Senate Just Barely Rejects Plan To Expand FBI Surveillance Powers

from the two-votes dept

Wed, Jun 22nd 2016 2:26pm — Mike Masnick

Just yesterday we wrote about how the Senate was, somewhat ridiculously, rapidly pushing forward plans on a vote for an amendment to the laws concerning what information the FBI can gather using National Security Letters (NSLs). Despite the fact that the big push for this bill began a few weeks ago, and the fact that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Orlando shooting, cynical Senators including John McCain and Mitch McConnell pointed to the shootings in Orlando as a reason that this expansion of FBI surveillance powers was needed. Of course, the reality is that it wasn't needed, and the law is really there to paper over the fact that the FBI has already been widely abusing its NSL powers to get information it's not allowed to request.

After a vocal debate this morning, the measure (somewhat surprisingly) failed to pass, but by just two votes. It need 60 votes to move forward (it was a vote for "cloture" on debate, which requires 60 votes), and it only received 58. But McConnell already made it clear that the amendment will be reconsidered soon, which means he's likely going to be pushing strongly to get those two remaining votes.

In other words, this particular debate is far from over, and thus it's important to make sure your Senator knows not to support this. You can see the roll call on the votes here to see what your Senators voted. Somewhat surprisingly, neither of my Senators in California voted for it. Feinstein didn't vote or wasn't present and Boxer voted against. I'm guessing that Feinstein would likely vote for it in a revote, given her willingness to support greater surveillance, so it's possible that McConnell really only needs one more vote, unless people can convince some of the "Yea" voters to change their mind.

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, doj, fbi, john mccain, mitch mcconnell, national security letters, nsls, politics, warrants

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 2:46pm

McConnell voted Nay...why would he move to get it reconsidered if its not something he would vote for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  Get this... Politicians can be facetious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2016 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    Noooooo - and they also lie?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 3:15pm
  
  Re:
  In Robert's Rules of Order it is called a "vote to reconsider". If he saw that it was not going to pass, he would vote with the winning side, such that within three days (*= standard rules, not sure what the rules of the senate are) he can ask for a "reconsideration" since as a prevailing voter he has reconsidered and would like to re-vote; the vote to reconsider only requires a majority (i.e. not 60) so it will pass, followed by a revote of the original motion (in this case a cloture vote to end discussion); presumably at that point he, and the person he strong-armed will vote yes, the discussion will be closed and the motion can be voted on (and presumably will pass since it had 60 votes to get to that point).
  
  It can make your brain hurt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 3:22pm

when are people going to realise that there is nothing more important to the US government than turning the country into a Police State as quick as possible? why the hell dont the politicians who always rely on the voter to get back into office not get the surprise of their lives and get voted out? put someone new in office and if they turn out the same, put someone else in next time! eventually there has to be someone elected who does the job instead of being a mixture between a security forces and big business stooge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2016 @ 3:31pm

AZ is screwed, our senator sponsored the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizen 9, 22 Jun 2016 @ 3:35pm

These cuffs are a tad tight
The lizards will just wait a couple of months and try again, and keep repeating until they succeed and pass the bill as a rider on some other bill no one reads and / or understands.

And we call it democracy in a pretend civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 22 Jun 2016 @ 3:39pm

If someone could throw some sand down on that slope I'd be obliged, thanks. Just one bad step could kill a man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2016 @ 2:02am

Ahh, the old 'keep asking till you get your own way' gambit - where have I heard that before?

'Mum can I have a rabbit?'
'Mum can I have a rabbit?'
'Mum can I have a rabbit?'
'Mum can I have a rabbit?'
'Mum can I have a rabbit?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]