Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act

from the and-again-and-again dept

Over the last year or so, we've been covering Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to get Obama administration officials to come public with their secret interpretation of the Patriot Act. Wyden, of course, cannot say how they're interpreting the Patriot Act, though there have been clues, suggesting an extremely broad interpretation, that effectively allows them to spy on Americans, in direct contrast to the way most people (including many in Congress) believe the law allows. In the past, intelligence officials have basically said that they will not reveal how they interpret the Patriot Act because they don't want to, and doing so might reveal some of the details of how they spy on people.

Of course, keeping certain details secret concerning specific operations to monitor threats is reasonable. But a secret interpretation of the law that appears to go against what the law says directly? That's not acceptable. If the government can just make up how it interprets laws, and then keep those interpretations secret, we no longer have representative democracy at all. We have a sham government.

Given all of this, the NY Times and the ACLU sued the government for failing to reveal its interpretation of the law under a Freedom of Information Act. The administration is now seeking to get the two lawsuits dismissed... leading Senators Wyden and Udall to send a rather direct and forceful letter to Attorney General Holder questioning this move. I'll include a bunch of snippets below, but one key bit in this letter, which I believe is new, is the acknowledgement that further information that Wyden and Udall have come across suggest that the secret surveillance operation that makes use of this secret interpretation of the law is not even effective:

We would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of the "intelligence collection operation" discussed in the Justice Department's recent court filing regarding the pending lawsuits. This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this "operation" at face value. We will provide more detail about this skepticism in classified correspondence.

That's a pretty pointed claim, and certainly makes clear another reason why the administration is fighting so hard against revealing the secret interpretation. They know that once people find out just how widely they're tracking people under this bogus interpretation of the law, that not only will people be upset about it, but that the administration won't even be able to prove that such efforts did anything to prevent terrorism in the country.

On to some other key parts of the letter:

It is a matter of public record that section 215, which is a public statute, has been the subject of secret legal interpretations. The existences of these interpretations, which are contained in classified opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or "FISA Court") has been acknowledged on multiple occasions by the Justice Department and other executive branch officials.

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.

That seems like quite an understatement. It really makes you wonder what country we live in today. I'm fine with the government keeping certain things secret -- but one thing that it should never keep secret is the law itself. That's not a democracy any more at all, a point made in the letter as well:

In a democratic society -- in which the government derives its power from the consent of the people -- citizens rightly expect that their government will not arbitrarily keep information from them. Americans expect their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly-understood law, and as voters they have a need and a right to now how the law is being interpreted, so that they can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know that their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don't think that government officials should be writing secret laws.

Later, the letter notes that the administration certainly has been willing to reveal this secret interpretation to some members of Congress (such as the two of them), but it appears that even many members of Congress have no idea how the administration is interpreting the law:

While the executive branch has worked hard to keep the government's official interpretation of the Patriot Act secret from the American public it has, to its credit, provided this information in documents submitted to Congress. However, these documents are so highly classified that most members of Congress do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. As a result, we can say with confidence that most of our colleagues in the House and senate are unfamiliar with these documents, and that many of them would be surprised and angry to learn how the Patriot Act has been interpreted in secret.

Wyden and Udall are equally troubled by the insistence by the administration that it needs to keep its interpretation of these laws secret to prevent adversaries from understanding what's being done. They point out that this is "chilling logic" as it could mean that the government could basically create all sorts of secret intelligence laws:

The crux of the Justice Department's argument for keeping the official interpretation of the law secret is that this secrecy prevents US adversaries from understanding exactly what intelligence agencies are allowed to do. We can see how it might be tempting to latch on to this chilling logic, but we would note that it would then follow that all of America's surveillance laws should be secret, because that would make it even harder to guess how the United States government collects information. For example, when Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ct in 1978 it would have been useful to keep that law secret from the KGB, so that Soviet agents would not know how the FBI was allowed to track them. But American laws should not be made public only when government officials find it convenient. They should be public all the time, and every American should be able to find out what their government thinks those laws mean.

There's a lot more in the full letter, but it's difficult not to be furious about the sense of entitlement the administration has over this. Keeping details of investigations secret is perfectly reasonable. But keeping a secret interpretation of the law secret -- and one that lets them do much greater surveillance than what the law appears to state in plain language, is a significant problem for those who believe in a working democracy and representative government.

Filed Under: eric holder, mark udall, patriot act, ron wyden, secret laws, surveillance
Companies: aclu, ny times

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

from the secret-laws-and-secret-interpretations dept

We've been covering for a while now how Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have been very concerned over the secret interpretation the feds have of one piece of the PATRIOT Act. They've been trying to pressure the government into publicly explaining how they interpret the law, because they believe that it directly contrasts how most of the public (and many elected officials) believe the feds are interpreting the law. While the two Senators continue to put pressure on the feds and to hint at the feds' interpretation, just the fact that the government won't even explain its own interpretation of the law seems ridiculous.

Given all of this, reporter Charlie Savage of the NY Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the federal government's interpretation of its own law... and had it refused. According to the federal government, its own interpretation of the law is classified. What sort of democracy are we living in when the government can refuse to even say how it's interpreting its own law? That's not democracy at all.

Julian Sanchez points us to the news that Savage and the NY Times have now sued the federal government for not revealing its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, pointing out that if parts of the interpretation contain classified material, the Justice Department should black that out and reveal the rest, but simply refusing to reveal the interpretation entirely is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. You can bet that the feds will do everything they can to get out of this lawsuit, just as they did with the various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping. Here's hoping the court systems don't let them. No matter what you think of this administration (or the last one) and how it's handling the threat of terrorism, I'm curious how anyone can make the argument that the US government should not reveal how it interprets the very laws under which it's required to operate.

Filed Under: charlie savage, doj, extension, freedom of information, mark udall, oversight, patriot act, ron wyden, secret interpretation, wiretaps

Senators Wyden & Udall To DOJ: Stop Saying Patriot Act Isn't A Secret Law When You Know It Is

from the will-it-matter? dept

Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have been pressing the feds for a while now concerning their secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, which appears to go way, way, way beyond what most in the public believe on simply reading the bill. While the two Senators had put forth an Amendment to explain these secret interpretations when certain provisions of the Patriot Act were up for renewal, they eventually dropped the Amendment in exchange for some other concessions, and a promise that hearings would be held on the issue. Since then, the Senators have continued to press the feds on this issue at every opportunity, leading to quite a lot of doublespeak from the feds.

The latest development is that the two Senators have sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, saying that Justice Department representatives are clearly misleading the public about the interpretation of the law. Basically, they say that there's a classified ruling about the interpretation of the law, which some in the government (including Wyden, Udall and Holder) are clearly aware of, but which likely interprets the law vastly differently than most in the public would. And the statements from the Justice Department improperly imply that the details surrounding the law are publicly known -- when they are not.

Shorter version: There's a secret court ruling out there that says the government can spy on a ton of people under the Patriot Act, even though the text of the law seems to suggest otherwise. And the Justice Department is implying that the text of the law is an accurate representation of what the law actually is -- when the secret court ruling seems to say otherwise.

While we are sure that you would agree that government officials should not describe government authorities in a way that misleads the public, during your tenure Justice Department officials have -- on a number of occasions -- made what we believe are misleading statements pertaining to the government's interpretation of surveillance law.

The first set of statements that concern us are the repeated claims by Justice Department officials that the government's authority to obtain business records or other 'tangible things' under section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is analogous to the use of a grand jury subpoena. This comparison -- which we consider highly misleading -- has been made by Justice Department officials on multiple occasions, including in testimony before Congress. As you know, Section 215 authorities are not interpreted the same way that grand jury subpoena authorities are, and we are concerned that when Justice Department officials suggest that the two authorities are "analogous" they provide the public with a false understanding of how surveillance law is interpreted in practice.

More recently, we were troubled to learn that a Justice Department spokesman state that "Section 215 [of the Patriot Act] is not a secret law, nor has it been implemented under secret legal opinions by the Justice Department." This statement is also extremely misleading. As the NSA General Counsel testified in July of this year, significant interpretations of section 215 of the Patriot Act are contained in classified opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and these opinions -- and the legal interpretations they contain -- continue to be kept secret. In our judgment, when the government relies on significant interpretations of public statutes that are kept secret from the American public, the government is effectively relying on secret law.

Separately, they note that when the truth comes out, the government is going to be severely embarrassed:

Americans will eventually and inevitably come to learn about the gap that currently exists between the public's understanding of government surveillance authorities and the official, classified interpretation of these authorities. We believe the best way to avoid a negative public reaction and an erosion in confidence in US intelligence agencies is to initiate an informed public debate about these authorities today.

Filed Under: eric holder, fisa, geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden, secrecy, senate

Ron Wyden Puts Hold On FISA Amendments Act; Wants Answers To How Many Americans Have Been Spied On

from the good-for-him dept

Last week, we noted that as everyone was focused on the debt ceiling, some in the Senate Intelligence Committee saw it as an opportunity to rush through an extension for the FISA Amendment Act, which was originally passed to "legalize" the government's warrantless wiretapping program (already ongoing) with retroactive immunity. Of course, when that was passed, it was made clear that the intent was solely to use it to conduct surveillance on people outside of the US. However, as Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have made clear, intelligence officials have been using a very questionable "hybrid theory" to use the FAA and the Patriot Act to conduct widespread surveillance of Americans, most likely in the form of collecting tons of geolocation data from mobile phone operators.

There was no reason to approve the FAA extension last week, since it doesn't expire until next year. Even worse, the vote for the whole thing was in a "closed" session, not for classified reasons, since votes come out eventually, but basically to avoid public scrutiny. Wyden and Udall introduced an amendment requiring intelligence officials to explain the "problems" associated with secret interpretations of such laws that disagree with how most (including those in Congress) believe the law is intended for use. Since the vote was closed, there was no official notice on how it turned out, though we'd heard rumors that it was approved.

Senator Wyden has now come out and said that it was, in fact, approved, and his and Udall's Amendment was voted down 7-8. Because of this, Wyden is putting a hold on the FISA Amendments Act extension, and is pushing for a simple answer to the question that multiple intelligence officials said "is not reasonably possible" to answer: how many Americans are being spied under this Act, which was clearly intended to cover surveillance of foreigners.

As most of my colleagues remember, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act in 2008 in an effort to give the government new authorities to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the United States. The bill contained an expiration date of December 2012, and the purpose of this expiration date was to force members of Congress to come back in a few years and examine whether these new authorities had been interpreted and implemented as intended.

I believe that Congress has not yet adequately examined this issue, and that there are important questions that need to be answered before the FISA Amendments Act is given a long-term extension.

The central section of the FISA Amendments Act, the part that is now section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, specifically stated that it was intended to address foreigners outside the United States, and it even required the Attorney General to develop procedures designed to make sure that any individuals targeted with this new authority are believed to be outside the United States. So one of the central questions that Congress needs to ask is, are these procedures working as intended? Are they keeping the communications of law-abiding Americans from being swept up under this authority that was designed to apply to foreigners?

Wyden also notes that he has no intention of accepting the "not reasonably possible" language from the feds in response to his questions about how many Americans were spied on.

Hopefully this puts more pressure on the federal government to say how they've (mis)interpreted the law to collect vast aggregate data on Americans, abusing a law that was clearly designed for the sake of monitoring foreign communications.

Filed Under: fisa, geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden, secrecy, senate

Is Your Senator Using The Distraction Of The Debt Ceiling To Support The Feds Secret Interpretation Of Spying Laws?

from the sneaky-sneaky dept

We were just reporting on how Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was tap dancing around some specific questions about how much warrantless spying on Americans US federal intelligence agencies do. Much of that discussion revolved around the controversial FISA Amendments Act (recursively called the FAA) of 2008, which you may recall as the law that both made warrantless wiretapping officially legal (despite the fact that the federal government had been doing it for years under a very questionable legal theory) and granted telecom companies retroactive immunity for having helped the feds get such wiretaps despite the lack of warrants (and, in some cases, nothing more than a post-it note asking for it).

The FAA is set to expire in 2012, but, as we've seen with any law that grants the federal government more power to spy on Americans without oversight, there is no way the folks in power want to give up such things. Now come reports that, while most of Congress is focused on that whole debt ceiling thing, some have decided this is the perfect cover to quickly and secretly re-up the FAA. It's been reported that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is likely meeting behind closed doors today in an effort (by some) to re-up the FAA now, before anyone even realizes it's being debated. The last thing they want is pesky civil libertarians to re-start the discussion about the general constitutionality of spying on Americans without a warrant (believing in the 4th Amendment is sooooo old fashioned).

In trying to hunt down more details about what's going on, we found out that Senators Wyden and Udall -- who, as we've been discussing, have been trying to stop the federal government from secretly interpreting these laws in ways that seem contrary to what most believe the laws say -- are trying to add an amendment to this attempt to reauthorize the FAA. It's difficult to see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote against this. It includes such basic truths as:

In democratic societies, citizens rightly expect that their government will not arbitrarily keep information secret from the public but instead will act with secrecy only in certain limited circumstances.

The amendment specifically says that the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would need to explain "the problems posed by the reliance of government agencies and departments on interpretations of domestic surveillance authorities that are inconsistent with the understanding of such authorities by the public."

Who could possibly vote against that?

Well, tragically, since this supposed meeting is "closed" (though not classified), the Senators get to hide from view for a while. It's one of those arcane Senate rules that are all too often used to allow Senators to avoid public scrutiny for their actions. While no members of the public or press are allowed in the room, and those in the room cannot tell what anyone else says (or votes) in the room... since it's not classified the Senators who are in the room can absolutely say what they said or did in the room. The specific votes on this particular amendment will be made public three weeks after the markup occurs, buying anyone voting against it three weeks of cover (and when the votes come out, they can pretend this is "old news"). The amendment itself is not secret or classified. Senators cannot reasonably claim that they can't say how they voted for "national security" reasons (a popular cop out) because their votes are going to be made public. The only reason to not answer the question of how they voted is because they want to avoid scrutiny.

So... if your Senator happens to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee now would be the time to call, email, tweet, fax, carrier pigeon, etc. to ask them whether they voted to let Americans know how the government is secretly interpreting its own laws... or if they voted against your basic fundamental rights to know how the government interprets its own laws. The list of Senators on the Committee are as follows:

• Dianne Feinstein, California (chair)
• Saxby Chambliss, Georgia (vice chair)
• John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
• Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
• Ron Wyden, Oregon
• Richard Burr, North Carolina
• Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland
• James Risch, Idaho
• Bill Nelson, Florida
• Daniel Coats, Indiana
• Kent Conrad, North Dakota
• Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Mark Udall, Colorado
• Marco Rubio, Florida
• Mark Warner, Virginia

If any of these Senators represent you, please reach out to them as soon as possible to ask them how they voted on the amendment embedded below, and please report back to us with what you hear. Let's not let certain Senators allow the government to make up its own rules and not tell the American public what those rules are.

Filed Under: fisa, geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden, secrecy, senate

Intelligence Chief To Wyden: It Would Be Difficult To Reveal What You Want Us To Reveal Because We Don't Want To Reveal It

from the got-it dept

We've been covering Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall's attempts to get folks working in national intelligence to explain their secret interpretation of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act. It hasn't been too difficult to piece together the implication that the government has interpreted the already controversial Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to allow it to gather geolocation data of pretty much anyone in the US from their mobile phone provider without a warrant or any other oversight. If you're unfamiliar with it, Section 215 was the part of the PATRIOT Act that allowed the feds to demand "any tangible thing (including books, records, papers, documents and other items)," from an organization, just as long as the records are being asked for "in connection with" a terrorism investigation.

A while back, there was an attempt to change the language of the law to make it specific that the collection of such records had to actually be about a terror subject, rather than the much broader initial definition (how hard is it to claim that collecting any data is "in connection with" a terrorism investigation these days?) Combined with a few other novel legal theories, and some convoluted loophole finding, it appears likely that the feds believe they can get pretty much realtime info on almost anyone without any warrant, which allows them to do all sorts of things that seem to go way beyond what people would normally think of as a "reasonable" search.

Of course, the feds don't want to admit that this is how they're (ab)using the PATRIOT Act. However, Senator Wyden has been pretty insistent in asking intelligence officials about the federal government's authority to collect geolocation info. He recently asked this question specifically to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper... who has provided a display in tap dancing as an answer. You can see the full letter from Clapper below, but the key point:

The questions you pose on geolocational information are difficult to answer in an unclassified letter. It is our understanding, based on a conversation with your staff, that you are most interested in learning about the government's authority to collect cell phone mobility data of American citizens in the United States for intelligence purposes. As you acknowledge, the government has some authority to collect cell phone mobility data under appropriate circumstances but there have been a diverse set of rulings concerning the quantum of evidence and the procedures required to obtain such information. We will work closely with the relevant agencies to define the government's view of the full contours of this authority and will get back to you.

In other words, we can't tell you what you want to know because that would look bad. Still, this answer definitely seems to further confirm Julian Sanchez's original speculation on what was going on here. In that report, he discussed the government's highly questionable "hybrid theory," of picking and choosing tiny pieces of different statutes, to put together the fake authority to get location info without a warrant. As Sanchez noted at the time, "many courts have been skeptical of this theory and rejected it--but at least some have gone along with this clever bit of legal origami..."

That certainly sounds like the "diverse set of rulings," mentioned in the letter.

The rest of the letter is full of similar tap dancing, explaining the rather plain interpretation of what the laws seem to say (i.e., they're not supposed to track Americans in the US), but any time it gets close to actually revealing the "secret" interpretations or the results of those interpretations, the letter basically says "that's not possible." For example, there's this:

While it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed...

In other words, yeah, we're spying on so many people we can't even count 'em all.

The letter, of course, points out repeatedly that intelligence agencies report the answers to what Wyden is asking in classified briefings. In other words, they're saying "hey, look, we already provided the answers to your questions in secret, and you know the answers and we know you know the answers, and we sure as hell don't want the public to know the answers." When Senator Wyden brought this issue up a couple months ago, he noted that if the public knew these answers, it would make them "angry." It seems that the intelligence folks don't want the public angry... but sure as hell don't want to give up their broad and questionable interpretation of the PATRIOT Act.

Filed Under: geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden

Wyden Continues To Press Intelligence Officials About Tracking Americans Under 'Secret' Interpretation Of The Patriot Act

from the you-have-no-privacy dept

Senator Ron Wyden has made it pretty clear, for the past few months, that the federal government is secretly interpreting the PATRIOT Act to mean that it can spy on the location of Americans without a warrant. Wyden, who is likely aware of the interpretation due to his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can't say what the interpretation is, but it's become abundantly clear through his questioning. Recently, we noted his questions to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, specifically asking if government agencies "have the authority to collect the geolocation information."

And now he's been asking the same basic question, getting even more specific, and confirming what some had suspected all along. The link there is from Julian Sanchez, who was one of the first to piece together the clues and suggest that Wyden was hinting at an interpretation of the PATRIOT Act that let the government feel it could track location info on just about anyone with a mobile phone. Whereas Wyden's previous questions focused generally on collecting location info, in this hearing, Wyden specifically asked if the intelligence community uses "cell site data to track the location of Americans inside the country." At this point, it's kind of ridiculous that the feds don't just come out and admit it. At the hearing Wyden was told that there were "certain circumstances" under which such authority could exist, but that it was "complicated." However, he was promised more details on the circumstances by September. As Sanchez notes:

That means that just about ten years after Congress approved the Patriot Act, a handful of legislators may get the privilege of learning what it does. Ah, democracy.

There really are two separate issues here, each of which is disturbing. The first, of course, is the feds possibly believing that they can effectively spy on everyone's location at will. If true, that seems like a gross expansion of the surveillance state. But, perhaps an even bigger issue is that the federal government feels that it can secretly interpret laws with meanings that certainly are not stated explicitly within the law... and can then avoid explaining what its own interpretation is. That's not how a representative and transparent government is supposed to work.

Filed Under: geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden

Senators Ask Ingelligence Boss If He Thinks He Can Track People's Phone Locations

from the hint-hint-hint dept

Back in May, Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall revealed that the federal government apparently was interpreting the Patriot Act in a way that seemed at odds with the plain language of the act. Of course, Wyden and Udall couldn't reveal what they meant directly, since they only knew about it from their work on the Senate Intelligence Committee... but they sure could hint at it. It didn't take long for people to suggest that the issue had to do with how the feds interpreted their ability to get phone geolocation data on pretty much everyone without a warrant. That still hasn't been confirmed, but the Senators are hinting very strongly that that's exactly what's happening. They've sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, which asks, point blank:

Do government agencies have the authority to collect the geolocation information of American citizens for intelligence purposes?

If yes, please explain the specific statutory basis for this authority. And to the extent that this statutory basis imposes any procedural requirements, such as judicial review or approval by particular officials, please describe these requirements.

If no, please explain the statutory basis for this prohibition.

It's not too difficult to read between the lines here. If the government has reinterpreted the Patrtiot Act to allow such tracking, shouldn't it say so?

Filed Under: geolocation, james clapper, mark udall, patriot act, privacy, ron wyden

Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We had mentioned, briefly, the amendment that Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall had tried to push for with relation to the renewal of controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act, however didn't spend much time discussing it. The details are important -- even if we can't know what most of them are. Basically, what becomes clear is that both Senators -- who are on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- are aware of the fact that the feds have interpreted the PATRIOT Act provisions much more broadly than the wording suggests, but they've kept this interpretation secret. In other words, though the law says one thing, the federal government has announced internally that it's "interpreting it" an entirely different way, but it's kept that interpretation secret. The speculation is that these provisions are being massively abused for widespread warrantless wiretapping.

In an interview with Wired, Wyden makes the point clear:

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says."

He notes that he has no problem with keeping the techniques the feds use secret, but the interpretation should be public, and that's what their amendment is about.

And it's not just the public that's having the wool pulled over their eyes. Wyden and Udall are pointing out that the very members of Congress, who are voting to extend these provisions, do not know how the feds are interpreting them:

As members of the Senate Intelligence Committee we have been provided with the executive branch's classified interpretation of those provisions and can tell you that we believe there is a significant discrepancy between what most people - including many Members of Congress - think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and what government officials secretly believe the Patriot Act allows them to do.

Legal scholars, law professors, advocacy groups, and the Congressional Research Service have all written interpretations of the Patriot Act and Americans can read any of these interpretations and decide whether they support or agree with them. But by far the most important interpretation of what the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S. government and this interpretation is - stunningly -classified.

What does this mean? It means that Congress and the public are prevented from having an informed, open debate on the Patriot Act because the official meaning of the law itself is secret. Most members of Congress have not even seen the secret legal interpretations that the executive branch is currently relying on and do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. Even if these members come down to the Intelligence Committee and read these interpretations themselves, they cannot openly debate them on the floor without violating classification rules.

In the understatement of the year, Wyden and Udall state "this is not acceptable." I think it goes beyond unacceptable. It's downright scary. That Congress is about to rubberstamp the extension of the law when they think it says one thing, while the feds pretend it says something entirely different, is a travesty.

Filed Under: extension, mark udall, oversight, patriot act, ron wyden, wiretaps

Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'

from the do-we-use-different-dictionaries dept

We've been following the Senate leadership (of both major parties) attempts to push through an extension of some controversial Patriot Act surveillance provisions. As noted, the Senate decided to quickly push the matter towards a vote, cutting off outside debate over the provisions. However, that did still leave room for debate on the floor and the introduction of amendments, and some Senators spoke up -- and spoke up vehemently. Rand Paul had a bunch of amendments and threatened to delay things. He pointed out that Senator Harry Reid lied, after promising to "set aside a week's worth of debate" on the Patriot Act. Meanwhile Senators Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Jeff Merkley all spoke out against parts of the Patriot Act and these extensions.

And yet... Senator Reid decided to get around all of that, by using a procedural trick to dump the existing bill and instead attach his bill to what appears to be a totally unrelated House business bill:

Sen. Reid basically killed his current bill and and opted to take up a House small business bill (it's in a form that's considered filibuster-proof as far as starting debate goes). Neither Rand Paul nor anyone else can object to this. Reid then amended the House bill with the entire text of the Patriot Act extension.

Of course, where this gets insane is in Senator Reid's explanation for cutting off all of these complaints and amendments:

"We have worked over the last several days to work something out that I think is an excellent compromise," said Reid on the Senate floor. "Is this bill something everyone in the Congress likes? I think the answer is no. But we all agree it's important legislation.

"I have had many conversations with Senator Paul and tried to come up with a process to allow Senator Paul and others to offer amendments. I have been unsuccessful," Reid said.

I think Senator Reid and I have different dictionaries. How is making no changes and simply extending out the existing law for four years, despite such vocal opposition, "an excellent compromise"? What "compromise" did he make, other than to his principles and his oath to serve the people?

Furthermore, if he tried to allow these Senators to offer amendments, how is cutting them off from being able to offer amendments in line with what he claims he tried to do? Rather than cutting them off and using a procedural trick, why didn't he let them offer amendments?

Either way, it sounds like the extension will be somewhat delayed, meaning that the provisions may lapse for a day or two. Some supporters of the extension are suggesting that this is a horrible thing that will put us all in danger, but that's ridiculous. First of all, existing investigations are grandfathered in, and second of all, it's just a few days.

Perhaps the most ridiculous part of all of this is that one of the reasons why they're saying this needs to be rushed through is that the bill itself needs to be flown to Europe so that the President (who is visiting Europe) can sign it. Do they no realize that these things can be done electronically these days?

Filed Under: harry reid, jeff merkley, mark udall, patriot act, rand paul, ron wyden