doctorow — 2013-07-23T11:38:07-04:00 — #1
duncancreamer — 2013-07-23T11:57:44-04:00 — #2
Sure, I hate blink tags as much as the next hyper-inteligent-shade-of-blue, but this is an pretty good use for it.
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T12:04:49-04:00 — #3
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T12:17:37-04:00 — #4
Hey Cory, are you working the phones?
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T12:23:55-04:00 — #5
jardine — 2013-07-23T12:32:53-04:00 — #6
Do not listen to this foreign trickster! He is not even an American. He is the son of communists! Foreign communists! Who are from another country! This is an obvious ploy to kill the jobs of good, honest, hardworking Americans who protect your country from terrorists and terrorist-sympathizers. Think of the children. Actually, stop thinking of the children you sicko. We're onto you!
-Definitely not an NSA astroturfer
dacree — 2013-07-23T13:07:55-04:00 — #7
This is just theater. Defunding it is not the same as eliminating it and our lawmakers know it. If they wanted to stop it they could just do that. Instead, they will defund it taking it off the official budget and begin funding it with off the books black op funds. Another option for them is to simply rename the program and begin funding the old program under a new name.
Don't fall for this farcical bait and switch. Demand that congress pass laws preventing this sort of program entirely.
humbabella — 2013-07-23T13:10:51-04:00 — #8
The quotation from the summary suggests that they are actually voting to shut down the program. Of course to really get rid of it they probably need to get rid of the entire NSA, otherwise they'll just keep doing it and lying about doing it.
dacree — 2013-07-23T13:15:39-04:00 — #9
That's simply a summary and a misleading one at that. I'd wager that the language of that summary was carefully chosen to make people think this would eliminate the program.
This is a defense appropriations bill meaning they will have language that prevents the defense bill from paying for the program. It does not, in any way, shutter the program or prevent it from using other funding sources.
dacree — 2013-07-23T13:21:30-04:00 — #10
Here is the full text of the amendment being considered. As you can see, this does nothing to prevent the NSA from continuing operations under other funding sources. This is all smoke and mirrors designed to make you think something is being done
OFFERED BY MR. AMASH OF MICHIGAN
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert
the following new section:
1 SEC. ll. None of the funds made available by this
2 Act may be used to collect tangible things pursuant to an
3 order under section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Sur
4 veillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) if such things do
5 not pertain to a person who is the subject of an investiga
6 tion described in such section.
rhyolite — 2013-07-23T14:09:46-04:00 — #11
Yes, this would effectively de-fund the program. You would have to pass a separate special appropriation to fund the program if it is prohibited in the defense appropriation bill that covers the NSA. You may be able to move funds around within a given appropriation if funding is not prohibited, as it would be in this case, but you can't move funds from another appropriation.
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T14:14:08-04:00 — #12
Subverting the constitution took decades. It might take decades to get it back. This is one effort and if we REALLY care it will not be the last.
rhyolite — 2013-07-23T14:19:03-04:00 — #13
Yes, this is a good first step. The appropriations bill has to pass every year so a pro-4th amendment coalition can exert leverage by threatening to block the bill if the programs are not de-funded
Stripping the authorization for the programs would be the next step but that is more complicated because it requires a separate bill, which is harder to pass and gives congressional leaders more opportunities to quash it. Otherwise you have to wait for the renewal of the PATRIOT act to block it.
Repealing the authorization is possible with enough support but it will take longer than simply de-funding the programs.
dacree — 2013-07-23T14:35:14-04:00 — #14
I respectfully disagree. No separate special appropriation would be required. The US intelligence agencies have a black budget of over $75 billion. These are dollars that are not part of this appropriation act. The NSAs entire budget has been black budget spending since it was created in the mid 50's. No one knows where the money goes because it's all off the books.
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T14:57:24-04:00 — #15
Dacree, if you have anything to offer we'll take it otherwise shut up and get out of the way. We have this one.
dacree — 2013-07-23T15:15:30-04:00 — #16
if you have anything to offer we'll take it otherwise shut up and get
out of the way. We have this one
Thanks for the kind words lasermike026
I'm wondering, is that the royal we or do you represent some sort of secret group in charge of overseeing actions taken as a result of BoingBoing posts? Either way, I sure am glad you have this one. I'll sleep better knowing that you are on the case, especially since you are clearly in charge of the internets today.
humbabella — 2013-07-23T15:19:25-04:00 — #17
You are correct, this does not stop the program at all, it just makes them lie about where the money goes, which is probably easy since it's probably illegal for them to say where any of the money that goes into the program goes anyway.
lasermike026 — 2013-07-23T15:40:11-04:00 — #18
Sorry, I have no time for people that do nothing. Consider yourself filtered.
And "royal we", where do you come from?
dacree — 2013-07-23T15:43:02-04:00 — #19
I have no time for people that do nothing
Nothing? Like when I posted the actual text of the amendment being discussed? What did you contribute? Oh wait, you can't read this since you filtered me. Oh Noes!
And "royal we", where do you come from?
I hail from 75208 http://youtu.be/HFcneB0EVRM Maybe if you spent some time reading or exposing yourself to something outside of your echo chamber, you would already have been exposed to that phrase.
gem — 2013-07-23T15:50:00-04:00 — #20
I'm assuming the title of the post should say "spying", not "supying", although you did get me to google it to check!
next page →