FISA reauthorization & Section 702 warrantless surveillance

[Anti Federalist]

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

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...46102928052228

[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/ho...peaker-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/agains...e-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/ho...peaker-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/...18hr7888ih.pdf

[Anti Globalist]

This screams rules for thee, but not for me.

[Swordsmyth]

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/c...orization-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]

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

[CaptUSA]

@MOD @Occam's Banana ^ 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/...70352604295450

[CaptUSA]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...70352604295450

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...61716205576603

[Matt4Liberty]

On which?



https://reason.com/2024/03/03/agains...e-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 $#@! 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/...70000832299493
to: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...70355422879832
[archive @ Thread Reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...832299493.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/...24818585448656

https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status...61716205576603

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/statu...09753920516125 [see the tweet embedded below, after this quote - OB]

https://twitter.com/repchiproy/statu...09753920516125

[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-republ...ying-bill.html
{Glenn Greenwald | 12 April 2024}

[Matt4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...70000832299493
to: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...70355422879832
[archive @ Thread Reader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...832299493.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/...24818585448656

https://twitter.com/repchiproy/statu...09753920516125

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

[susano]

I get anxiety just reading the two approaches. I could never be in politics.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/st...76765746610502


Eyepatch McCain does not approve:

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/st...35817839215028


Get a warrant or get lost, $#@!.

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/st...35820213166563


https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/sta...70130916274464

[Occam's Banana]

Eyepatch McCain does not approve:

https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/st...35817839215028

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...75604743029107
& https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...75884960592376

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/freedomcaucus/st...76765746610502


[...]

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/stat...05755560247330

[Occam's Banana]

Surveillance Bill Clears Key Hurdle in House, Putting It Back on Track
Speaker Mike Johnson scaled back the measure to two years from five, winning over hard-right Republicans who believe Donald J. Trump will be president by the time it would expire.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/12/u...bill-fisa.html
[archive: https://archive.ph/lNNb9]
{Luke Broadwater & Charlie Savage | 12 April 2024}

The House took a critical first step on Friday toward reauthorizing a law extending an expiring warrantless surveillance law that national security officials say is crucial to fighting terrorism, voting to take it up two days after a previous attempt to pass it collapsed.

Grasping to salvage the measure before the law expires next week, Speaker Mike Johnson put forward a shorter extension — two years instead of five — in a move that appeared to win over hard-right Republicans who blocked the bill earlier this week.

On a party-line vote of 213 to 208, the House agreed to take up the new version of the legislation, which would extend a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as Section 702. That cleared the way for a debate Friday on proposed changes to the bill before a final vote on passage.

The preliminary vote on Friday suggested that the measure was back on track after former President Donald J. Trump implored lawmakers this week to “kill” FISA, complaining that government officials had used it to spy on him. Should it pass the House, the Senate would still have to clear it, sending it to President Biden for his signature.

Mr. Johnson’s two-year version of the bill was an attempt to mollify hard-right Republicans, who believe Mr. Trump would be president once again the next time the law expired. All 19 of them who voted to block the measure on Wednesday switched their positions on Friday to allow it to go forward.

On the House floor, Representative Michael Burgess, Republican of Texas and the chairman of the Rules Committee, praised the bill’s shorter envisioned reauthorization. He credited an influential member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, Representative Chip Roy of Texas, with the idea of cutting back the renewal to two years.

“That’s important,” Mr. Burgess said. “Reforms that are now incorporated in the new FISA reauthorization will be re-evaluated by the next Congress as to whether or not they’re actually working.”

Mr. Johnson also released a document moments shortly before the vote Friday morning touting the bill as “the largest intelligence reform package since FISA’s inception in 1978.”

Section 702 is now set to expire on April 19. But the program can continue operating until April 2025 because last week the FISA court granted a government request authorizing it for another year. Under the law, surveillance activity can continue so long as there are active court orders allowing it, even if the underlying statute expires.

Even so, the intelligence community has urged Congress to pass a reauthorization of the legislation before the program enters a sort of legal limbo, where the outcomes of court challenges to it would be uncertain.

At issue is a debate that has roiled Congress for months. Under Section 702, the government is empowered to collect, without warrants, the messages of noncitizens abroad, even when those targeted are communicating with Americans.

As a result, the government sometimes collects Americans’ private messages without a warrant. While there are limits on how that material can be searched for and used, the F.B.I. has repeatedly violated those constraints in recent years — including improperly querying for information about Black Lives Matter protesters and people suspected of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The F.B.I. has since tightened its system to reduce the risk of queries that violate the standards, and the bill under consideration would codify those changes and add reporting requirements, as well as limiting the number of officials with access to the repository of raw information.

But reformers — including both progressive Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans — want to add a requirement that prohibits warrantless queries in the repository for the contents of Americans’ communications, with certain narrow exceptions.

“Why are we being hustled to do this today?” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, who favors a warrant requirement. She added: “I think we are being hustled here today for a reason: to prevent the Constitution from being applied to FISA.”

Critics led by Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will have a chance to try to add the warrant requirement to the bill on Friday before a final vote.

National security officials argue that doing so would cripple the program because they typically use it early in investigations, such as to try to learn more about an American phone number or email account in contact with a suspected foreign spy or terrorist, before there is enough evidence to meet a probable cause standard for a warrant.

On Friday, ahead of the vote, a senior national security official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, asserted that hostile adversaries were watching the congressional debate closely and hoping that lawmakers would deprive U.S. intelligence agencies of a key capability.

Senior lawmakers on the House national security committees, including Representatives Michael R. Turner of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Jim Himes of Connecticut, its top Democrat, have also resisted such changes. They are backing the more modest adjustments in the bill.

The House is also set to vote on several other significant amendments to the surveillance law before voting on the extension itself, including a measure pushed by Mr. Turner and Mr. Himes that would expand the types of companies with access to foreign communications that could be compelled to participate in the program.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...09963046924587


https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...15388400197954

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...09963046924587


https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...15388400197954

In reply to: https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/...15388400197954

[PAF]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?534880...on&start=5343#

[Occam's Banana]

"Hundreds of thousands of abuses" are worth it, because "national security".

The FBI told him so.

But it's "confidential", so you'll just have to trust him.

And the FBI.

(The same FBI he says was responsible for those "hundreds of thousands of abuses" ...)

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1778525666172178927

[Occam's Banana]

"Hundreds of thousands of abuses" are worth it, because "national security".

The FBI told him so.

But it's "confidential", so you'll just have to trust him.

And the FBI.

(The same FBI he says was responsible for those "hundreds of thousands of abuses" ...)

https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1778525666172178927
[... tweet ...]

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...33195467882808


https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status...41207767466233