A Controversial US Surveillance Program May Get Slipped Into a ‘Must-Pass’ Defense Bill
www.wired.com
Congressional leaders are discussing ways to reauthorize Section 702 surveillance, including by attaching it to the National Defense Authorization Act, Capitol Hill sources tell WIRED.

A Controversial US Surveillance Program May Get Slipped Into a ‘Must-Pass’ Defense Bill.::Congressional leaders are discussing ways to reauthorize Section 702 surveillance, including by attaching it to the National Defense Authorization Act, Capitol Hill sources tell WIRED.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    1 year ago

    Same way they made indefinite detention of American citizens legal: make the yearly NDAA dependent on it and you could mandate that every State of the Union starts with a compilation video of dogs being silly and it would pass.

    It’s never fun stuff like that, though. It’s always things that would be political suicide to even suggest in countries with functional governments. Because the things the Republicans want are always heinous, especially the things they want most.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      I was with you until the last sentence. Things like that are usually supported by many or even most Democrats too. The Democratic Party isn’t a civil libertarian party, at all.

      I have not researched these specific cases, so may be wrong about them.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        Things like that are usually supported by many or even most Democrats too

        Good thing the world isn’t a binary where rightful criticism of one “team” automatically confers praise on another.

        I’m painfully aware that the lesser evil is still evil and that only a few specific types of people are well-represented in Congress, most of them not very good people.

      • pokemaster787@ani.socialEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        I have not researched these specific cases, so may be wrong about them.

        You’re not obligated to do research on every individual bill the political parties push and what rider clauses they slip into unrelated bills. That’s fine.

        You, however, should have research and examples to back it up if you’re gonna “both sides” this. The Democratic party is far far far from perfect or what I would want, but at the very least most of them seem to be campaigning in good faith or at the least not inciting actual violence and treason.

        Saying “so may be wrong about them” isn’t a free pass. Know that people read what you say, and we have a huge problem of political apathy (circa 2016) due to the constant repetition of “but both sides are the same.” Let’s please not exacerbate it unless we’re bringing facts and evidence to the table.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.ggEnglish
          7·
          1 year ago

          Know that people read what you say, and we have a huge problem of political apathy (circa 2016) due to the constant repetition of “but both sides are the same.” Let’s please not exacerbate it unless we’re bringing facts and evidence to the table.

          This so much ☝️☝️ thank you