Deadline Nears To Extend Surveillance Programs, But Senate May Not Be Able To Overcome Foes

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By ERICA WERNER and KEN DILANIAN | Associated Press | 30 minutes ago in Politics, Technology

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hours from a midnight deadline for contested anti-terror measures to expire, no solution was in sight as the Senate convened an extraordinary Sunday session to hash out a way forward. Intelligence officials warned the result would amount to a win for terrorists.

Senators had only one option to keep the post-Sept. 11 counterterror measures alive past midnight: agree to a House-passed bill remaking a disputed bulk phone records collection program, and send it to President Barack Obama for his signature. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opposes the House bill but seemed likely to agree to it in absence of other options, perhaps with amendments.

But presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced he planned to stand in the way of a final vote Sunday, and under Senate rules giving great power to individual lawmakers, his colleagues were powerless to stop him.

"This is what we fought the revolution over, are we going to so blithely give up our freedom? ... I'm not going to take it anymore," Paul declared on the Senate floor.

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/a138eb65910e4bf6967b89c21f6a87fc/deadline-nears-to-extend-surveillance-programs-but-senate-may-not-be-able-to-overcome-foes.html

[BlueJazz]

1. "This is what we fought the revolution over, are we going to so blithely give up our freedom"

What do you mean WE ? ...and besides, I could be wrong but I don't believe that the Revolutionary War had little to do with 9/11.

[sendero]

2. This surveillance..

... has little to do with 911. They haven't caught a single terrorist, they didn't even catch the Boston bomber with two warnings from foreign governments AND all this snooping.

This snooping isn't about terror anyway, if it was all they have to do to gain the support of most Americans is attach an amendment stating that any evidence captured using these techniques can ONLY be used to prosecute terror crimes and that is it inadmissable for any other crime and cannot be used to investigate any other crime.

They won't do that because it wasn't, isn't and never will be about terror anyway.

[billhicks76]

5. You're Missing the Point

And if you support the Patriot Act whose use against terrorism is less than 1% of the cases it's used for then you are a major part of the problem. It's anti-Democratic, anti-American and anti-Humanity. Wake the heck up.

[BlueJazz]

10. You're absolutely right. I did miss the point. No, I didn't just miss it...I was shooting in the...

...other direction. When I read the original post I got it ass-backwards. Had some friends over and was in 2 conversations at the same time.

[cui bono]

7. We meaning the USA. We fought for freedom. The constitution guarantees citizens

certain freedoms from govt intrusion. The Patriot Act violates some of those.

Paul is right. The Patriot Act is terrible and is being used to violate American citizens' rights to freedom and privacy.

[BlueJazz]

11. Look at my responce #10

[cui bono]

13. =)

It happens to everyone.

[PSPS]

3. In this case, "foes" = the will of american citizens.

[Demeter]

4. The Senate better NOT pass this abomination

If that makes me a terrorist, so be it. There are worse things to be than a democratic patriot.

[billhicks76]

6. Pathetic That Hillary Quiet On This

Go Ron Wyden!!!!!! Glad we have a decent Senator in OR.

[cui bono]

8. A Hillary supporter told me today (or yesterday) that it was reported that

Hillary made a deal with Obama to not criticize his policies and he wouldn't criticize her campaign. So don't expect her to tell the people what she thinks. If that is true, she cares more about winning the WH than being truthful with the people she is supposed to represent.

[billhicks76]

9. Believable But

She supports NSA as much as anyone.

[cui bono]

12. Yep. And TPP.

I pointed out that she could be doing it to avoid criticism or to make it appear that she is against things she is not really against.

Either way the people lose since she won't just come out and say what she thinks.