Key Fighter For Civil Liberties, Russ Feingold, Running To Return To The Senate

from the good-news dept

We've pointed out for years how strong a supporter of civil liberties Senator Ron Wyden has been, but the one guy who probably had an even stronger record on that front was Senator Russ Feingold. Feingold was the only Senator who consistently voted against the PATRIOT Act and increases to government surveillance. In fact he was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act in the first place. And, at that time, he gave a speech in which he accurately predicted how the NSA would abuse the PATRIOT Act:

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That's it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

If anything, Feingold underestimated how this provision would be used, because even he didn't predict it would be used to have phone companies hand over every record on every phone call. Feingold was also the first to raise the alarm about "secret interpretations" of the law, well before others started pointing that out as well.

Thus it was ridiculous and disappointing to see Feingold voted out of office in the 2010 "Tea Party" wave. He lost to Senator Ron Johnson, a Tea Party favorite... who went on to vote in favor of key bills to expand the spying power of the intelligence community.

Feingold has now announced that he wants that Senate seat back, and will be challenging Johnson in the 2016 election:

"[L]et’s fight together for change. That means helping to bring back to the U.S. Senate strong independence, bipartisanship and honesty," Feingold said in a video announcing his campaign. "So today I'm pleased to announce that I'm planning to run for the United States Senate in 2016. And this effort begins with listening to you. "

His announcement didn't mention anything about surveillance or civil liberties, but considering his track record on that front, he would be an important addition to the Senate on these key issues -- especially since we lost Senator Mark Udall in the last election, after he had picked up many of the civil liberties issues that Feingold used to champion.

Filed Under: civil liberties, patriot act, ron johnson, russ feingold, senate

Senator Russ Feingold Correctly Predicted How The Patriot Act Would Be Abused; Too Bad He Got Voted Out Of Office

from the sad dept

Before there were Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall speaking out against the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act and secret interpretations of the law that take away our civil liberties, there was Senator Russ Feingold -- the only Senator who voted against the Patriot Act at the beginning. At the time, he clearly warned what it would lead to:

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone - perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That's it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

That was in October of 2001. And he was right. And, since the beginning, he was the only Senator who consistently voted against the Patriot Act and various extensions and expansions. And, over the years since then he regularly warned us about secret interpretations of the law, including putting together a hearing more than five years ago on "Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government."

Not only did people fail to take him seriously back then, they voted him out of office in the 2010 "tea party" wave. Considering how many in the Tea Party are now among those most upset about the revelations of NSA surveillance, they might regret that decision... especially since the man they replaced him with, Senator Ron Johnson voted for both the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 and the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2012 which extended the various provisions that we now know were secretly interpreted by the FISA Court to make these surveillance programs "legal."

Feingold is now speaking out about the NSA surveillance, and it's already leading some to suggest he run again for public office.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, politics, russ feingold, secret laws, surveillance

Bills Introduced To Protect Laptops At Border Searches

from the restoring-the-4th-amendment dept

As was widely expected following earlier statements from politicians such as Russ Feingold, legislation has now been introduced that would curb Homeland Security's ability to randomly search laptops at the border, instead, requiring them to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity before they can search or copy a hard drive. This would be a huge step forward in terms of reasonable levels of privacy at the border. While defenders of the random search program claim that it's necessary, they give little proof. You can tell because their arguments could equally be applied to searching a random person on the street as well, as they just give vague platitudes about protecting the country from harm. Yet our country has privacy rights and probable cause for a very good reason. It's nice to actually see some politicians standing up to make sure that Homeland Security live up to those ideals.

Filed Under: border, customs, homeland security, laptops, russ feingold, searches

Feingold Points Out That DHS's Chertoff Is Misleading On Border Laptop Searches

from the reasonable-cause? dept

Following the release of Homeland Security's policies for searching laptops at the border, where the rules are, effectively, "anything goes," DHS boss Michael Chertoff claimed that laptop searches were only done when the border guard had a "suspicion" and placed that individual in "secondary inspection." However, Senator Russ Feingold has now hit back, pointing out that the official DHS policies say absolutely nothing about there needing to be a suspicion or that laptop searches only happen on secondary inspection. If Chertoff were being honest, why wouldn't those things be in the official policy? And, if Chertoff insists that DHS will only do searches when there is a real suspicion, what's wrong with following the "probable cause" standard that it insists it should be allowed to ignore? It's nice to see Senator Feingold asking these questions.

Filed Under: border searches, customs, homeland security, laptops, michael chertoff, russ feingold, senate