House Approves Rep. Lamar Smith's Bill To Keep Spying On Americans
from the of-course-they-did dept
As was expected, despite not knowing the details of how the feds interpret the FISA Amendmens Act, which grants massive spying and surveillance power to the feds -- in fact, while proactively stopping any efforts to find out more about the interpretation, the House of Representatives today approved Lamar Smith's FISA Amendment's Act by a vote of 301-118. You can see which representatives voted which way at that link. The bill would extend the current rules (and the secret interpretation) for another five years. Republicans, who are supposedly against bigger government, only had 7 members vote no, while the remaining 111 no votes came from Democrats.There had been an attempt to introduce amendments, but that was shot down procedurally. And an hour debate did little to get to the heart of the matter. Rep. Zoe Lofgren fought the good fight, pointing out that "I think the government needs to comply with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution all the time... We can be safe while still complying with the Constitution of the United States." However, Rep. Dan Lungren -- who previously had insisted that there was no evidence that the NSA was abusing its powers, while refusing to even ask the NSA for basic info on how it was using the powers -- insisted based on absolutely nothing that "this is critical to the protection of the American people."
Even worse, Rep. Terry Gowdy made a ridiculously ignorant statement in response to Lofgren's highlighting of the 4th Amendment:
”Intelligence is the lifeblood of our ability to defend ourselves,” he said. Moments later, he added: “Are we to believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to the entire world?”But, uh, the concern isn't with the rest of the world. Even without the FISA Amendments Act, the NSA already had the right to seek info on foreign communications. They have no 4th Amendment rights, so that's not even an issue. The issue is that the FISA Amendments Act appears to include some weasel words that have been twisted by the government to suggest that it can spy on Americans too. But Gowdy misleads the public by pretending, falsely, that this is about foreigners? It's not. Has he asked the NSA how many Americans it's spied on? Even the NSA has admitted that it's violated the 4th Amendment under the act in spying on Americans... but Gowdy pretends this is just about foreigners? How do you stand up and call yourself a "Representative" when you can't even get the very basics right?
Of course, House approval is just one step. The Senate version remains on hold thanks to Senator Wyden, who is one of the only elected officials who is actually asking the NSA and the Obama administration to (a) reveal the secret interpretation and (b) disclose how many Americans are being spied on under the rule.
As Julian Sanchez explained recently a former DOJ official has basically revealed part of the secret interpretation, which more or less says that if the target is al Qaeda, then anything goes:
For example, an authorization targeting “al Qaeda”—which is a non-U.S. person located abroad—could allow the government to wiretap any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda, either because the telephone is registered to a person whom the government believes is affiliated with al Qaeda, or because the government believes that the person communicates with others who are affiliated with al Qaeda, regardless of the location of the telephone.Take that and expand it, and you've basically given the feds and the NSA a blank slate to spy on Americans by claiming that if it believes the spying will yield information about a threat, then it's fine. And our "Representatives" are standing up and -- either through ignorance or straight-up dishonesty -- are pretending that this is about spying on foreigners only. Shameful.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, congress, dan lungren, faa, fisa amendments act, house, lamar smith, nsa, surveillance, terry gowdy, zoe lofgren
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is seriously getting ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is seriously getting ridiculous
Can't do something effective though, otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep using the threat of terrorism as a scapegoat.
Collect a few bribes, make a stupid statement, brush off any complaints, pass a horrible law, make plans for the reelection campaign. All in a day's work for a slimeball politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I no longer respect the government, who is supposed to be protecting my rights under the constitution and why I don't have any respect for those we have elected to protect our interests.
Where is "violating my first and fourth amendment rights" anywhere in those choices?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.A.M.N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lamar Smith and the rest of you losers who Voted this in you love to lick dirty dog butts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
my dogs keep their butts quite clean by licking themselves, thank you very much; and i certainly do NOT want some dirty politicians (who *KNOWS* where those filthy mouths have been) licking my dogs' already clean butts...
otherwise, *my* fantasy is that i could projectile vomit over the WHOLE of washingtoon; after all, turnabout is fair play...
PS its only about half the kongresskritters that are millionaires+, surely they 'represent' all us li'l peeps scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck...
surely they do... *cough*cough*
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing
As I've recently mentioned: There is nothing that we can do. There is very little ground left to loose. Bear arms and protect your children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd vote for him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd vote for him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oopps hit submit too fast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I grow weary of these wacky claims that nothing is wrong with this, and its time we demand that they go first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least there's 118 politicians we can trust...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least there's 118 politicians we can trust...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As usual, you're way out ahead of yourself Chubby. Congress enacts the law, then if there's a problem the law is challenged in the courts on Constitutional grounds. Shockingly, a declaration by Techdirtbag Nation that a law violates the 4th Amendment doesn't cut it. That determination is actually vested in the judiciary. Who writes this shit for you Masnick, your friends over at Russia Today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you challenge a law that has a secret interpretation that no one outside of "cleared" individuals is allowed to know? Especially when those who get evidence that they've been illegally spied on then have their cases tossed out due to "national security" reasons. Or, those who gather evidence of the illegality can't bring suit, because they're told they don't have standing?
Please, do tell.
We're all interested.
Shockingly, a declaration by Techdirtbag Nation that a law violates the 4th Amendment doesn't cut it. That determination is actually vested in the judiciary
That's not even the concern we're expressing here. It amuses me that you're so quick to slam me you don't even understand what's happening here. The problem is that those who voted on the issue don't even know how the Feds have interpreted the law, because that's secret. They don't even bother to ask how often the NSA has spied on Americans, because they don't even want to know.
Why doesn't this concern you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when you rely on someone else to protect your rights or interests, you automatically empower them to decide what is in your best interest. this might be the biggest problem the american people face today; a perception of the government that is flawed at the foundation. our government was not set up to protect our interests, it was set up to take care of mundane daily business so the people could pursue life, liberty and happiness. we removed the old government of england for exactly the reason that it decided what was in our best interest and would not be persuaded otherwise. it was a bloody work, and likely will be again when the people finally get tired of the same treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The white house wants this power.
Obama wants this power.
Thank god there is one senator in Oregon who thinks Obama nor any other President needs this power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Worth noting
I guess the GOP has changed their minds about "small government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Worth noting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote out Lamar Smith
[ link to this | view in chronology ]