Author Of The PATRIOT Act Goes To EU Parliament To Admit Congress Failed, And The NSA Is Out Of Control
from the didn't-see-that-coming dept
It's already strange enough that the author of the PATRIOT Act, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, has come out strongly against the NSA's mass spying, said that James Clapper should be fired and prosecuted, and introduced sweeping new legislation that would significantly curtail the NSA's activities. If you've followed civil liberties issues over the past dozen years or so, Sensenbrenner used to be very much in the camp of folks like Rep. Mike Rogers and Senator Dianne Feinstein -- seen as carrying water for the intelligence community (and industry). The change of heart (even if he claims the original PATRIOT Act was never meant to allow this stuff) is quite impressive.Even so, it's perhaps even more incredible to see that Sensenbrenner has now gone over to the EU Parliament to admit that the NSA is out of control and needs to be reined in. While it doesn't sound like he got all the way to a complete apology, he appears to have come pretty close. According to Bridget Johnson's writeup at the PJ Tatler:
Sensenbrenner told the EU parliamentarians that “Congress knew the country needed new tools and broader authorities to combat those who meant to harm us, but we never intended to allow the National Security Agency to peer indiscriminately into the lives of innocent people all over the world.”Sensenbrenner promised more strict oversight from Congress, but also noted (realistically) that Congress's authority is mostly limited to domestic spying -- and that the US government needed to work more closely with foreign governments concerning foreign spying. Given who's saying it, this is a rather startling statement.
Sensenbrenner noted that he “worked under strict time constraints” to forge the Patriot Act and get it passed.
“I firmly believe the Patriot Act saved lives by strengthening the ability of intelligence agencies to track and stop potential terrorists, but in the past few years, the National Security Agency has weakened, misconstrued and ignored the civil liberty protections we drafted into the law,” he said, adding that the NSA “ignored restrictions painstakingly crafted by lawmakers and assumed a plenary authority we never imagined.”
“Worse, the NSA has cloaked its operations behind such a thick cloud of secrecy that, even if the NSA promised reforms, we would lack the ability to verify them.”
Sensenbrenner said the “constant stream of disclosures about US surveillance since June has surprised and appalled me as much as it has the American public and our international allies.”
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: eu, eu parliament, jim sensenbrenner, nsa, patriot act, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's not "strange": it's sheer PR.
When people are in jail for known crimes and NSA is limited then you might give a mention still with huge skepticism, but until some actual effect, why even bother to read this crap? (I read only the headline, fanboys.)
Techdirt's official motto: This isn't surprising.
06:39:45[h-522-0]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not "strange": it's sheer PR.
Techdirt's official motto: This isn't surprising."
The juxtaposition of the above statements is wonderful. It's good that you're such a genius that you don't need to actually read the article (where your concerns were actually addressed, you cancerous fucking moron).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not "strange": it's sheer PR.
This is why you are never on topic. Never add value to the discussion. It is also the reason why you are pretty much always reported into oblivion.
You've made your reputation on being a troll and everyone recognizes it. Enjoy being downgraded into a nearly invisible one line, no matter how much you soapbox off topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress's authority
The National Security Agency �operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense�.
Article I, Section 8
Is someone really claiming that Congress doesn't have authority to regulate an agency of the Department of Defense?
Maybe there's some clever lawyer out there who wants to argue, �Cyber isn't land or naval, so there, nyah, nyah�. Maybe a judge might even buy that argument. Who knows? I don't think anyone's formally argued it yet. But short of that, Congress' authority over the military isn't limited to just domestic deployments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress's authority
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politics and honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politics and honesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nor is the call of it being legal of any value. As I have said before, illegal laws get passed and stay legal till they have had their day in court. At such time laws can and are from time to time ruled illegal or unconstitutional. It has been the aim of the agencies to prevent court challenge for this very reason. The administration as well as the DOJ, and these various agencies including the FBI, the NSA, crap even the NYPD have used confidentiality in the attempt to stifle any court challenges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely bogus claim on congress' power
That's completely, 100% bogus. Congress darn well can stop spying other nations and foreigners to by passing laws against it. Congress can defund or abolish the NSA altogether. Congress can charge the president with breaking the law and impeach and convict him if he tells the NSA and others to keep on engaging in illegal spying of foreigners.
Congress wasn't given the power to declare war by the founders for nothing, nor was congress and it's powers listed first in the constitution and the president's listed second a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
Are you sure? Congress' powers are limited by the Constitution, and I'm not sure what powers they have that could directly rein in foreign spying. They can rein in domestic spying under the 4th Amendment, but if the foreign spying is done by the executive branch, under the executive powers... it's not quite so easy.
Now, they could pass a law, and perhaps no one would challenge it. I'm not against the idea, but it's not as easy as just saying "they can pass a law." Congress has limited powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
Instead they keep expanding the NSA budget. Then they act surprised at all the work that NSA does...legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
(I'd figure this would just be your basic foreign policy issue btw, you know, who to trade with, who to drop bombs on, who to plants spies at, etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
The United States Constitution was drafted in an earlier age. It was an age of absolute monarchs, tyrants and despots: � an age where the �divine right of kings� was not some quaint artifact or relic, but a very real and powerful theory in the governance of man in this world. In that summer of 1787 when the drafters convened in Philadelphia, across the Atlantic, in France, the Bourbon King Louis XVI still reigned: the French Revolution of 1789 would not begin for another two years, and His Most Christian Majesty would keep his head attached to his shoulders for another five, until January of 1793.
The new institutions designed in Philadelphia in '87 were designed to meet the practical needs of a new nation existing among the nations of the world during that age. The president of our republic is not a monarch. He has no divine right. He was elected, not born. But it was always expected and planned that our head of state should meet and deal with crowned heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
Spies traditionally steal documents, yes?
Article I, Section 8
When, under policy of the United States, the president sends agents to obtain a tangible items, then that looks like a �capture�.
I don't think it matters whether it's a boat or a piece of paper: stealing is stealing, except when it's not. Say if you have a letter of marque or reprisal, then it's not quite stealing, exactly.
If the goods taken happen to be less tangible, or if they're not really taken, but just copied, then your position �and mine� might be well contrasted against the position of the RIAA, and their friends at Obama's DoJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
Agreed? Separation of powers.
That said, spying, diplomacy, foreign relations, ambassadors, and foreign treaties are all part of the Executive Branch.
So possibly any legislation about foreign spying would be unconstitutional. I don't think they've ever passed similar laws and thus I don't think there's been a court case. Could be wrong about this though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Completely bogus claim on congress' power
Article I, Section 8
When a foreign nation sends its spies to our shores, then I do not see any controversy over Congress' power to make law for the punishment of those spies. The spies are sent under the policy of that foreign nation to commit acts against our nation: The crime may be defined and punished by Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
any consequences for breaking oath of office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: any consequences for breaking oath of office
Not really, no. They can hold each other accountable through impeachment and expulsion, but that's not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: any consequences for breaking oath of office
No, not really. And the ballot box doesn't really work either. Remember, in order to vote one asshat out, you have to vote another asshat in. If we could do 2008 over again things might have been much worse. Remember that senator John McCain was only upset about the spying when it was directed at the "elites"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tanagra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tanagra
Darmok and Jalad on the ocean.
Mirab with sails unfurled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Convenient bullshit
http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=221502
A lot has changed in two years huh Jimmy boy? Like that whole completely biffing 2012 and looking set to blow 2014 even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Executive power limited
what the armed forces and intelligence agencies may do.
If Congress could not legislate, the UCMJ and the antitorture statute would be unconstitutional.
But no one except the now discredited Bush memos claim that the president can torture or otherwise violate the laws passed by Congress.
Lawyers under the Bush administration argued that the president had inherent power to order torture and the torture statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]