FISA reauthorization & Section 702 warrantless surveillance

[Anti Federalist]

So the new FISA bill has a "carve out" for congress members

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1777846102928052228

 

[PAF]

Yeah, with everything else they've been doing to us, they overlooked that very essential carve out the last time. I'm almost certain they'll be more careful the next time around.

Still want to play in their sandbox? Hope? Vote?

 

[Matt4Liberty]

I'm confused why Massie voted yes on this

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/house-conservatives-tank-fisa-bill-blow-speaker-johnson

 

[acptulsa]

I'm confused why Massie voted yes on this

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/house-conservatives-tank-fisa-bill-blow-speaker-johnson

On which?

Massie: We're not trying to eliminate the FISA 702 program. It was established to allow our intelligence agencies to spy on foreigners without a warrant. In order to qualify to be spied on without a warrant, you have to be outside of the country and you have to be not an American citizen. If you're inside the country or if you're an American citizen outside of the country, you can't be spied on by this program. Sounds great, right? But we've got 250,000 people on that list that we're collecting information on.

If you talk to a businessperson in France, for instance, your emails may get caught up in this data collection. What they've been doing is going into this giant ball of data and they put in your name and search it without a warrant, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. They are using this not to investigate suspects, but to create suspects.

Let's say that you are at a protest and they develop some nexus. They say, "Well, we think these protesters were inspired by Russia. We're just going to run all the protesters' names through this database." Now, even though the intel community doesn't concede that they need a warrant for this, they've admitted that they violated their own protocols hundreds of thousands of times when they searched for U.S. persons' data in this haystack. They say, "Well, it was created legally, so we don't need a warrant to go search it."

There are two proposals to reauthorize this program. By the way, the only chance you ever get to reform these programs is when they expire. So it's important that they do expire occasionally, and this one expires in January. In the Judiciary Committee, which [Rep.] Jim Jordan [R–Ohio] chairs, and on which I serve, we've marked up a bill that would require them to get a warrant. It would create criminal penalties for people in the executive branch who abuse the program. Because there's never any culpability or blowback for anybody that's abused this program.

And then the Intel Committee has created a bill that is less than ideal. It doesn't have a warrant requirement. It doesn't have many of the reporting requirements back to Congress that the Judiciary bill has. In fact, it expands their ability to collect information. For instance, if you had free Wi-Fi at a café, that service provider would be treated like Google or Verizon now and they would have to create a direct pipeline to the intel agencies for any of the communications that go through that.

So you've got two proposals out there, and we're running out of time.

https://reason.com/2024/03/03/against-the-virtue-signal-vote/

It's just like Zerohedge to be unclear on little details like which version of the bill did these virtue signaling Republicans kill...

 

[PAF]

I'm confused why Massie voted yes on this

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/house-conservatives-tank-fisa-bill-blow-speaker-johnson

Maybe this this what you are referring to:

H.R. 7888

Motion by Mr. Roy to report the rule. Adopted: 9-2

Majority Member Vote
Mr. Burgess Yea
Mr. Reschenthaler Yea
Mrs. Fischbach Yea
Mr. Massie Yea
Mr. Norman Yea
Mr. Roy Yea
Mrs. Houchin Yea
Mr. Langworthy Yea
Mr. Cole, Chairman Yea

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr7888ih/pdf/BILLS-118hr7888ih.pdf

 

[Anti Globalist]

This screams rules for thee, but not for me.

 

[Swordsmyth]

House blocks FISA reauthorization bill after Trump says ‘kill FISA’

SPLIT TO: Trump & FISA

The GOP-led House voted to block the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization bill on the House floor Wednesday after it passed out of the Rules Committee on Tuesday.

The vote to block the rule providing for House floor consideration of the bill was 228 to 193. The latest vote reportedly marks the seventh time a rule that has failed on the House floor under House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

The "Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act" would have extended Section 702 of FISA for 5 years. A group of amendments to the bill including a warrant requirement had cleared the Rules Committee on Tuesday night.

Former President Trump had posted on Truth Social that the GOP should "kill FISA" shortly before the scheduled vote.

More at: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-blocks-fisa-reauthorization-bill

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

The spying database they collect is an inventory so you can be convicted if you fall in their crosshairs.

 

[CaptUSA]

Rep. Massie: "All Citizens Deserve Protection from Spying, not Just Members of Congress" - 4/9/24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSRF-DbBdw4
{RepThomasMassie | 10 April 2024}

 

[PAF]

[MENTION=65845]MOD[/MENTION] [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] ^ Front page material ^

 

[CaptUSA]

[MENTION=65845]MOD[/MENTION] [MENTION=28167]Occam's Banana[/MENTION] ^ Front page material ^

Agreed. Massie is a true American hero.

This should be called the "incumbent protection provision". Because if the target of the spying needs to be notified, that's a pretty strong deterrent to spy on that person. It's also cover for them since if they should happen to get notified, they can change their corrupt behaviors to avoid detection.

In fact, maybe it should be the other way around entirely - by accepting public office, you open yourself up to open scrutiny by every member of the public without notification. Everyone else is immune from spying at all.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270352604295450

 

[CaptUSA]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270352604295450

Option 3 seems to be the easiest. At this point, we create money out of thin air, we violate the Constitution hourly, we illegally fund foreign adventurism... I don't see why we really need bills or laws at all. They don't matter anyway.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Chip Roy @chiproytx:

My friend @RepThomasMassie describes the conundrum we faced - on which he & I agree 100% on concerns & general solutions - yet chose a different tactical vote on the “rule.” But FISA expiration won’t be allowed by the Intel Community & leadership - so we’ll see if in coming days we either get reforms or we’ll be left wondering if we rolled the dice properly between eating the FISA reform rule to force a vote on warrants likely set up to fail… vs. killing expansion of FISA with belief the warrants amendment was set up to fail. But let there be no doubt that Thomas, Jim, Warren, MTG & a very FEW others who all voted yes on rule) & I (& those who voted no) are & were on the same team to defend civil liberties & continue to fight for reforms.
...
https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1778361716205576603

 

[Matt4Liberty]

On which?



https://reason.com/2024/03/03/against-the-virtue-signal-vote/

It's just like Zerohedge to be unclear on little details like which version of the bill did these virtue signaling Republicans kill...

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024108?Page=2
I would like clarification from Massie on why he voted yes for this. I get that he tried to stop it in committee, but still voted yes here. He was probably hoping to shut it down once it was up for an actual vote and this measure to put it up for a vote was combined with a bunch of other bills

 

[susano]

Damn. Who is that Turner guy? What a snake framing that as protecting anyone because of what was done to Trump when it's a blatant violation of the 4th amendment for everyone. I'm also not clear on where Jim Jordan was on this. What's the scoop there? And, Elise Stefanik, I take it, was for the carve out and fuck the rest of Americans? Anyway, no renewal, with or with the warrant amendment passed, is that right?

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024108?Page=2
I would like clarification from Massie on why he voted yes for this. I get that he tried to stop it in committee, but still voted yes here. He was probably hoping to shut it down once it was up for an actual vote and this measure to put it up for a vote was combined with a bunch of other bills

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270000832299493
to: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270355422879832
[archive @ Thread Reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1778270000832299493.html]
{Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie | 10 April 2024}

Many people have been misled today.

There was not a vote on the FISA bill.

There was a vote on a resolution that would have allowed FISA, as well as 6 amendments to it, including a warrant requirement amendment, and three other pieces of legislation to come to the floor.

On partisan procedural votes like this, Democrats reflexively vote no and Republicans typically vote yes.

19 Republicans voted with all the Democrats to stop everything from coming to the floor today, including the warrant amendment to FISA.

Many of us who are adamantly opposed to warrantless surveillance voted for the resolution, wanting to get a recorded vote on warrants, and recognizing the Speaker can otherwise suspend the rules and bring anything to the floor without a resolution, like he did with the omnibus.

Tactically, whether the 19 did the best thing or not is TBD.

They may have just stopped our only chance to have a vote on whether the government needs a warrant to spy on you.

That vote might not have passed, but everyone would have had to go on the record for the world to see.

So what we had was a difference of tactics, with members like Jim Jordan, MTG, Warren Davidson, myself, and other defenders of the Constitution parting ways with those who saw an opportunity to temporarily throw a wrench in things by voting with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

Now that the rules resolution for the bill + amendments has failed, the swamp could:

1) suspend the rules to pass a worse FISA

2) make concessions and improve the rules for the bill

3) say they don’t need a new bill to keep FISA going, or

4) let the senate move first on FISA

Here’s the speech I gave on the floor today, encouraging folks to vote for the resolution to bring the warrant requirement amendment to the floor today, and to vote against FISA if that amendment did not pass. The resolution to allow this did not pass.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778124818585448656

​

https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1778361716205576603

My friend @RepThomasMassie describes the conundrum we faced - on which he & I agree 100% on concerns & general solutions - yet chose a different tactical vote on the “rule.” But FISA expiration won’t be allowed by the Intel Community & leadership - so we’ll see if in coming days we either get reforms or we’ll be left wondering if we rolled the dice properly between eating the FISA reform rule to force a vote on warrants likely set up to fail… vs. killing expansion of FISA with belief the warrants amendment was set up to fail. But let there be no doubt that Thomas, Jim, Warren, MTG & a very FEW others who all voted yes on rule) & I (& those who voted no) are & were on the same team to defend civil liberties & continue to fight for reforms.

https://twitter.com/repchiproy/status/1778109753920516125 [see the tweet embedded below, after this quote - OB]

https://twitter.com/repchiproy/status/1778109753920516125

 

[Occam's Banana]

@MOD @Occam's Banana ^ Front page material ^

Done.

In the future, please use the "Report Post" function (via the "exclamation point in a triangle" icon at the bottom of the post) to suggest the promotion of a post to the front page / "Top News" section. This will prevent cluttering the thread with the request (and responses to the request, such as this post). It is also likely to get a more timely response, as the request will be brought to the attention of all moderators/administrators, instead of just the one(s) you happen to tag. (Also, "MOD" is not a generic tag for moderators. It happens to be the username of an actual user - in this case, one who has no posts and who hasn't been back to the forum since joining in 2016.)

 

[Occam's Banana]

CLIP from SYSTEM UPDATE #254:

19 Republicans Defy Speaker Johnson to Kill Domestic Spying Bill
https://rumble.com/v4p2wok-19-republicans-defy-speaker-johnson-to-kill-domestic-spying-bill.html
{Glenn Greenwald | 12 April 2024}

​

 

[Matt4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270000832299493
to: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778270355422879832
[archive @ Thread Reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1778270000832299493.html]
{Thomas Massie @RepThomasMassie | 10 April 2024}

Many people have been misled today.

There was not a vote on the FISA bill.

There was a vote on a resolution that would have allowed FISA, as well as 6 amendments to it, including a warrant requirement amendment, and three other pieces of legislation to come to the floor.

On partisan procedural votes like this, Democrats reflexively vote no and Republicans typically vote yes.

19 Republicans voted with all the Democrats to stop everything from coming to the floor today, including the warrant amendment to FISA.

Many of us who are adamantly opposed to warrantless surveillance voted for the resolution, wanting to get a recorded vote on warrants, and recognizing the Speaker can otherwise suspend the rules and bring anything to the floor without a resolution, like he did with the omnibus.

Tactically, whether the 19 did the best thing or not is TBD.

They may have just stopped our only chance to have a vote on whether the government needs a warrant to spy on you.

That vote might not have passed, but everyone would have had to go on the record for the world to see.

So what we had was a difference of tactics, with members like Jim Jordan, MTG, Warren Davidson, myself, and other defenders of the Constitution parting ways with those who saw an opportunity to temporarily throw a wrench in things by voting with Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

Now that the rules resolution for the bill + amendments has failed, the swamp could:

1) suspend the rules to pass a worse FISA

2) make concessions and improve the rules for the bill

3) say they don’t need a new bill to keep FISA going, or

4) let the senate move first on FISA

Here’s the speech I gave on the floor today, encouraging folks to vote for the resolution to bring the warrant requirement amendment to the floor today, and to vote against FISA if that amendment did not pass. The resolution to allow this did not pass.

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1778124818585448656

​

https://twitter.com/repchiproy/status/1778109753920516125

A good explanation, thank you. Interesting perspective both from Roy and Massie