Hacker News Reader

Comment by mometsi | Hacker News Reader

This is the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7888...

This is the report introducing the controversial amendment: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress...

The amendment is the last item in the report, under this heading:

> 6. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Turner of Ohio or His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

This is the transcript of the session where the amendment was discussed and voted on: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/iss...

You can find the discussion within the text using this search term:

> Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Turner

View on HN

The way that these amendments can change specific punctuation without clarifying the impact or meaning of the change seems terrible. Like trying to read a git commit without any message.

This is one reason for a republic, so that voters who can't be arsed to parse the farce can empower specialists to represent their positions.

Congressional debate is supposed to be the forum in which details like that are noted and discussed.

Well thank goodness they were given ten minutes to do so

I am not surprised that a colossal moron like Turner would spin disallowing warrantless spying on American citizens as guaranteeing “constitutional rights to our adversaries”.

Thank you - I was looking for direction on what the substance of the issue is.

unsurprising. this has been a major reason the Republican house speaker is looking at a recall (yet again.) hardliners are upset the FISA regulations havent been renewed to their liking, and Mike Johnson (current speaker) would likely shore up his chances of making it at least 200 days as speaker if he passed this.

getting moderate or traditional conservatives (let alone democrats or independents) to sign this is another matter entirely. FISA has become a babadook policy the US government would just as soon slowly forget about and expire, similar to GITMO and the more acerbic policies of the Bush administration during the WoT. these types of regulations enjoy pretty unilateral disapproval because they have the potential to bite the hand that feeds.

this isn't the narrative I've heard-

from what I've seen its the traditional democrats and republicans who are in favor, with the leftists opposed on human rights grounds and the hardcore trumpers opposed due to their grudge against the FBI

FISA is a rubber stamp and has been abused for surveilling political opponents and journalists. It ought not to exist at all.

Just because modern republicans hate it does not mean the hate is unwarranted.

fwiw I am opposed as well

> FISA has become a babadook policy the US government

Congratulations, you have recorded the first indexed hit of "babadook policy" recorded by Google Search.

Now would you care to explain the phrase you have just effectively coined.

There's a lot of intelligence/hawk support for ensuring FISA remains intact. I.e. historical GOP conservative.

They're called neocons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism), just one wing of U.S. conservatism and honestly plenty of modern Democrats could be described in this camp as well.

The neocons are all part of democratic apparatus now. Once it became known that they were not going to get war profiteering under Trump, they switched wagons. Democratic party is the party of neocons now.

Individual identities transcend binary party classification, especially over issues as complex as international engagement.

In the Democratic party, there's the group advocating for involvement on the basis of individual rights and one on the basis of supporting the post-WWII rule of law world order.

In the Republican party, there's still the group advocating for American exceptionalism. However, given that Republican presidents initiated the last two major wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), general party support for military interventionalism is at a low ebb. Give it a few more years for memories to reset (~2028).

Huh. now that they do not please their voters, conclusion is that they are infiltrated by neocons? I don't think they are changed. They just showed their true colors with the recent events.

Who has switched? Or do you mean voters? How do you know this?

I don't know why you're being downvoted, it is true. Even though Trump sucked, he did start 0 new wars. Whereas the current administration has signed us up for several conflicts, which the neocons love.

It seems like anything critical of the deep state get immediately downvoted here and then floats back up after a certain time. There also no argument given as to why the downvotes occur. Maybe downvotes with substantive replys should carry more weight?

And theres always shareblue monitoring forums, which is deeply embedded with spooks.

Unelecteds heavily vote democrat/big government because of job security. They don't care about your rights hence pro-FISA. As a matter of fact it appears many of them believe your rights are afforded to you by the government, which seems very totalitarian.

Because when you say emotionally-inflammatory, illogical things, most people will downvote and move on, instead of engaging?

If you want a substantive discussion, try dropping the fear-words like "unelected"s: this isn't the Fox News comment section.

And here is an example of ad hominem attacks and downvotes. Nothing substantial was said, you have given 0 examples of illogical or emotional content.

Do facts scare you because they are certainly unelected as in not elected to the office they hold. What word would make you feel better, @ethbr1?

I assume you are not an American.

Who heads the executive branch?

I don't mind feeding trolls so here it goes. The elected President is head of the executive branch.

What's your point?

The above comment is an excellent example of what type of comment should be grey texted into oblivion.

If the President is elected, and the President holds the power to staff the executive branch (subject to the approval of Congress and the restraints on arbitrary exercise of the CSA of 1883 and CSRA of 1978), then in what sense is the bureaucracy uncontrolled by the electorate?

Or do I misunderstand the American system of government?

Yes, you are severely misunderstanding the federal government or at the least making a leap of judgement.

https://apnews.com/article/federal-employee-job-protections-...

You sure seem awfully defendant of FISA and government abuse. Why is that?

The CSA and CSRA were both implemented to put a stop to the spoils system for executive offices that existed previously.

Do you think that was better?

And if not, how would you propose re-politicizing civil service positions without falling victim to spoils again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com