless wiretapping..I'll keep voting for him again and again. Not everyone on that list is for warrentless wiretapping. Ron Wyden has been fairly consistent in showing common sense.

Wyden to Oppose Cloture for Wiretapping Bill
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=627881b6-e9a2-417d-b140-b78fcd9640f9

Patriot Act- Congress Shouldn't Rush to Judgment (Again)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/patriot-act-congress-shou_b_336504.html

How Can Congress Debate a Secret Law?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/how-can-congress-debate-a_b_866920.html

Email your Senators today (2)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914440)

Let then know this is not slipping under the wire. Email the President as well. Calls are good too.

Re:Email your Senators today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36914626)

Let then know this is not slipping under the wire. Email the President as well. Calls are good too.

Um.. good luck with that, right now most phones / email servers are getting dossed by debt ceiling whinging. Its amazing this stuff can happen while the people can't voice opinions at all.

Re:Email your Senators today (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914876)

silly person. still thinks that the will of the people matters when its a power-grab we are talking about.

Re:Email your Senators today (1)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915890)

We do still vote them in. If a large enough percentage of their constituency says, "vote this way and I will vote you out," they will very likely change their tune. It works very well in the House and less so in the senate, though it is still effective. Public pressure is the best tool that the public possesses.

Re:Email your Senators today (1)

tidepool (137349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915198)

I actually just did. It was a brief, sarcastic message, but it allowed them to see that at least ONE person knew they were paying (some) attention.

I actually just asked why they were at the meeting and what position they (she) planned to take on it. Fingers crossed.

Meanwhile (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914484)

At the Legion of Doom...

Why waste the opportunity to screw the public (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 3 years ago | (#36914918)

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
- Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

Re:Why waste the opportunity to screw the public (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915138)

Ya, you can thank Saul Alinsky for that bit of advice.

Solution (1)

Aggrav8d (683620) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915220)

Frame the NSA for wiretapping senators on the intelligence committee.

Wait... was that was in V for Vandetta? Damnit.

Re:Solution (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36915568)

well, lulzsec had their main guy nabbed, so they're out of action. right? or, wait, did they get the wrong guy? [dailytech.com]

maybe l.s. can refocus world attention and let everyone know that we have rogue senators trying to pull a fast one on us.

the world needs new heros. sadly, we can't count on our 'elected' officials to work in our interests. I hope there is someone out there who can.

I already know how my Senator will vote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36915602)

Pick the worst thing they could vote for and double it. They will then justify the vote by saying it will have the exactly opposite effect from the one it really will have.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?