One Of The NSA's Biggest Critics In The Senate May Lose His Seat
from the don't-let-that-happen dept
In the past, we've noted how unfortunate it was that the Senator who fought strongest for our civil liberties in Congress, Russ Feingold, got voted out of office back in 2010 -- in favor of a "Tea Party" candidate who has consistently voted in favor of the intelligence community since replacing Feingold. Since then, plenty of attention has gone to Senator Ron Wyden for picking up where Feingold left off, but with him on issues of civil liberties as it relates to the intelligence community has always been Senator Mark Udall -- who has been perhaps even more vocal than Senator Wyden on these issues.And, worryingly, it appears that Udall may be facing a Feingold moment, where he's facing a candidate that has positioned himself more on "Tea Party" type issues. Udall hasn't campaigned very much on his amazing support for civil liberties, since many observers don't think that's an "election issue" in Colorado. However, recently, Udall has been willing to point to his important work on the Senate Intelligence Committee as one of a very small number of Senators who actually worked hard to push back against unconstitutional surveillance, to push for transparency and accountability for the intelligence community, and who pushed, repeatedly, to defend our civil liberties. It would be a huge loss for civil liberties if Udall were to lose this election, and a clear victory for the NSA, the intelligence community and those who like to spread FUD to retain power and take away your rights.
“I do think it would be a significant loss for the movement,” said Laura Murphy, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office.The Denver Post recently endorsed Udall's opponent, complaining that Udall wasn't enough of a "leader" in the Senate (not an easy thing to do as a first-term Senator). And while the editorial at least does call out Udall's work on the Intelligence Committee, it suggests that his opponent, Cory Gardner, is fine there too because he voted for the USA Freedom Act in the House. Except, of course, voting for a bill is one thing. Leading the charge on these issues is another thing altogether. Besides, the version of the USA Freedom Act that was voted on wasn't a good thing. It was the bill that the White House undermined at the last minute, leading all civil liberties groups to pull their support, and most members of the House who are big on civil liberties voted against the bill due to the compromises shoved into it. Voting for it didn't show a similar viewpoint, but rather the opposite.
[...]
“Were Sen. Udall to lose, I think he would be sorely missed,” echoed Scott Roehm, a senior counsel at The Constitution Project. “He was one of the earliest voices for meaningful surveillance reform even before the Snowden leaks.”
There are lots of other issues for voters, of course, but feel free to check out Udall's stance on things. If you're in Colorado, please consider voting for one of the very few principled voices for civil liberties in Congress.
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: civil liberties, colorado, cory gardner, mark udall, nsa, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
keith alexander / nsa
Ex-spy chief's private firm ends deal with US official
Former National Security Agency director Keith Alexander has ended a deal with a senior U.S. intelligence official allowing the official to work part-time for his firm, an arrangement current and former officials said risked a conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to hope that guys like Feingold and Udall would the vanguard of a popular uprising against the security state.
But it's obvious now that they are just fighting a desperate rear-guard defense with minimal support against an overwhelming force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this means that you may be surprised but at this rate the majority of Americans want their liberties removed for this thing they call security.
This one is a human nature problem and started a long time ago with both sides sucking that one off in their lust for power!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"majority of Americans want their liberties removed for this thing they call security."
Not sure where this "factoid" originates. Is it the result of an accurate poll or is it supposition based upon how people have voted in the past assuming they support all resultant legislation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This doesn't seem true to me. Can you support the assertion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do continue with your insightful contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're saying Tibet doesn't deserve its own sovereignty because it got conquered by an "overwhelming force?" Are you implying that everyone singled out in the mass-murders of history don't deserve life because an "overwhelming force" decided they don't want them around anymore? Are you telling me that slaves deserved their lifestyle because they were captured and traded by an "overwhelming force?"
Either cut the defeatist attitude or stop stealth-shilling for the "overwhelming force."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That doesn't make sense. Tibet didn't have much of a chance, and their spirituality pretty much demands non-violence. They virtually chose to lose because they are virulently anti-war. That's a value judgment on their part. I wouldn't go that way, but to them it was the better choice. Meh.
I don't want to put words in his mouth (the person you're replying to), but remember that B. Franklin quote, "Those willing to sacrifice freedom for security, ...". Freedom is bought with the blood of heroes, and all that. Americans are abrogating their right to their freedoms by sheepishly allowing them to be bled away, drop by drop, by tyrannical forces. If you're not willing to stand up to tyrants, you do deserve what you get; tyranny. This is the nature of life. Your Founding Fathers taught you this, enshrining those thoughts in the Constitution.
It may be politically incorrect, but yeah. The Jews in Nazi Germany who sheepishly allowed themselves to be herded into cattle cars bound for the ovens did deserve it. The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought back. The inmates of Sobibor fought back. The Poles who lost the invasion to the Nazis fought back. Wolves are going to make you their dinner if you can't be bothered to arm yourself and defend your right not to become their dinner.
Frankly, yeah. CF. the slave rebellion vs. Imperial Rome. They could have escaped over the mountains into Gaul, but they chose to try to end the tyranny (they had overwhelming numbers, including trained gladiators), and lost. Tough luck. If all the black slaves in the US had risen up against their masters, they might have won. Liberia was founded by freed slaves. "Some days, you get the bear. Some days, the bear gets you." -- Riker.
You've got to try, or submit and accept the tyranny. You might win, and you might lose. But if you really want it, you've got to step up and take it, or accept the alternative. Tyrants aren't going to nicely respect your freedoms or rights. They want to eat you, and they believe they have that right! It's up to you to teach them you won't let them get away with it without it costing them more than they're willing to pay.
I preferred MLK's and Ghandi's way of doing things, but it's a little extraordinary when their way works. More often, Mandela's or Ho Chi Mihn's the way to go, even if it means aligning yourself with the USSR to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Crap, I think I'm starting to channel James Comey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Many thinks that they "deserve" freedom/rights/etc. Freedom and rights are earned, not necessary by blood, but never "deserved".
After WWII Jews learned the lesson - independance is "bought with the blood of heroes". I would add that it's more rented that bought, and that "blood of heroes" is expected from time to time, or your rent is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately, this is a common human trait - or as some refer to it, a fault.
If a society wants to claim they are civilized then they had better act like it, otherwise they are just a bunch of monkeys screaming at each other whilst tossing excrement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuff about boots and human faces
That said; people that on there own autonomous action should end these people forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's a senator because he's Mo Udall's kid. The only thing he's ever done other than be a tax sponge is to work for Outward Bound. In the Senate, he's specialized in polarized politics and avoiding getting things done.
He's run a relentlessly negative campaign, focused so exclusively on abortion and contraception that he's been nicknamed "Mark Uterus" in the local papers. Even the reliably liberal Denver Post has endorsed his opponent. Cory Gardner is conservative, but he's not crazy.
If Mark Udall is no longer in the Senate, we will have lost a voice that at least sometimes seemed to oppose the surveillance culture and abuses of the NSA. I will regret the loss of the voice. As a resident of the State of Colorado, however, I can't honestly say we'll miss him all that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
If you wanna cure for the damage to our liberties and freedoms don't vote for either party as you won't get what you think you will. Find an independent that fits closer to what you believe.
If you haven't noticed, no one in government is paying any mind to what the citizens want. We don't pay enough through lobbying to be heard. Throw a bunch of the insiders out, get money out of politics, start making personal accountability a requirement from local all the way up the the POTUS, and you might start seeing a return to those liberties and freedoms you are missing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Dems have done enough damage
You're deluded. Your "heart" is in the right place, but I don't expect to see respect for constitutionality again in my lifetime. The "sheeple" are far more interested in terrists and paedos, parotting talking points from MSM talking heads, supporting Imperial USA, and freaking out about gay marriage. After all, the ACLU are commies! I've been hearing that since I was young last century (and not just from John Birchers).
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing much push back on the part of the rank and file citizenry. They're too busy trying to make sure "those guys" don't get in this time, not bothering to even think about what "those guys" even means.
The republic's been co-opted/bought by the special interests, and the few voices of reason who manage to fight their way in are on their way out the door as soon as they speak up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dems have done enough damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was one of those who voted against Feingold. Perhaps he was good on this issue, but he was no friend of the Constitution - he actually once said, in my presence, that he knew that parts of his campaign finance bill were unconstitutional. That's a disqualifier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the obvious choice to vote for the other guy,
amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There were plenty of "somethings" to like or dislike about the guy. But knowingly co-sponsoring unconstitutional legislation is not just "something". It goes to the heart of everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why don't the bloggers who run this site do us all a favor and quit pretending they wouldn't endorse the Democrat in CO no matter his record on "civil liberties". You aren't fooling anyone.
Udall is toast, and all I have to say is "Good fucking riddance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pathetic
(Maybe there are more than that, but as little criticism as we hear, it sure seems like less than two hands.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?
I wonder how much these cheerleaders know about the platform which they are so adamant about.
I find it humorous when a politician gets their panties in a twist because the lamestream media repeats things they said. Apparently the politician does not want to be seen talking out both sides of their mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow, where did all the anti-Udall trolls come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small government
Parties want to stay in power, and shrinking the size of government is the antithesis of that. Every administration in my lifetime has grown the Federal government. Republicans have grown it more (Bush 2 & Reagan, particularly), but there's really very little difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small government
I suppose I need to dial back the dosage on my halucinogens then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul :
Of course, US voters are conditioned from birth to believe that a vote for anything other than Demopublican or Republicrat is a wasted vote - you may as well just not bother to vote. Since the Demopublicans and Republicrats have a death lock grip around the throat of districting and voter eligibility (not to mention one hell of a lot of other related matters), that's pretty much true. Your elections are manipulated by them to the point that it would take an act of god for any alternative to unseat the two of them. Allied with their corrupt toadies in the mainstream media, dissenters aren't even accepted into televised debates until it gets forced on them by the Supreme Court.
You don't live in a democracy, and don't try to pull that republic BS either. Just increase your daily dose of Soma, and keep on reporting those dissenters and whistleblowers to the authorities. They're likely paedos or terrists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Small government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small government
Look at Kansas under the tea bag control with Brownback at the helm. What a disaster, and he wants to stay the course because it certainly will work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/07/16/gop-governor-implements-gop-economi cs-disaster-ensues/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government
Hardly. Kansas has been a hotbed of Dumth for at least a decade.
More party politics, much sound and fury, signifying nothing. I wish they'd just pull out the guns and start shooting each other, hopefully avoiding hitting innocent bystanders.
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Small government
Granted. They can be a fairly amorphous bunch, and I can't say I'm much of a fan of Paul myself (did I mention we are an amorphous bunch? :-)
How about we go at the question from a different angle? Isn't it pretty much a given that Jefferson et al were very worried about government power running amok, and did everything they thought they could to constrain that potential? "The government that governs least, governs best." That'd make your Founding Fathers that, "... party in America who wanted smaller government." I'd guess my point stands sans my dredging up Ron Paul and libertarians.
That's a fairly miniscule nit compared to Demopublicans and Republicrats having kidnapped your Democratically elected Republic. As in, you are not a democracy, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can be free from your tyrants and oppressors.
I've got to say, it seems strange that I'm out here in the wilds of Canada trying to teach you guys this stuff. I justify it by thinking I'm doing it in self-defence. I do not want whatever disease is infecting your nation to spread to here. I used to revere the USA for the things it was founded upon (and man, did I take a lot of flack from my fellow Canucks for it). Now, your country appears quite loathsome, or at least its political institutions do.
No offence meant. I'd love to see the USA I grew up with exist again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government
By that I mean the nation that stopped the VietNam War, the nation that stopped Nixon, Haldeman, Oliver North, the CIA's overreach in Latin America etc., that put a guy on the Moon, the nation that raised a John Dean and a Deep Throat, that pulled off the sosus network and invented the Internet.
Come back USA. We miss you out here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small government
Absolutely, yes.
You know what else that many of the founders were very concerned about? Political parties. They thought there should be any at all -- that the existence of political parties would be a real threat to the union.
"As in, you are not a democracy, and the sooner you accept that, the sooner you can be free from your tyrants and oppressors."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If we just give up on the notion of democracy, we'll be free? I disagree.
"I've got to say, it seems strange that I'm out here in the wilds of Canada trying to teach you guys this stuff."
That's a fair bit of hubris right there, particularly since you aren't saying anything that isn't a common topic of political discussion in the first place. You aren't exactly bringing revelations here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time
I am actually amazed that none of these people have had CIA airplane accidents yet.
However, as the perps in power get more and more eager to reap the benefits of all their hard work over the last decade or two, their urgency should get the job done pretty soon, if bribery, blackmail and coercion fail to work.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]