The real issue may be that you have an interpretation of Section 501, and I have an interpretation of Section 501, and Obama has his interpretation of...etc.

FISA is hidden from review, and is ultimately a star chamber. They have no visible regulation.

Everything that we request from the government is stamped: TOP SECRET.

And you can't question TOP SECRET, because your evidence will be, well, TOP SECRET.

Catch 22...brought to life.

So. I rely on the politicians that I trust to have more intel than I will EVER have. If they see a problem, then I will search for anything that refutes that.

The Boston Bombers could prove both of our cases: You say "why" didn't we figure them out before the deed. That could be because my research says that actual phone conversations are not listened to, if the party is not targeted under Section 501. They are gathered, and stored.

The gathering of phone records seems to be the issue here, and the initial stories had us all believe that we are being listened to 24/7. That seems to be false (the sheer logistics of doing this should have answered that).

The possible use of the Boston Bombers phone records could be to find like minded deviates that are planning more of the same. That would be useful.

I don't have the answers, but I am not ready to have a knee jerk reaction to anything that passes, or fails, in Congress...until I can exhaust my research options.

Find out how the Patriot Act was able to be abused to the extent that it has. Even the original author is appalled.

If the current administration has legal answers to what loopholes they used to do this, then we write those loopholes out.

I reserve my right to define "sanity"...since I assume that anyone else's definition is totally insane.

My understanding of the situation is the NSA considers "persons who MAY be in communication with terrorist groups" to be "everybody in the country". Hey, got to listen in to find out, right?

This amendment was saying if you want to gather data on an individual, you have to formally declare they are a target of an investigation, and that may mean an appearance before the FISA court to explain just why the proposed target is suspicious. The success ratio on getting that approval out of FISA is darn near 100%.

Your point about Boston is interesting to me because even with this "monitor everything" approach, it failed to prevent the Boston bomber attack. How can taking it away "enable" another attack when keeping it in place did not "disable" it?

Maybe the problem is we're awash in meaningless data?

"Amash/Conyers/Mulvaney/Polis/Massie Amendment – Bars the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act (as codified by Section 501 of FISA) to collect records, including telephone call records, that pertain to persons who may be in communication with terrorist groups but are not already subject to an investigation under Section 215."

This section alone could enable yet another Boston style attack, if the Boston bombers were suspected, but not already under investigation under Section 215.

I am reading the amendment with a fine tune comb, and I may change my position.

Stay tuned, sports fans....

yea, I'm the very embodiment of 'chic'
you do not get to determine who is "saner" who has more "smarts." I agree the amendment was not perfect, however, showing support for defunding was a huge start toward s taking back the 4th amendment. Better in what way? what do you recommend?

Your opinion is noted, and recorded for posterity.

The present threat is apolitical, and placing blame on either party is a mortal flaw.

"One man's meat, is another man's poison."

9/11 changed the world as we know it, and it may not return in our near future...since we are still walking in the cross-hairs of the enemy.

When you contemplate that last sentence, you may realize that relaxing our guard is currently 'chic', but not exactly smart.

Like I already said, but no one wants to address: the failed amendment was emotionally written for public consumption, with little thought to all of the parameters. A better amendment will be proposed...by saner men...that sees all of the issues evenly.

I wish to say this in a respectful tone and things can come across harsh on the internet, so please take this in a kind way. "trumps" means they have respect for both concepts, but one takes priority over the other when there is a conflict. I'm not suggesting conservatives have no respect for liberty. I'm saying when there is a conflict, a bad choice is usually made. Any comment made on this web site, when it is one sentence long, is almost certainly painting with a broad brush. But I stand by what I've said - it's more true than not.

There is also this tendency to not identify bad law, and instead blame bad people. It's my position that the Patriot Act itself is bad law. A very similar episode with data collection (AT&T) happened under GW Bush and there wasn't much outcry from conservatives then, while there was from the libs. Bad law will be abused no matter what the administration is, and we shouldn't be partisan about calling a spade a spade.

liberty and the patriot act are diametrically opposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx...

interesting

Shame on you for broad brushing Conservatives over this complex issue. It is not that simple.

For instance: I (a Conservative) respect standing "Law and Order", and the Patriot Act is THE current law.

I also respect "Liberty"...and the current administrations bastardization of the Patriot Act is a pox on our liberty.

The Amendment was not written narrowly enough to resolve both issues, and failed for that reason. A better thought out Amendment will accomplish this....

The current data collection is what's overreaching and overreacting, if you ask me.

Is the author of the amendment leaving some dirty little secret out when he explains it here: ?
http://amash.house.gov/speech/amash-nsa-...

What do you consider the overreach?

I've noticed, which is great! I just didn't realize the rest of the reps were with him on it.

Yep, this illustrates a problem with the typical conservative mindset: respect for Law and Order trumps respect for Liberty. Check out Massachusetts.

thanks for that Lionel. I was on the page for the amendment, but somehow the link directed back to the bill

Sen Udall has been particularly vocal during these revelations.

Look how many no votes came from Texas!

the typical," if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about"
that surprised me.

Thanks for this. Looks like my state (CO) voted unanimously to end the data collection!

Thanks for sharing. However, your link doesn't show who voted for or against the amendment - it's a vote on the entire appropriations bill.

This link looks to provide the right data:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/11...