No. I don't think it's worth trying. If this is your goal, I think there are far more effective ways to go about it.
1. First, you'll need a political organization that is single-mindedly focused on this one issue. You'll need donors, professional lobbyists, a PR team, and a massive grassroots organization. Think Anti-Saloon League meets Rules for Radicals.
2. Then you focus on one or two elections of prominent politicians. Find someone vulnerable in the Senate. Then find an opponent that will vote against these policies, and win. That will put your group on the map in Washington.
3. Have your newly elected champion propose legislation that addresses policy avenues for which there is already support in Washington. I would focus on two areas: fixing the FISA court, and forming an investigatory committee.
Making the FISA court more than a rubber stamp will accomplish many of your goals in the short term. In brief, a few reforms that could go a long way would be the addition of attorneys appointed to oppose the government in motions, fair appointment process, and regularly publishing the findings of law of the court with the fact patterns redacted.
Forming an investigatory commission will accomplish your goals in the long term. A top to bottom review of the classified practices of the government, in both public and closed hearings, will bring the information up from the depths of the executive branch. Knowledge will breed more outrage, which will fuel both your political organization and grassroots efforts.
If you're successful, the result will look much like the Church Committee. Your ultimate goal should be to statutorily ban the programs, but you won't get there in one step, and certainly won't get close by cutting the funding to a few programs.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if this is your sincerely held belief. I'm simply saying that playing whack-a-mole with particular programs is a spectacularly ineffective way to pursue your goals.
I agree with you that those are all good ways to take action, but I disagree with you that this bill is not worth trying as well. This doesn't target specific NSA programs by name, but amends Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to forbid its use to collect records for people who are not subject to an investigation under that same Section. It's far from an end to domestic surveillance, but it's a significant limitation on the legality of what they're currently doing. Why should we have to elect new people to Congress before taking any further action when we have members of Congress pushing good and legitimate measures already? Should more be done in addition to this? Absolutely. I think it's completely asinine to say that this is a worthless measure, however, and that no one should even try.
Amending 215 isn't much good with FISA 702 collection methods still in place, so yes, this bill is useless.
You need new elected representatives because thus far no representative in any election in any district has ever lost an election over this surveillance. Unless and until that happens, the massive forces arrayed against you will sway the votes every time.
This movement lacks support, funding, vision, and credibility. It is at best a placebo that bleeds public motivation, so in many ways it is in fact worse than useless.
215 and 702 do different things. It is misleading to say that limiting 215 is pointless because 702 is still in place. Yes, both should be limited. But limiting one as a start is better than limiting nothing.
The NSA director has called a classified emergency briefing for Congress to lobby against them voting on this bill, so they seem more troubled by it passing than you do. Which makes me wonder what your true intent is in encouraging people to not support this.
1. FISA Court precedent has already created a rather broad exception to the Fourth Amendment. Even without 215 most domestic surveillance could be brought under other statutory authority. The end-run around the Fourth is the hard part, not the statutory grant of permission.
2. The NSA Director would never allow any bill limiting his agency's powers to be considered in any way without protesting.
3. If you repeal that portion of the Patriot Act, which again you won't because you haven't done the necessary groundwork, most of the gathering done under 215 could be done under 702 given the "two to three hops" justification.
4. The NSA and the FISA court don't consider mere interception of communication to meet the definition of "collection," meaning gathering all of the nation's communications neither requires statutory approval nor invokes Constitutional scrutiny.
You're treating your adversary as if it's passive, and can't adapt other legal tools to serve this purpose. Loss of this one provision is meaningless in the scope of the agency's powers.
Finally, you're ignoring the most crucial part of the counterargument. Public opprobrium is a scarce resource that must be marshaled and treated as such. Every action that you take must be calculated to make maximum use of that resource, or you're simply squandering it.
I have no dog in this fight. I see the advantages and disadvantages of both positions. Seeing either side employ sub-optimal tactics is what bothers me.
If you're going to take on the best funded, most powerful, and most covert organization in the history of the planet, you better come with more firepower than this.
1. First, you'll need a political organization that is single-mindedly focused on this one issue. You'll need donors, professional lobbyists, a PR team, and a massive grassroots organization. Think Anti-Saloon League meets Rules for Radicals.
2. Then you focus on one or two elections of prominent politicians. Find someone vulnerable in the Senate. Then find an opponent that will vote against these policies, and win. That will put your group on the map in Washington.
3. Have your newly elected champion propose legislation that addresses policy avenues for which there is already support in Washington. I would focus on two areas: fixing the FISA court, and forming an investigatory committee.
Making the FISA court more than a rubber stamp will accomplish many of your goals in the short term. In brief, a few reforms that could go a long way would be the addition of attorneys appointed to oppose the government in motions, fair appointment process, and regularly publishing the findings of law of the court with the fact patterns redacted.
Forming an investigatory commission will accomplish your goals in the long term. A top to bottom review of the classified practices of the government, in both public and closed hearings, will bring the information up from the depths of the executive branch. Knowledge will breed more outrage, which will fuel both your political organization and grassroots efforts.
If you're successful, the result will look much like the Church Committee. Your ultimate goal should be to statutorily ban the programs, but you won't get there in one step, and certainly won't get close by cutting the funding to a few programs.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try, if this is your sincerely held belief. I'm simply saying that playing whack-a-mole with particular programs is a spectacularly ineffective way to pursue your goals.