Senators Introduce Bill To End Secret Law That Enabled NSA Surveillance
from the good-for-them dept
A bipartisan group of eight Senators have now introduced a bill to end the secret interpretation of the law which enabled the NSA, via the rubber-stamping FISA Court, to claim that the FISA Amendments Act enabled them to sweep up basically all phone call data on everyone.The measure, coming amid daily revelations about the extent to which the National Security Agency is monitoring communications by Americans, would require the Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions. The senators say the move would allow Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming to spy on Americans under the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).The bill will be put forth by Merkley, but co-sponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy, Dean Heller, Mark Begich, Al Franken, Jon Tester and Ron Wyden. Leahy, being the chair of the Judiciary Committee, is important, suggesting that this bill isn't automatically dead in the water. During the FISA Amendments Act fight at the end of 2012, Leahy was one of only a few Senators (along with Merkley and Wyden) who pushed back on just doing a straight reauthorization. In fact, it sounds like this bill will be similar to the one that Merkley pushed as an amendment to the renewal of the FISA Amendments Act last year, which got shot down -- but did score 37 votes in the Senate. Perhaps with Leahy's support, and all the news going on, it can get a few more votes.
“Americans deserve to know how much information about their private communications the government believes it’s allowed to take under the law,” explains Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat who has been an outspoken advocate for congressional oversight of surveillance programs. “There is plenty of room to have this debate without compromising our surveillance sources or methods or tipping our hand to our enemies. We can’t have a serious debate about how much surveillance of Americans’s communications should be permitted without ending secret law.”
And, in case you're wondering, yes, Congress can order the executive branch to declassify anything it wants, though obviously it needs to pass the law (and get past any potential veto). Declassifying how the FISC has interpreted the law should not be controversial. As we've been pointing out for years, under no circumstances would it make sense to claim that the official interpretation of what's legal and illegal should be classified. Yes, certain techniques or methods might need to remain classified, but the law must be public. Hopefully, others in Congress will finally recognize that basic fact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: al franken, dean heller, fisa amendments act, fisc, jeff merkley, john tester, mark begich, nsa, patrick leahy, ron wyden, secret law, senate, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stop Watching Us.
The revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance apparatus, if true, represent a stunning abuse of our basic rights. We demand the U.S. Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA's spying programs.
Read the full letter to US Congress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is really masnicking this NSA bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
More milk! More milk! More milk!
Publish more than any other human on earth! Yeah! Techdirt!
Just don't ask the wizard behind the curtain any questions. He doesn't do questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're talking about the NSA, right? They're the ones behind the curtain?
So, the NSA programs are legal but knowing about the NSA programs, that's illegal? Have I got that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
AJ's head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GTFO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Excuses Excuses Excuses!!!
All kinds of "reasons" why he can't/won't discuss his beliefs.
But NEVER just an honest post discussing things honestly.
Hmm....
Wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cluck cluck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What?... Are you not entertained!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you getting enough sun?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously, don't do another video again kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if we tell everyone what the laws are we can't lock up whoever we want!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need public hearings, and we need them NOW
We need them again. And just like Watergate, they need to be PUBLIC -- no whining about things are "classified": this is the people's business, and it must be done in the full view of the people. Congress should subpoena everyone involved in this. If they decline? Send armed federal marshalls and drag them to the witness table in chains. If they refuse to testify? Lock them in a cell until they talk or die of old age. But however it's done, we, the citizens, need and deserve answers. ALL OF THEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need public hearings, and we need them NOW
The Church Committee learned that beginning in the 1950s, the CIA and Federal Bureau of Investigation intercepted, opened and photographed more than 215,000 pieces of mail by the time the program called "HTLINGUAL" was shut down in 1973. This program was all done under the "mail covers" program. A mail cover is when the government records without a warrant or notification all information on the outside of an envelope or package, including the name of the sender and the recipient. The Church report found that the CIA was zealous about keeping the United States Postal Service from learning that mail was being opened by government agents. CIA agents moved mail to a private room to open the mail or in some cases opened envelopes at night after stuffing them in briefcases or coat pockets to deceive postal officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Number?
When I call my senator, I want to be able to refer to a bill number.
What's the bill number?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Number?
So the Merkley bill will be S. numbered right after yesterday's bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's hold our breath real hard
He also has the power of issuing subpoenas, which might be a very nice power to have right now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not enough teeth.
http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=5D5997D9-4BA1-46C3-BA86-D208EC82A31E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not enough teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not enough teeth.
in short, information that can identify the source of intelligence is irreleant, as are exact details of the surveillance method. ( you don't, for example, need to know exactly how e-mails are monitored- the scandal about Prism was about the extent of surveillance, not the method)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or maybe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S. 1130
113th Congress (2013-2014)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - June 11, 2013)
[Page: S4212]
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: . . . .
By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. LEE, Mr. HELLER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. PAUL):
S. 1130. A bill to require the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that includes significant legal interpretation of section 501 or 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 unless such disclosure is not in the national security interest of the United; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: S. 1130
Note from the help on "Direct Links To THOMAS Documents"
So it looks like that hyperlink is the closest I can generate, and you're going to have to click through on your own to:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: S. 1130
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s1130
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: S. 1130
Thanks.
I'm not seeing the text of the bill yet. All I've got right now is:
Am I missing something on either Popvox or Govtrack? Is the bill text available somewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: S. 1130
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no secret laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Obama echoed intelligence experts – both inside and outside the government – who predicted that potential attackers will find other, secretive ways to communicate now that they know that their phone and Internet records may be targeted."
As if they didn't already know.
"It was not immediately clear how intelligence analysts weed out Americans' online documents from those sent by a citizen of another country."
Of course they can't. Except by looking at what they collect.
"For example, extremists could start using online providers that do not have servers based in the U.S. and therefore do not have to comply with American court orders."
This applies to every customer who might want privacy, not just extremists.
"Obama said he would be happy to join a new debate in Congress over whether the surveillance programs are appropriate, noting that lawmakers continually authorize the measures that some now are criticizing."
How can there be a meaningful debate over activities that are secret?
How can the government maintain a secret interpretation of a public law?
How can lawmakers effectively criticize a program they are not allowed to describe?
Was there a senator who dissented against the Iraq war? Was it considered heroic at the time? What did he accomplish later?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]