If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Senator Leahy has created a bill, aptly named the "NSA Castration Act" and it's 72 pages of ball busting glory   (politico.com) divider line 64
    More: Hero, Leahy's, NSA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Jon Tester, Mark Udall, FISA Amendments Act, Internet access, Ron Wyden  
•       •       •

4022 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 8:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 08:20:53 AM  
1. Hero? Guy is a politician
2. Wont pass.
 
2013-06-25 08:23:44 AM  
I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?

I for one welcome anything that limits the scope and power of legislation like the patriot act simply because is never ok to give up your rights for perceived safety.
 
2013-06-25 08:23:50 AM  

cman: 1. Hero? Guy is a politician
2. Wont pass.


done in one
 
2013-06-25 08:26:58 AM  
They'll stall the bill until the controversy is out of the news cycle, then drown it.
 
2013-06-25 08:30:13 AM  
So the sunset date on collecting data is two years shorter but still 2 years away?  And as an added coincidence, it is AFTER the next midterm election when a bunch of new congressmen can change it back.

Someone asked me why I was not more outraged by this whole thing.  My response to him was that (tin foil hat time) I assumed the government had been doing this for years at least beginning with the passage of the Patriot Act, if not well before.  It is hard to get wound up about something 10 years after it started.  If this was a new bill being passed I would be more vocal but, quite frankly, it has been going on since at least Bush, if not Clinton, and there has been no difference in the way I act.  If the gov't wants to review my extensive history on youporn or espn, they are free to do so.  The only other thing they might find is my wierd Netflix viewing habits, but since the people at Netflix probably already are laughing at me, the gov't added in to that is not going to bother me.
 
2013-06-25 08:31:56 AM  

catpuncher: They'll stall the bill until the controversy is out of the news cycle, then drown it.


I'd like to think that isn't true, but

FTFA:  The bill would also require a report be made public on government surveillance's effect on Americans' privacy and demand audits of the Patriot Act.

No way does this pass.  At this point, I'm not even sure Obama would sign it with that provision in it.
 
2013-06-25 08:34:15 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?


Its more about politics than real fear of terrorists.  If any president (though especially a democrat with a funny name) were to cut back on any kind of intelligence gathering measure what so ever, and then there was an attack, the other party (especially republicans) would immediately play the "he allowed us to be attacked" card.
 
2013-06-25 08:39:18 AM  

imontheinternet: At this point, I'm not even sure Obama would sign it with that provision in it.


Of course not. Why would a constitutional scholar want to uphold the constitution if he is in the executive office? It's not like we have a pesky 4th amendment or habeas corpus  or anything.
 
2013-06-25 08:44:31 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?

I for one welcome anything that limits the scope and power of legislation like the patriot act simply because is never ok to give up your rights for perceived safety.


Because terrorism is a very, very convenient boogey man that they can use to drum up support for things that people might not otherwise go for. It's a tactic, so it can't every truly be defeated. You can't identify a terrorist right off the bat, so people are always suspicious and fearful and willing to do whatever it takes to protect them from this unseen threat because they believe they're under constant threat.
 
2013-06-25 08:45:32 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?


Terrorists are just an excuse. A few decades ago, they'd be using the fear the Commies to collect information on citizens. They like having that sort of power, and no politician is going to give it up.

The time to fight this shiat was when the PATRIOT act was being discussed. If it had been struck down, that would have been a good starting point to go after the older parts of the surveillance state. But instead, because Americans are cowards, it passed almost unopposed. And now, we have almost no chance of getting RID of any of this garbage.
 
2013-06-25 08:50:33 AM  
"The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."
 
2013-06-25 08:56:29 AM  

ryant123: "The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."


The Boys see what you did there, Jim.
 
2013-06-25 08:56:30 AM  
farm6.staticflickr.com

// I know he's serious
// still gonna call him Shirley
 
2013-06-25 09:02:57 AM  

LordJiro: The time to fight this shiat was when the PATRIOT act was being discussed. If it had been struck down, that would have been a good starting point to go after the older parts of the surveillance state. But instead, because Americans are cowards, it passed almost unopposed. And now, we have almost no chance of getting RID of any of this garbage.


Russ Feingold was the lone no vote in the Senate on the Patriot Act.  A teabagger took his seat in '10 midterms.

Those times were scary.  Post-9/11, Bush was given a legislative blank check, and the line being parroted even by some Democrats was not to question the President in times of crisis.  I spoke to some friends in Britain about it years later, and they told me that there was a real concern in Europe that we were moving toward fascism - blind nationalism, unchecked Executive power, compliant press and population, etc..
 
2013-06-25 09:05:21 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?

I for one welcome anything that limits the scope and power of legislation like the patriot act simply because is never ok to give up your rights for perceived safety.


I've done some research on this topic, and found information on a place called Benghazi. It's apparently a liberal city in north Africa somewhere that had a terrorist attack on a US Consulate, which I believe to be some appellation of Consuela, so it's probably in the country illegaly. Now, this being a liberal city, they didn't have guns to protect themselves, and the ones they did have ran out of ammo too quickly because of Obama's ban on high capacity magazines. It is my opinion that the only way to prevent future attacks like this is with a stronger version of the Patriot Act. This new legislation does away with all that wiretapping gobbledygook, and replaces it with a gun in every hand. It is my fervent belief that an armed society is a polite society. The next time your neighbor says something suspiciously un-American, like Occupy Wall Street, you just give them two hands full of .357 justice, and let Jesus sort out the rest.
 
2013-06-25 09:09:09 AM  

bluenote13: Someone asked me why I was not more outraged by this whole thing.  My response to him was that (tin foil hat time) I assumed the government had been doing this for years at least beginning with the passage of the Patriot Act, if not well before.  It is hard to get wound up about something 10 years after it started.


I can partially understand that sentiment, but only as it applies to something you didn't think was a big deal in the first place.  Would you feel the same if you found out the government had been castrating people of a certain ethnicity for the last ten years?  How about if they had been deliberately putting carcinogens in our water supply for the same amount of time?

Not that those things have happened; I'm just curious about when your threshold of caring gets exceeded.
 
2013-06-25 09:11:03 AM  
Good.
 
2013-06-25 09:13:53 AM  
Anyone know a good way to support this guy?

I mean... calling my local State Rep & 2 Congressmen at their Washington office to tell them to vote YES on it is the best way I can think of.

Anyone else have ideas on how to do something more than just idly stand whilst muttering snide comments?
 
2013-06-25 09:17:17 AM  

midigod: Not that those things have happened; I'm just curious about when your threshold of caring gets exceeded.


I think the threshold is when it moves from "passive" to "active."

The reason more people are not outraged by this is because right now, what these government agencies seems to be doing is very passive; listening, and watching.
It wont be until these government agencies start actively doing things against Americans that more people will become upset.
The problem is, that by then, it might be too late.
 
2013-06-25 09:19:55 AM  

Johnny the Fox: ryant123: "The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."

The Boys see what you did there, Jim.


Someone's feeling randy.
 
2013-06-25 09:25:47 AM  
clicks link

ctrl+f 'castr'

no results


/ eabod subby
// it won't pass anyways
 
2013-06-25 09:27:35 AM  

Leader O'Cola: / eabod subby


well that seems harsh...
 
2013-06-25 09:35:21 AM  

blastoh: midigod: Not that those things have happened; I'm just curious about when your threshold of caring gets exceeded.

I think the threshold is when it moves from "passive" to "active."

The reason more people are not outraged by this is because right now, what these government agencies seems to be doing is very passive; listening, and watching.
It wont be until these government agencies start actively doing things against Americans that more people will become upset.
The problem is, that by then, it might be too late.


This is partially true but the other part is, as mentioned in another post, where was the outrage in 2002 when the Patriot Act was going through Congress?  I guess my outrage limit is reserved for things that are going to change and can be changed.  Even IF the Patriot Act and subsequent NSA acts were overturned, do you think the survelience would stop?

Let me turn the questions around.  During this survelience period, the FBI discovered, via an email, that someone was going to walk in to a grade school and set off a bomb and they stopped him, on the street with the bomb strapped to his chest, would you be upset?
 
2013-06-25 09:40:11 AM  
Here's a suggestion, get rid of the FISA court and have regular federal judges do what the FISA court does. There's no real need to worry about secrecy for general information gathering warrants, after all the law allows for them, if the NSA wants the phone records from Verizon, given that it's right there in the law they can ask for such a thing, no need to be all hush hush about it. In the case of requests for specific access to specific things in regards to specific people, a federal judge is certainly capable of keeping his or her mouth shut about it and you can skip even officially having it on the docket.

Another thing is the NSA seems to love Top Secret classification like no one else. That needs to be changed, if you can't change it by general expectation, then changing it by law will have to do. The CIA has tons of stuff that is confidential or secret, which is part of why so much CIA stuff gets declassified. They have a lot of stuff they're willing to go "Eh sure, why not?" about when it comes to declassifying it because they never though it was a huge super secret thing to begin with. Of course part of that has to do with the people, who are very different from those at the NSA. The NSA should have to learn to live with the fact that no not everything merits Top Secret status, only those select few things where you absolutely positively want to make sure very few people have legitimate access deserve that status. Granted it's not an easy path given that SIGINT can be odd ducks and the NSA doubly so.
 
2013-06-25 09:40:22 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists.


They aren't necessarily.  They want us to be, though, because a fearful population is a more compliant population.
 
2013-06-25 09:43:43 AM  

midigod: bluenote13: Someone asked me why I was not more outraged by this whole thing.  My response to him was that (tin foil hat time) I assumed the government had been doing this for years at least beginning with the passage of the Patriot Act, if not well before.  It is hard to get wound up about something 10 years after it started.

I can partially understand that sentiment, but only as it applies to something you didn't think was a big deal in the first place.  Would you feel the same if you found out the government had been castrating people of a certain ethnicity for the last ten years?  How about if they had been deliberately putting carcinogens in our water supply for the same amount of time?

Not that those things have happened; I'm just curious about when your threshold of caring gets exceeded.


He's not saying he just found out. He assumed this had been going on and everyone knew it, as did i. He's only describing one of the most prevalent phenomena in life--herd mentality. If enough people around you know about something big, you can hardly help but think it's common knowledge everywhere. It is difficult to get upset about something you stopped biting your nails over 10-15 years ago.

What i can be pissed about is how the gov't handles things from here. They're looking a biatchildish right now in some ways.
 
2013-06-25 09:46:50 AM  

imontheinternet: catpuncher: They'll stall the bill until the controversy is out of the news cycle, then drown it.

I'd like to think that isn't true, but

FTFA:  The bill would also require a report be made public on government surveillance's effect on Americans' privacy and demand audits of the Patriot Act.

No way does this pass.  At this point, I'm not even sure Obama would sign it with that provision in it.


Sadly, I think you're right.  Gotta respect Leahy for trying, though.
 
2013-06-25 10:00:57 AM  
All of this is pointless political theater, of course.  The only way to keep us all safe is to put every last person within US territory in permanent lockdown.  I prefer not to live like that.
 
2013-06-25 10:03:54 AM  
How does it compare to the LIBERT-E act introduced by conyers and amash in the house?
 
2013-06-25 10:11:41 AM  
And there goes the voting rights act ...
 
2013-06-25 10:12:16 AM  
shiat, wrong window.
 
2013-06-25 10:17:16 AM  
Can we attach Charles Rangel's amendment re-instituting the draft?

We'll never have another war if senators' sons and daughters have to fight alongside the children of money.

Besides,  next time we have several thousand murdered in a terror attack, nobody might volunteer to find the men who did it and kill them. You know, because Iraq. And 15 month repeated combat tours with no time off. And no armor. And contractors getting rich while volunteers wonder where OBL has his comfortable house with his wives and children.
 
2013-06-25 10:23:11 AM  

imontheinternet: I spoke to some friends in Britain about it years later, and they told me that there was a real concern in Europe that we were


imontheinternet:...moving toward fascism

Check! (Citizen United, just an example)

imontheinternet:... - blind nationalism

Check! (Teabaggers)

imontheinternet:...unchecked Executive power

Check! (Patriot Act)

montheinternet: ...compliant press and population, etc..

Check! (Just watch last MTP & Greenwald)

Your British friends got all of them right.
 
2013-06-25 10:24:09 AM  
This is the same guy who introduced PIPA of SOPA/PIPA infamy.  The use of the hero tag is severe stretch.
 
2013-06-25 10:26:04 AM  
What's interesting here is that two of the senators who are on the intelligence committee and who, like Leahy, have been railing against the NSA over the last few years, are co-sponsors of this bill (Wyden and Udall).

It'd be nice to see this pass, but it'll probably become a fig leaf measure if it's not killed in committee. It's sort of hard to trust the people on the inside to fix a problem that grants them unlimited power with no real oversight or transparency.
 
2013-06-25 10:34:05 AM  

blastoh: AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists. Do the higher ups know some kind of disturbing truth that we dont?

Its more about politics than real fear of terrorists.  If any president (though especially a democrat with a funny name) were to cut back on any kind of intelligence gathering measure what so ever, and then there was an attack, the other party (especially republicans) would immediately play the "he allowed us to be attacked" card.


If we weren't indiscriminately monitoring everybody, some unknown person or persons who hadn't raised suspicion before could have bombed the Boston Marathon. The fact we prevented that proves that anyone advocating privacy or taking away the government's tools to keep us safe is just giving aid and comfort to the enemies among us.
 
2013-06-25 10:41:22 AM  

vudukungfu: Johnny the Fox: ryant123: "The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."

The Boys see what you did there, Jim.

Someone's feeling randy.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-25 10:41:42 AM  

bluenote13: Let me turn the questions around.  During this survelience period, the FBI discovered, via an email, that someone was going to walk in to a grade school and set off a bomb and they stopped him, on the street with the bomb strapped to his chest, would you be upset?


I would still be upset at the methods they used.  I wouldn't be upset that lives were saved, mind you, but in my mind the means are supposed to be what gives the US integrity.  The government could stop every crime before it was ever committed if every citizen was locked in their own little cage.  So I would not be upset that crimes were stopped, for that would be ridiculous.  But I would be very upset with the methods used for doing so, and I would want them stopped.  Having some crimes committed is the punishment we should be continually willing to take for living in a free society.
 
2013-06-25 10:47:05 AM  

AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists.


They're not afraid of terrorists; they're afraid of the people.
 
2013-06-25 11:12:43 AM  

imontheinternet: catpuncher: They'll stall the bill until the controversy is out of the news cycle, then drown it.

I'd like to think that isn't true, but

FTFA:  The bill would also require a report be made public on government surveillance's effect on Americans' privacy and demand audits of the Patriot Act.

No way does this pass.  At this point, I'm not even sure Obama would sign it with that provision in it.


I meant drown the bill, not the program. I'm with you, it's not passing.
 
2013-06-25 11:18:36 AM  

oryx: AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists.

They're not afraid of terrorists; they're afraid of the people.


This.

It's like secretly they believe Karl Marx was entirely correct, and one day soon the masses are going to rise up and start killing rich folk. They're just being prepared.
 
2013-06-25 11:20:25 AM  
All of that sounds perfectly reasonable.

Which is the reason it will die in committee.
 
2013-06-25 11:43:20 AM  

vudukungfu: Johnny the Fox: ryant123: "The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."

The Boys see what you did there, Jim.

Someone's feeling randy.


You looking for a date? $10 bucks or 6 Dairy Queen coupons.
 
2013-06-25 11:57:37 AM  

illegal.tender: oryx: AnonAmbientLight: I wish I knew why our government is so scared of terrorists.

They're not afraid of terrorists; they're afraid of the people.

This.

It's like secretly they believe Karl Marx was entirely correct, and one day soon the masses are going to rise up and start killing rich folk. They're just being prepared.


www.nndb.com   www.biography.comwww.biography.com

John, Baby Face and Machine Gun snicker...

Oh and this guy...

classes.uleth.ca

/Machine Gun Kelly actually didn't kill rich people. He just kidnapped them for $200,000 in 1933 ransom.
/We have militarized SWAT teams in large part thanks to John, Baby Face and Machine Gun. The 60's and the North Hollywood bank robbery put the icing on the cake
 
2013-06-25 12:02:03 PM  

Dr Dreidel: [farm6.staticflickr.com image 526x239]

// I know he's serious
// still gonna call him Shirley


Nice.

/That's Senator Leahy himself looking at Joker, for the uninformed
 
2013-06-25 12:08:10 PM  
$200,000 in 1933 is worth $3.5 million in 2013.

Ouch. No wonder the FBI went after Machine Gun Kelly. First federal case under the federal kidnapping laws. And you thought it was because of little children and women. Yeah.
 
2013-06-25 12:25:06 PM  

ryant123: "The ol' sh*t barometer's rising, NSA. Your ears will implode from the sh*t pressure."


Came into this thread for this.

/Now we just need Rand Paul to take off his pants and fight.
 
2013-06-25 12:28:22 PM  

LordJiro: But instead, because Americans American politicians are cowards, it passed almost unopposed., and afraid of being called names like 'soft on terrorism' by mouth-breathers.


Fixed.

/no charge
//ask about our loyalty card program
 
2013-06-25 12:28:45 PM  

potterydove: How does it compare to the LIBERT-E act introduced by conyers and amash in the house?


Haven't seen that one, but judging by the guys being namechecked, it's probably a pretty stiff bill on paper. Udall was one of the guys trying to poke holes in the AUMF and NDAA back in 2011-12. Although Wyden initially voted for the PATRIOT Act when it was first passed, he was opposed to the AUMF sending troops to Iraq, and voted against reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act in 2006. Mike Lee is a Tea Party - Club For Growth darling who once clerked for Samuel Alito, but he's voted against the NDAA in 2012 and against extending portions of the PATRIOT Act in 2011. I don't know much about Blumenthal, but when he was AG in Connecticut, he proposed the telecom immunity crap that was passed in 2007 that prevented telecoms from being sued for wiretapping their customers. Tester has a pretty good record on national security, too - he's voted against reauthorizing parts of the PATRIOT Act and for striking telecom immunity out of FISA.

Of course, Leahy might get this out of his committee, but it'll never get out of the Senate, unless RAND PAUL jumps in to hijack it or something. Even so, fat chance of the house passing it and the president signing it.
 
2013-06-25 12:29:21 PM  

AndreMA: LordJiro: But instead, because Americans American politicians are cowards, it passed almost unopposed., and afraid of being called names like 'soft on terrorism' by mouth-breathers.

Fixed.

/no charge
//ask about our loyalty card program


Grammar is hard. Here's your refund: $0.00
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report