While Congress Looks Set To Push Back On NSA Surveillance, Sen. Feinstein Wants To Codify Current Practices
from the of-course-she-does dept
At this point, it’s no secret that Senator Dianne Feinstein is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the NSA — she exhibits the signs of a co-dependent with the NSA. Now, with a powerful coalition in Congress getting set to introduce meaningful reform to limit the NSA’s efforts, Feinstein is going in the other direction, preparing a counter-attack bill that serves to codify current practices:
“I do not want to leave the United States in a position where we are open to another major attack because we can’t ferret out who terrorists might be calling in this country to put it together,” Feinstein said in an interview.
Her committee is drafting legislation to codify the phone records program, the existence of which was leaked in June by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The legislation would grant the agency explicit authority to gather records listing the numbers, duration and time of all U.S. telephone calls, but not their content.
Of course, since the very beginning of this, Feinstein has been insisting at every opportunity that everything done was perfectly legal. If that’s truly the case, why would she need to “codify” current practices? The political reality is that she needs to do this to have “something” to push people to support instead of the USA Freedom Act being supported by Senator Patrick Leahy. Basically, these two bills are likely to be a referendum on who believes in the 4th Amendment, and who thinks the US should cower in fear and spy on everyone.
Filed Under: dianne feinstein, nsa, nsa surveillance, pat leahy
Comments on “While Congress Looks Set To Push Back On NSA Surveillance, Sen. Feinstein Wants To Codify Current Practices”
Hmm...
How does codifying something work? Does it need a majority vote as well, or does it need more than that?
Cuz, if it needs either, I doubt it’ll pass in the House or the Senate.
Re: Hmm...
There’s an app for that.
Re: Accepting its illegal is a step forward
By trying to legalize it, she’s accepted its illegal.
I think she might be finally divorcing the cheating husband of hers. At least in her mind she’s accepting the illegal nature of the NSA’s surveillance.
Re: Re: Accepting its illegal is a step forward
You underestimate political doublethink, they are perfectly able to hold two opposing views without believing that they contradict each other in slightest.
In cases such as this the ‘thought’ process is likely something along these lines:
A) Action X is illegal, and therefor wrong.
B) Retroactively legalizing X, at some point in the future, will likewise retroactively make X not wrong, meaning that just because it’s illegal now, doesn’t mean you have to consider it as such.
So just because she may appear to be admitting that the NSA’s actions are currently illegal, does in no way mean that she thinks that they are wrong, as evidenced by her attempt to make them legal after the fact.
Time for a prediction.
In the latest news, Dianne Feinstein loses her election by the largest voting turnout in California’s history.
But cry not for the former Senator. She’s now earning seven figures as her new role of the yet-to-be-determined title at the National Security Agency.
Calling it now.
Re: Re:
Time for a prediction.
In the latest news, Dianne Feinstein loses her election by the largest voting turnout in California’s history.
She’s not up for election for many years, and most doubt she’ll run again. But if she did… she’d probably win. Electorate inertia is powerful.
Re: Re: Re:
I would settle for simply having her removed from the committee.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know about anyone else but me and my buddies will be too busy watching football and drinking a few brewskies while the wife and her bffs are instagrammin some pinterests to their facebooks for any of us to pay attention to something important.
Re: Re:
A better prediction is that she’ll finally die before her next election…
The woman is a dinosaur.
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, there are term limits after all!
examining her campaign contributions would be interesting at this point, specifically military industrial and security and anyone else who would benefit. I think it would paint an interesting picture of her utter corruption.
Re: Re:
Enjoy: https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00007364&type=I
Re: Re: Re:
Based on her past behavior, I think she just hates civil liberties. I don’t think her donors have anything to do with it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Based on her past behavior, I think she just hates civil liberties. I don’t think her donors have anything to do with it.
It seems to me that she tends to vote for whatever will make her husband the most money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Blum
Selling votes to the highest bidder I see.
Re: Re:
At least their votes belong to them unlike our civil liberties.
How much money does she get from defense contractors? She must get quite a bit from them. That or she hates the Constitution. Maybe both?
Silver lining
No, see this is a good thing, as it will give everyone a nice handy list of who not to vote for in any future elections.
Re: Silver lining
Yes, it is a good thing. This gives us yet another vector to a constitutional challenge.
I say they should keep this fakakta shit up. They are beating themselves up, and that is a good thing.
this might actually make sense...
1) Feinstein truly believes all this is a good thing, and she always has.
2) She probably even wanted to tout the programs publicly…
3) In it’s ‘wisdom’ the NSA put a stop to that (both to prevent opposition and keep Feinstein elected).
4) Now that it’s out she wants her name of the cover of this
Man… she really is delusional (as if SOPA/PIPA didn’t tell us that). When do we have a mandatory retirement age for congress “people”?
Re: this might actually make sense...
Don’t need a retirement age. They shoulld be limited to 2 terms.
Re: Re: this might actually make sense...
Hear hear!
Disband the oligarchy and distribute ownership of government.
‘…who believes in the 4th Amendment, and who thinks the US should cower in fear and spy on everyone.’
does it not also show that a what she keeps spouting as being legal atm is bullshit and also that what she wants to do is forgo what the people want? as it is us who are on the receiving end of what people like her want to do, except when it is her that is on the wrong end of it, we should have a bigger say than anyone. if we dont want spying, there shouldn’t be any. if we want to keep privacy and freedom, we should keep it. if we want to risk terrorist attacks, we should risk them. she forgets that in 99% of situations, her and her like wouldn’t be on the receiving end of any bullets or bombs anyway! i’m sure she would soon push someone out of the way if there was just one safe place left!!
Is it possible for Californians to petition for and get a recall election? Perhaps she could get voted out before her term is up.
She shore lives in a world different than I do. Funny how the Boston bombing took place with all this ferreting going on. How much clue does it take to look extra special hard when the Russians clue you in ahead of time?
The elite are upset that their precious is being threatened. In the case of Sen. Feinstein, diminishing the role of the NSA would diminish her power as a sitting chair at the Intelligence Committee.
The real reason for all this, is that the NSA exceeded and went beyond their allowable permissions. It is now in jeopardy of having that scope removed from their allowable conditions. They see their power running through their fingers like sand.
She must have a lot at stake to be so tone deaf/blind. Check the money trail, it should lead to her. Maybe some relative has some security company working for the NSA?
Of course, since the very beginning of this, Feinstein has been insisting at every opportunity that everything done was perfectly legal. If that’s truly the case, why would she need to “codify” current practices?
The way I understand it, she’s been insisting that it’s legal under a (by her standards) reasonable interpretation of existing law – but what she’s trying to do by codifying it is make it explicitly legal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.
It’s the same thing as Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing. He says it’s illegal under existing law (which he wrote in the first place), but people have interpreted existing law to say it’s legal – so he’s trying to make it explicitly illegal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.