In surprise vote, House backs NSA limits

[TheDemSocialist]

A proposal to block intelligence agencies from conducting warrantless and “backdoor” searches of U.S. communications passed in the House late Thursday night.Adopted 293-123, with one member voting present, the amendment to the 2015 Defense appropriations bill would prohibit the search of government databases for information on U.S. citizens without a warrant. It would further cut off funding for the CIA and National Security Agency to build security vulnerabilities, or "backdoors," into domestic tech products or services for surveillance purposes. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) was the only member to vote present.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the chief sponsor of the bipartisan amendment, said it would limit the controversial NSA spying."The American people are sick of being spied on," Massie said.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another sponsor of the amendment, said it would uphold the Constitution without infringing upon national security.
"It allows us to get the bad guys, but also says, 'Use probable cause and the Fourth Amendment," Lofgren said.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT]In surprise vote, House backs NSA limits | TheHill[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A step in the right direction! Will it pass the Senate? Hopefully! But does this go far enough? [/FONT]

 

[Dittohead not!]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT]In surprise vote, House backs NSA limits | TheHill[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A step in the right direction! Will it pass the Senate? Hopefully! But does this go far enough? [/FONT]

Maybe.
Right now, it's only a bill sitting on Capitol Hill.

 

[Paschendale]

Good. I'm glad that Lofgren specifically cited probable cause and the 4th amendment. We need to adhere to those without exception.

 

[Thoreau72]

This is a good sign.

The cynic in me is most skeptical that it will ever pass the Senate, and even if it did Obama would veto it, just as Senator Obama voted in favor of FISA II with its grant of immunity to AT & Treason and other telecoms.

 

[CanadaJohn]

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more: [/FONT]In surprise vote, House backs NSA limits | TheHill[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A step in the right direction! Will it pass the Senate? Hopefully! But does this go far enough? [/FONT]

I suspect the issue just has to get before the Supreme Court before most of what the NSA is doing gets struck down. In a landmark decision here in Canada this past week, our Supreme Court unanimously struck down federal powers to demand internet servers provide police with names, addresses and other identification data when the police provide an IP address. The ruling means that the police now must seek a warrant for even this bare minimum of information.

 

[apdst]

And, again, no one is demanding that the president--whom the NSA works for--put a stop to the NSA spying.

I wonder why that is.

 

[Thoreau72]

And, again, no one is demanding that the president--whom the NSA works for--put a stop to the NSA spying.

I wonder why that is.

It is that way because the entire government, all three branches, is rotten to the core. Ike's worst nightmares have come true with a vengeance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It is that way because the entire government, all three branches, is rotten to the core. Ike's worst nightmares have come true with a vengeance.

That explains a lot of things, doesn't it?

We have a republic if we can keep it. Who was it that said that? Ben Franklin maybe?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

And, again, no one is demanding that the president--whom the NSA works for--put a stop to the NSA spying.

I wonder why that is.

Because it would be retarded?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I don't believe they'll ever stop, no matter what lawmakers say.

 

[apdst]

Because it would be retarded?

It would be retarded for the president, who directly controls the NSA, to order then to halt their surveillance operations?

 

[Amandi]

And, again, no one is demanding that the president--whom the NSA works for--put a stop to the NSA spying.

I wonder why that is.

Because presidents like that power and they wont reign it in.

 

[Arbo]

A step in the right direction! Will it pass the Senate? Hopefully! But does this go far enough?

It would be a good start, but I doubt the senate will pass it as is, if they do they will take any limits on the NSA out.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because presidents like that power and they wont reign it in.

Of course not. It's up to the President's boss to see to it that the Constitution is followed.

Who's the president's boss? Got a mirror?

 

[Amandi]

Of course not. It's up to the President's boss to see to it that the Constitution is followed.

Who's the president's boss? Got a mirror?

I don't think any president. That is why I support Congress making along. Of course the president will probably veto it.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

It would be retarded for the president, who directly controls the NSA, to order then to halt their surveillance operations?

Yes, it would be.

 

[apdst]

Yes, it would be.

How so?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

How so?

Because purposely blinding your nation's intelligence community is kinda stupid? Especially if your job entails providing the defense of the nation? Why wouldn't he just go slam his balls in a dresser drawer while he's at it?

What's not to get: diminishing NSA's ability would be stupid. Since he's not stupid, that's not something that he would do. We've seen that, as you've pointed out, because he hasn't done it.

 

[sangha]

I suspect the issue just has to get before the Supreme Court before most of what the NSA is doing gets struck down. In a landmark decision here in Canada this past week, our Supreme Court unanimously struck down federal powers to demand internet servers provide police with names, addresses and other identification data when the police provide an IP address. The ruling means that the police now must seek a warrant for even this bare minimum of information.

I suspect that no matter what laws are passed or what the Supreme Court says, the NSA will keep doing what the NSA does.

 

[sangha]

And, again, no one is demanding that the president--whom the NSA works for--put a stop to the NSA spying.

I wonder why that is.

Because that would be like demanding that cats stop playing with the mice before they kill them

 

[CanadaJohn]

I suspect that no matter what laws are passed or what the Supreme Court says, the NSA will keep doing what the NSA does.

That could be true, especially when you have a President who seems to only enforce laws he likes and a Congress that doesn't seem to seriously care.

 

[apdst]

Because purposely blinding your nation's intelligence community is kinda stupid? Especially if your job entails providing the defense of the nation? Why wouldn't he just go slam his balls in a dresser drawer while he's at it?

What's not to get: diminishing NSA's ability would be stupid. Since he's not stupid, that's not something that he would do. We've seen that, as you've pointed out, because he hasn't done it.

So, you agree with the NSA's domestic spying operations?

 

[sangha]

That could be true, especially when you have a President who seems to only enforce laws he likes and a Congress that doesn't seem to seriously care.

All of our presidents engage in selective enforcement. Besides, I don't think the NSA cares about the president either.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

So, you agree with the NSA's domestic spying operations?

You mean metadata collection? Absolutely. I'm not an idiot, an ideologue, or inexperienced in how the intelligence community operates.

 

[apdst]

All of our presidents engage in selective enforcement. Besides, I don't think the NSA cares about the president either.

Because he condones the surveillance, or the NSA knows that Obama is the most impotent president in American history.