Amash Amendment Narrowly Rejected After Heated (And Partly Ridiculous) Debate
from the lame dept
So, this isn't a huge surprise, but this evening there was a rather fascinating debate in the House in which Congressional Reps debated and then rejected the Amash Amendment to defund the NSA's Section 215 efforts to collect every bit of data about every communication made by Americans. While it sucks that the amendment lost, the vote was very close -- much closer than most people suspected (which explains why the NSA and the White House had flipped out about the amendment even hitting the floor). The debate about the Amash amendment followed one about an amendment from Rep. Pompeo (which is the same as the Rep. Nugent amendment). As we discussed, the Pompeo/Nugent amendment is a red herring pretending to limit the collection of information, but which really just restates the status quote. The Amash amendment was the important one. The debate was fascinating -- seeing a bipartisan group of representatives speak eloquently about protecting our rights and the rights of Americans. However, the defenders of the NSA program really pushed out some crazy claims. Rep. Mike Rogers insisted that the program stopped terrorism -- something that has not yet been shown at all. He also claimed that without spying on all Americans we might have another 9/11.The worst, by far, were the claims from Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who claimed that the Snowden revelations "helped Islamic jihadists" and that if we don't keep spying on all Americans there will be horrible results... and then immediately lied and claimed that the NSA data collected was "smaller than a phone book" even though others on her side, like Rep. Tom Cotton admitted it was "billions of records." Bachmann's misleading attempt at making a point was because the NSA database doesn't directly include names and addresses, but just phone numbers (and phone calls, locations, people you're calling). What that leaves out is that the NSA can easily connect its database to a phone book and have that information anyway. Or, as Parker Higgins pointed out, if there's less info than a phone book, wouldn't it have been cheaper and easier to just buy the NSA a phone book.
In the end, the Pompeo/Nugent amendment passed by an unfortunately wide margin: 409 to 12. Oddly, the nays were as high as 20 and bounced around up and down for a while, but at the very end of the voting, it looks like a bunch changed their vote. As for the Amash Amendment it wasn't so lopsided. In fact, it was pretty close: 205 voted for the Amash amendment, with 217 against. While the amendment lost, it was pretty damn close, meaning that a very large percentage of Congress appears to be very concerned about NSA bulk collection of data. That bodes well for future reform to limit the NSA.
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: appropriations, justin amash, michelle bachmann, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy, section 215, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dammit...
who do we need to lynch to get the NSA fixed already?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20130724&today=20130724
6:21 :43 P.M. H.R. 2397 POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Amash amendment No. 100, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Amash demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
6:53:20 P.M. H.R. 2397 On agreeing to the Amash amendment; Failed by recorded vote: (Roll no. 412).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2013&rollnumber=412&TB_iframe=true& ;height=400&width=650
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml#N
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Link to votes cast re: Amash amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Establishment won this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/07/rush-holt-repeal-surveillance-state-act.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are there any other amendments coming up besides Holt's so we can keep the pressure on the NSA or are they being given breathing room and the ability to regroup (bribe)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it was not approved, now what?
It won't happen again, believe me.
Congress will be bullied into approving everything automatically, by the President, the NSA and their lobbyists-not to mention the defense contractors who were hired by the NSA.
It will be in the form of very subtle blackmail and threats, coercion and back room deals...the usual ways.
Kiss the 4th amendment good bye. It was nice thinking you had privacy.
Nice time was had by all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is your government are sick. You have no respect for the liberties of your own citizens, never mind those of citizens of other countries. I never want to here any more moralising from American politicians about freedom and democracy because the truth is you have no fucking idea what those words mean.
Sick and twisted government and the real terrorists of this world. Keep on regressing, America; the rest of the world hates you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disappointed in my rep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disappointed in my rep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disappointed in my rep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no further 9/11 attacks because ????? why ?
he's right, fact is you have not had another 9/11, and you cannot prove that you did not have one because of extra security.
Some simple reasoning would show that people who would commit a 9/11 style attack are NOT making such attacks, and the reason why they are not is because of added security..
Are you going to try to argue that you have had no 9/11 style attacks just because "they didn't feel like it" ??
Or do you think there is some other reason why ?
What is your reason why you have not received another 9/11 type attack ??
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no further 9/11 attacks because ????? why ?
You're 'simple reasoning' is actually fallacious logic. The reason there hasn't been another attack like 9/11 in the last 12 years is the same reason we didn't have a 9/11 type attack in the 12 years before the 9/11 attacks: 9/11 type attacks are singularly rare events that simply don't happen very often even if nothing is done at all
Absence of evidence is absence of evidence and absent any evidence that they work and are worth the money these programs shouldn't be funded. The onus is on you and others that support these programs to show that they work, not on everyone else to prove they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucky you live in a democracy
The majority of everyone disagrees with you.
You love your democracy except when it goes against your views..
YOU LOST, put as much icing on a piece of shit, it's still a piece of shit.
So now that you have lost, and been voted down by your democracy, what are you going to do now ?? keep whinging ?
I guess that is all you have to do, it's all you really ever had. It's your democratic right after all, it's also your democratic right to live by the rules of your democracy.
So just as it's your right to argue against it, it's your responsibility to abide by the same democratic rules and obligations of that democracy..
You had your vote, you had your rights voted on, you lost !!!! end of story..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lucky you live in a democracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's not a loss, it's a WIN.
A win for your democratic system!!, In a democracy you cannot please all of the people all of the time (nor should you), but the system wins, the democracy wins, and the majority wins..
Sure is sucks to be on the minority losing side, but lots of things suck..
lots of people and Governments do things you don't like, or don't agree with, but the majority do agree with, that's how a democratic system works..
if it was close (it was not that close), then how can you say there was significant bullying going on.. if it was a landslide win, or landslide loss you could make that claim.
But not when it is close or even close to close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a vote is close, you have every reason to use whatever means you deem necessary to get your will. Trust me: Politicians have a good head-count of their peers before a vote and they have an idea about what concessions to make to "buy" a certain vote.
To think that a majority is static is naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet that woke you up.. how telling !!!!
what is that 0.25% votes ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Status Quote" is deliciously freudian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet, when the Patriot Act comes up for renewal, it'll be passed by a majority like usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]