How does it happen, that almost 50% of liberal House Dems vote to keep the NSA???

[reformist2]

It's like they all get corrupted by the military-industrial complex during their initiation? The image of Slugworth whispering in the ears of the kids in Willie Wonka comes to mind:

[polichick]

1. Just think how much bigger the mic is today compared with Eisenhower's...

day, when he warned the country - bigger, much more entrenched, and far more powerful.

[MADem]

2. Maybe they took a briefing? They might know something the general public does not?

That's just speculation, so no hot-breathed hectoring, please. Others are free to speculate as to other possible reasons if they'd like.

[sabrina 1]

5. Then the other 50% would be voting against National Security, wouldn't they?

I doubt any Democrat would knowingly vote for something that would harm this country, let alone 50% of them.

[former9thward]

7. +1

[MADem]

9. Maybe they didn't take the briefing, or slept/talked through it and didn't appreciate the detail?

There are people--in both parties--who can't be bothered to read the frigging bills.

A legislator is ONLY as good as his/her staff. That's why Strom Thurmond lasted so long. He rarely put a foot wrong (from his political perspective, mind you) because he had the best staff on the Hill. His constituent services were beyond good--they were superb. It's why he cruised to reelection with very little effort.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Or maybe you're pulling a fantasy out of your ...

Anything not to accept reality...

[MADem]

16. Well, I worked on the Hill for a bit, so, whatever.

Maybe you're just being your usually not charming, uncivil self, making this discussion about ME and FANTASY and NOT ACCEPTING REALITY because you think insulting people is the way to make people think you're cool and "in the know?"

Hint--doesn't work. Makes you look kinda bad, actually. Immature. Snarky. Mean-spirited.

[woo me with science]

33. This appears to be the correct answer. nt

[sabrina 1]

15. I'd be inclined to think it was the other way around, since after all Democrats have been right on

these issues since Bush first imposed them on a fear propagandized public. Seems to me since we Dems always opposed Bush's 'security state' the 50% voting against it are the ones I would be more inclined to trust.

Eg, many Dems attending briefings during the Bush years where they were told that about Saddam's WMDs. Those who didn't believe it turned out to be correct in the end.

[MADem]

17. Depends entirely on the quality and character of the briefing, assuming there was one or more. nt

[whatchamacallit]

10. Bam!

[woo me with science]

35. +10000 One would certainly hope so,

wouldn't one.

Sheesh.

[Incitatus]

60. I'll speculate too

Maybe they did take a briefing. Maybe that briefing was fabricated/embellished to convince congress to vote a certain way. Maybe they made up a story that said their spying methods stopped a plot to kill them and asked if they are sure they really want them to stop using those methods.

[HereSince1628]

64. Ya, THE BRIEFING,

It's such a great way to run a republik

[MADem]

73. Well, actually, it is. How can you get 100 people -- or 435 -- of different levels of experience,

education, and intelligence all on the same page when dealing with classified questions of national security? You prepare a briefing, you conduct it in closed session(s), and then you answer their questions.

What the legislators DO with that information is on them.

But hey, using the letter "K" to suggest dire governance is way more ... FUN, I suppose?

[moondust]

3. Maybe the whole thing

isn't nearly as bad as some people are trying to make it out to be?

[sabrina 1]

18. Well, that would only be the case because it's all so secret, secret courts, secret warrants,

secret kill lists etc.

I'm with Ron Wyden who I believe stated that the public cannot make informed decisions on this if there is no transparency. So we need to support those Dems, like Wyden, who are calling for transparency so we CAN make informed decisions. Why is that such a problem? I doubt Wyden would call for something that would be harmful to the country.

Since reputable Dems like Wyden who has been briefed but cannot speak out due to the gag order on those who have, have been trying to warn Americans about is really going on for a long time now, without something to contradict him, because it's all 'so secret' we have to make up our own minds with the info we have. I definitely trust and always did since he was speaking out about this during the Bush years, Wyden's assessment of the situation. If he is wrong, then we haven't heard why yet. So I'm with him and the other Dems who agree with him.

[vi5]

4. The president lobbied against this bill

All we needed was 13 more Democrats. Imagine if he had actually been against this "Bush era" law that he had no interest in (according to apologists here on DU).

[KittyWampus]

6. My understanding was the amendment wasn't to get rid of the NSA. It was to force

standards

[sabrina 1]

19. It was to take one small step towards ending Bush's security state. To stop the collection and

storing of the personal data of all Americans. It is shameful that this bill did not pass.

[FarCenter]

31. It was to defund the collection of phone call metadata from the carriers

Which the NSA now puts in a database so that they can retrospectively analyze phone contacts of people who become persons of interest in an investigation.

The alternative is that they subpoena the information individually from the carriers, along with requiring that the carriers retain the information and index it for retrieval in various ways, e.g. by called number instead of calling number.

[KittyWampus]

42. I can't find the amendment. I have seen no indication it was to defund it.

[FarCenter]

43. It was an ammendment to a DoD appropriations bill to defund metadata collection.

Amash's measure, offered as an amendment to the Department of Defense appropriations bill, would have prevented the government from invoking Section 215 of the Patriot Act to scoop up phone call metadata -- information about whom people are calling and when, but not the content of the calls -- unless the government had a reasonable suspicion that a specific target was involved in terrorism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/justin-amash-amendment_n_3647893.html

[KittyWampus]

45. so if understood correctly, it didn't defund or eliminate the NSA.

[jazzimov]

46. FarCenter is correct. But I think you are misunderstanding

what they are saying - the amendment was NOT to defund the NSA but to defund the collection of metadata. Please go back and re-read that post carefully, it offers an excellent explanation.

[KittyWampus]

48. Please help me understand (seriously) I have read several accounts of amendment and still don't

see it saying anything about defunding. Just enforcing a standard. It was part of an appropriations bill, but didn't directly deal with funds for the NSA or NSA practices.

I am going to post a thread begging for help finding the actual amendment.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. DINO

[AgingAmerican]

11. Creeping fascism

Right wing-ism has been seeping it's way into everything since Ronald Reagan. Being bombarded by this crap for 30 years has made it the new normal.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

12. Because it has been an overreaction from the beginning.

There's no reason to pass legislation to stop something that's not occurring and effectively admit wrongdoing before the midterm elections.

Handing a victory to a protege of Ron Paul (Rep. Amash) would also be unwise.

Sorry, but politics are more important than people's irrational fears.

[sabrina 1]

20. So the 50% of Dems who voted for it are liars then? Wyden, Conyers et al? They are just

pretending it is happening?

And who said it is 'not occurring'? The President acknowledged the 'collection and storage' of phone data of all Americans. Was he lying also?

I can provide you with his speech wherein he not only acknowledged it, but attempted to defend it.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

21. There is a common misconception that the actual content of the communications is stored.

And that is not the case.

[PowerToThePeople]

26. It does not matter if the content is stored or not.

All they need is suspicion to gitmo you or drone strike you. Proof is no longer needed for capital punishment.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

27. That's hyperbolic bullshit and you know it. No innocent American citizens

have been droned on American soil or sent to Gitmo.

And spare me the Al-Awlaki sob stories. He got what he deserved.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. I have never put anyone on "ignore" yet

I still won't, but I am done with you. FR seems a better place for you to post.

edit - adding your quote in case you decide to delete it.

AllINeedIsCoffee (589 posts)
27. That's hyperbolic bullshit and you know it. No innocent American citizens

have been droned on American soil or sent to Gitmo.

And spare me the Al-Awlaki sob stories. He got what he deserved.

[sabrina 1]

39. What did Awlaki do to warrant the death penalty? What did his teenage son do, also a US

citizen, to warrant the death penalty? I've been trying to find out since they were both droned to death but no one seems to know. Maybe I'll be lucky this time and you have the information everyone has been looking for?

What were the charges, eg. We do have a system of justice here in the US which requires charges, specifically laid out before prosecution, then trial and if found guilty, conviction. After that there is generally a penalty phase. To get the DP which I oppose btw, there usually have to be specific circumstances. Murder of course is the only thing you can get the DP under our current system.

So who did Awlaki murder? What were the charges, where were they filed? Who heard the case and who decided on the penalty phase?

Just saying someone 'got what they deserved' doesn't wash, well it does in some places in the world, but definitely not in the civilized world. So again, why did he 'get what he deserved' and did his teenaged son also 'get what he deserved' and why?

Thanks in advance.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

47. Frankly, I don't care about the ultimate fate of the drone program...

whether it's expanded, contracted, or ended.

I have no vested interest in it or who it kills or doesn't kill.

I'm just sick of hearing about it as if it's some big deal.

[sabrina 1]

49. That's fine, but a majority of the world's people don't agree with you. So if you don't care who

gets killed and who doesn't, amazing though that is, you might not want to read political forums for a while.

[Hydra]

59. You're ok with extrajudicial killing then?

So if the FBI shows up at your house and kills you at the President's order, that's just fine and dandy?

[GoneFishin]

29. Don't bother. Too much cool-aid chugging. n/t

[jmowreader]

72. Thanks for playing

You know that's bullshit. Grow up. The Evil Barack Hussein Obama is not indiscriminately blowing up Americans, shipping people off to Gitmo or bugging their phones for no reason.(If he was, wouldn't the teabagger population be lower?)

[snooper2]

14. Maybe they aren't stupid enough to think the NSA is tapping everyone's phone calls

[sabrina 1]

22. Or maybe they are like those who voted for Bush's illegal war because they bought the lie about

Saddam's WMDs. And the other 50% who voted for this bill, are the ones who did the right thing, like the few who didn't believe the WMD lie.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

24. It's a shame, really, that so many people are throwing good Democrats under the bus.

Over this whole grossly exaggerated ordeal.

I'm going to stock up on salt for when all of this leads to massive Republican majorities and rub copious amounts of it into the wounds of those that bought this phony scandal hook, line, and sinker.

[sabrina 1]

40. Yes it is. I fully support the 50% of Good Democrats who voted for this bill and it is a shame to

see people denigrate them for taking a stand against Bush policies.

[marions ghost]

54. Sorry it's a deal breaker

My LibDem Rep is going under the bus for his vote, for sure.... unless he suddenly comes around....doubt it. We need to replace him. He's out of touch with his electorate.

If you think it's a "phony scandal" you might want to save that salt for your crow.

[randome]

57. Why don't you ask him why he voted the way he did?

You know, try to gather information to understand what's going on. Would that be a bad thing?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[marions ghost]

58. I know plenty about him

...not necessary. It will be interesting to see what the electorate does with him after this. This is a very telling vote--and if he goes on in this vein, I will lose all respect. This issue is a touchstone. Don't worry there are better LibDems around. Fine if it sinks him.

Could you TRY not to be so condescending? Thanx much

[randome]

62. Sorry, I've just seen so many others denigrating their reps...

...just like I see our reps denigrating the NSA and very few want to take the time to ask a couple of basic questions such as, "Why do you think the NSA metadata process is needed?" Or "Why did you vote to keep it in place if you don't understand how it is used?"

Too many want to give in to the allure of outrage without taking the time and the trouble to be in possession of basic facts.

If Congress decides to make changes to the NSA, it should be because they have information to support or not support certain aspects of it, not because they want to ride the 'outrage horse'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[marions ghost]

63. These are the questions I will be asking

but I will be asking to find out who I should support.

4th amendment rights are basic to Democracy. They are in serious jeopardy. If I don't hear the right answers on that, I will not support any pro-NSA candidate and will throw my support to the reps from other states who are speaking up for major changes. Really, end of discussion. I will not budge on this. No room for compromise. This issue will tell me who to support from now on.

If there is NO outrage, there will be NO changes. The NSA has already betrayed us. Already committed the egregious crime. They wanted to keep this all very quiet. Even Congress has been steamrolled by the NSA grab for power--really scary. The have no control or oversight. I do not believe the NSA needs our metadata for their personal and exclusive use. Sorry, that is way too much power to be concentrated in any one entity. The NSA has to be disemboweled and the whole concept of govt data mining restructured very soon or we will grow sicker and sicker as a nation. This is a turning point and what we do here will define us as a nation. It is a huge test. The biggest in our lifetimes.

Where's my outrage horse. Saddle him up. Where's my katana? Time to ride.

[randome]

67. The NSA has 'betrayed us' because of metadata?

Or do you mean something else? Something else which has, I hope, evidence to support it being done.

I find it hard to get angry about metadata seeing as how it is not our personal property, it's obtained with a legal warrant, there are safeguards in place to prevent abuse and it does not fall under 4th Amendment protections.

If the NSA is doing anything nefarious or abusive, I am all for bringing the guilty parties down and/or shutting down certain practices.

But let's see some evidence, first.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[marions ghost]

68. You've had answers on this

so I don't feel the necessity to regurgitate those.

"metadata is not our personal property"

"obtained with a legal warrant"

"safeguards in place"

"does not fall under 4th amendment protections" -- You really betray yourself with that one.
----------

How do you suggest we get evidence when our only knowledge comes from whistle blowers who emerge like unheralded comets?

Whatever you're protecting, I hope you someday see that there really are no defenses for what the NSA has already done. Anyway, carry on. At least you give the rest of us a good view of the mindset that would shut this whole discussion down. But ...you know at some level...that the genie is out of the bottle. Thank God-Allah and Buddha & Kali & The Great Aardvark.

[RedCappedBandit]

23. What's in *our* best interest isn't necessarily in *their* best interest. nt

[TBF]

25. +1 nt

[hifiguy]

56. Um, this. Times a brazilian. nt

[GoneFishin]

30. When democrats vote just like republicans they belong under the bus. NT.

[joeybee12]

32. Two answers...one, they're cowards, and they run from anything that smacks

of being portrayed as weak,

Second, the NSA has their phone calls too...I'm convinced blackmail is at epidemic levels in DC

[bemildred]

34. Coincidence no doubt, like everything else.

But seriously, they have giant egos most of them, and many of them are complict.

[Pisces]

36. Maybe they know things we don't. Secrets are kept to stop public panic.

People enjoy their illusions of safety.

[KharmaTrain]

37. Hearings Are Needed...Desperately...

...as always the devil are in the details. Yesterday's vote would have pretty much shut down the NSA without something that the American people should witness...hearings and investigations into exactly what is going on. There's a big need for a new Church commission...a deep look into the Patriot act and how not only the NSA but others have abused their powers and use the sunlight to force real, substantial changes. The quick vote prevented such hearing from happening. We need sharper definition of where 4th Ammendment rights end and national security begins...yesterday's vote missed that point.

This is where a Snowden could become the "hero" or "whistleblower"...testifying both in court and in front of Congress about what he's learned (rather than trying to appease this country's adversaries) and how our system works best. To this point we've heard a lot of charges with little evidence to support it. Put all the cards on the table...and let the American public know the real story. While I supported the "Yeahs" on yesterday's vote on principal, logistics and perception say different. If the NSA is to be reigned in and shut down, a quick vote isn't the way to do it...especially since even if it passed the bill would have never made it through the Senate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. I'm guessing it's just politics as usual. If the outcome is certain, you don't give your vote away

for free, neither do you make a stand against it that will cost you dearly on an upcoming issue that has a chance to go your way.

They both hated it and knew what a clusterfuck was being foisted off on us, but in the end, both Kucinich and Sanders voted for the ACA once it was clearly a done deal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. CYA. Most of them voted on bills allowing the snooping and funding it.

[GiaGiovanni]

50. Yes.

.

[Skittles]

51. it's what corporations want

[Recursion]

52. Because they back Ft Meade over Langley

Which is a lot of what this is about

[marions ghost]

69. Explain

I don't disagree, but can you flesh that statement out a bit?

Basically you're saying it's because they support the NSA, right? But why over Langley?

[Recursion]

70. Because IMO we are witnessing a pretty dirty turf war between the CIA and NSA

Not really much more to flesh out from that; this is CIA's attempt to oust NSA. In broad strokes, Republicans prefer the CIA and Democrats the NSA.

[marions ghost]

71. OK thanks

for that perspective. So can CIA curb the NSA? Or does the "turf war" only make the NSA worse, more determined to concentrate power?

Why do you say that Repubs prefer the CIA & Dems the NSA? I thought both the CIA and NSA are very conservative-authoritarian controlled entities? Yes my knowledge of the history of all this is limited.

[bluestate10]

53. Common sense? nt

[larkrake]

55. maybe because they stopped over 50 terrist attacks, duh

[brooklynite]

61. Actually 0% of Liberal Democrats voted to eliminate the NSA...

...because the vote in question had nothing to do with keeping OR eliminating the NSA; it was simply a funding item for the meta-data program.

[99Forever]

65. How's about...

... "almost 50% of liberal House Dems," aren't "liberal" at all and whether they are really "Dems" or not, is open for debate.

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. You were close, not Slugworth, but actual slugs!