Which looks like it might be much later in the afternoon or evening....
If the Amash-Conyers amendment passes the house, it is a start. If it should fail, this is not going away, we will keep fighting. And we will know who has voted for the people, and who has voted for the surveillance state.
If passed, then we wait for the senate. And the President, the man who had said that welcomed the debate, but to my knowledge, has done nothing yet to move this debate along.
While we wait, some incremental Edward Snowden-related news:
The US state department says it would be "deeply disappointed" if Russia allows Snowden to leave Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport.
Reuters reports:
Any move that would allow Mr. Snowden to depart the airport would be deeply disappointing," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters. She said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had telephoned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to discuss the situation.
"The secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning. He reiterated our belief ... that Mr. Snowden needs to be returned to the United States where he will have a fair trial," Psaki said.
And the Guardian links to a story about Snowden on the Atlantic "Edward Snowden Is Winning"
• Policy changes are moving forward
• Attitudes on surveillance are changing
• Snowden may walk free
Read the full piece here.
Ninety days ago, a vote on the House floor to rescind funding for a national security program would have been unheard of — as would any of the other bills proposed in the House and Senate to increase openness about the FISA Court (which authorizes the surveillance tools) or to reform the laws used to justify them. As Adam Serwer outlined at MSNBC, privacy advocates sense a shift on Capitol Hill.
“I think reform is coming,” says Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California. “It’ll take time to determine exactly what form it will take, but I think there is an inexorable move towards greater transparency of the FISA Court and greater restructuring of the surveillance programs.”
Attitudes on surveillance are changing. Past members of that Court agree.