Skip to main content

View Diary: White House blasts amendment curtailing the NSA's power (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Link is OK (6+ / 0-)

    No need to embed. But thanks for the link to the full bill. The one in the diary goes to a summary page.

    I'll skim the full bill but I think I spotted what I was after. Detailed here.

    •  Cool. It's a quick read. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, elwior, Cliss

      If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

      by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:25:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the EFF's synopsis of the amendment (14+ / 0-)

      And also of the decoy amendment (with a link to that too) if you're interested. I personally agree with the EFF's opinion that this effort still doesn't do anywhere near enough to curtail mass-collection of domestic communications and data, but it's a place to start the discussion...

      If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

      by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:30:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks but that doesn't explain the reasoning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That article says the Nugent bill does not alter current practices but it doesn't do anything to explain why that is so. i'm still a this point wrt Nugent.

        •  I posted this link down the thread (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, aliasalias

          But you might find this analysis helpful for illuminating the subtle, yet critical, differences between the Amash/Conyers amendment and the Nugent amendment.

          If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

          by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, that doesn't do it (2+ / 0-)

            I'd actually already read that but that does not lessen my appreciation for your help.

            That article focuses on paragraph one of Nugent. It talks about section 702. But Nugent does niot stop there. It does include language modifying section 215. As I said somewhere in tihs comments section, it seems to me Nugent prevents the NSA from storing the actual phone calls themselves, however, it might allow the NSA to store the to/from/when data.

            Which every telco has done for decades, so in practical terms banning the gov't from compiling a redundant DB does not prevent the gov't from later going to a telco DB for the same to/from/when information.

            I may well be missing some thing (almost certain in fact) but so far so too do the explanations I have been offered.

            •  Well, I appreciate your feedback (5+ / 0-)

              and I realize you're feeling out what makes the most sense to you. That's all we can do, right?

              Anyway, I'm obviously in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment, and I've come to share the same conclusion about the Nugent amendment as the Techdirt poster. The curious conflation of sections 215 and 702 in the Nugent amendment is actually pretty reflective of the ways both Gen. Alexander and DNI Clapper have been referring to these programs (often in the singular, as a program) and that alone spells trouble, in my opinion.

              I wish you much luck in sussing out your own conclusion as well. Maybe even with enough time to call your Representative and suggest they vot one way or the other.

              Gotta run now...the debate has begun.

              If you see a sacred cow, milk it for all it's worth. -Swami Beyondananda

              by The Free Agent on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:49:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks to you too for a productive convo (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, Medium Head Boy

                The section on 702 might be redundant or it might actually stiffen 702's intent. But there is no escaping the fact Nugent does also talk about 512. I get suispicious when asked to believe words I can read for myself do not exist. (Not you, the link.)

                Anyway, right now I think I could support either amendment.

                I can ask (yes that) Paul Ryan to vote for either, but I am not sure he is listeing. ;)

                •  Thanks folks, for the illuminating back and (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Quicklund, maryabein

                  Forth.  I'd like to submit that another very real purpose of this bill is to force all Reps to vote yea or nay publiclly on whether the house should continue to appropriate funds for the NSA to continue blowing the 4th amendment to smithereens.  Since the amendment clearly has no chance of making it through conference committee (because if it did it would be vetoed by the president), it seems like an election year ploy to get material for a lot of tv commercials- "Did you know that YOUR Congressional Representative, Mr. Lilylivered, tried to dismantle our Nationa Security AntiTerrorism program???!!1!".  Or conversely, "Did you know that your congressman, Mr. McSnoopypants, wants the government to know if you're wearing clean underwear today??!1!!!"
                  Practically writes itself.

                  •  Sure, that's good politics (0+ / 0-)

                    The GOP record is starting to catch up to them. So why not keep that up?

                    I don't know that a veto would happen tough. I doubt it very much. The idea of attaching this to the DoD spending bill is that bill is very hard for a POTUS to veto. Speaking of politics, can you picture "Obama vetoed the US Military!"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site