General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStatement of Senator Patrick Leahy, oversight hearing on surveillance programs
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
>Hearing on Strengthening Privacy Rights and National Security:
Oversight of FISA Surveillance Programs
July 31, 2013
Today, the Judiciary Committee will scrutinize government surveillance programs conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. In the years since September 11th, Congress has repeatedly expanded the scope of FISA, and given the Government sweeping new powers to collect information on law-abiding Americans and we must carefully consider now whether those laws have gone too far.
Last month, many Americans learned for the first time that one of these authorities Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act has for years been secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans phone records on an unprecedented scale. Information was also leaked about Section 702 of FISA, which authorizes NSA to collect the communications of foreigners overseas.
Let me make clear that I do not condone the way these and other highly classified programs were disclosed, and I am concerned about the potential damage to our intelligence-gathering capabilities and national security. We need to hold people accountable for allowing such a massive leak to occur, and we need to examine how to prevent this type of breach in the future.
In the wake of these leaks, the President said that this is an opportunity to have an open and thoughtful debate about these issues. I welcome that statement, because this is a debate that several of us on this Committee have been trying to have for years. And if we are going to have the debate that the President called for, the executive branch must be a full partner. We need straightforward answers and I am concerned that we are not getting them.
Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about classified programs in public settings, but the American people expect and deserve honest answers.
It also has been far too difficult to get a straight answer about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program. Whether this program is a critical national security tool is a key question for Congress as we consider possible changes to the law. Some supporters of this program have repeatedly conflated the efficacy of the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program with that of Section 702 of FISA. I do not think this is a coincidence, and it needs to stop. The patience and trust of the American people is starting to wear thin.
I asked General Alexander about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program at an Appropriations Committee hearing last month, and he agreed to provide a classified list of terrorist events that Section 215 helped to prevent. I have reviewed that list. Although I agree that it speaks to the value of the overseas content collection implemented under Section 702, it does not do the same with for Section 215. The list simply does not reflect dozens or even several terrorist plots that Section 215 helped thwart or prevent let alone 54, as some have suggested.
These facts matter. This bulk collection program has massive privacy implications. The phone records of all of us in this room reside in an NSA database. I have said repeatedly that just because we have the ability to collect huge amounts of data does not mean that we should be doing so. In fact, it has been reported that the bulk collection of Internet metadata was shut down because it failed to produce meaningful intelligence. We need to take an equally close look at the phone records program. If this program is not effective, it must end. And so far, I am not convinced by what I have seen.
I am sure that we will hear from witnesses today who will say that these programs are critical in helping to identify and connect the so-called dots. But there will always be more dots to collect, analyze, and try to connect. The Government is already collecting data on millions of innocent Americans on a daily basis, based on a secret legal interpretation of a statute that does not on its face appear to authorize this type of bulk collection. What will be next? And when is enough, enough?
Congress must carefully consider the powerful surveillance tools that we grant to the Government, and ensure that there is stringent oversight, accountability, and transparency. This debate should not be limited to those surveillance programs about which information was leaked. That is why I have introduced a bill that addresses not only Section 215 and Section 702, but also National Security Letters, roving wiretaps, and other authorities under the PATRIOT Act. As we have seen in the case of ECPA reform, the protection of Americans privacy is not a partisan issue. I thank Senator Lee and others for their support of my FISA bill, and hope that other Senators will join our efforts.
Today, I look forward to the testimony of the Government witnesses and outside experts. I am particularly grateful for the participation of Judge Carr, a current member of the judiciary and a former judge of the FISA Court. I hope that todays hearing will provide an opportunity for an open debate about the law, the policy, and the FISA Court process that led us to this point. We must do all that we can to ensure our nations security while protecting the fundamental liberties that make this country great.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/senate-judiciary-committee-holds-oversight-hearing-on-government-surveillance-programs
Senate pushes sanctions on nations aiding Snowden
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023338422
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Absolutely. Thanks Prosense for another great report about this NSA spy apparatus and what our politicians are doing about helping the nation shut it down.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Still, I suppose it is an improvement of sorts....
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)a polite but very critical assessment.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)"The bleatin' o' the kid incites the Tiger."
cali
(114,904 posts)make a comment that stated that another poster was making too big a deal about a critical paragraph in said statement. that paragraph was representative of the tone of the entire statement, ergo my ensuing comment, sir.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)You replied to a comment addressed to a poster engaged in an overly obvious mind-game: people who try on such things owe it to all on-lookers to do it well....
"I simply can't imagine competence as anything save admirable, for it is very rare in this world, and those who have it in some measure, in any art or craft from adultery to zoology, are the only human beings I can think of worth the oil it will take to fry them in Hell."
cali
(114,904 posts)I usually don't have that hard a time with subtlety. I believe I get you.
"only hypocrites can't forgive hypocrisy".
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)"I detest flattery, especially the awkward kind you have to work hard to believe."
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)mocking your style? Perhaps a combination.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's definitely not a play on "dear leader". never even occurred to me. It's a play on the rather pompous style of the poster you're referring to and a throwback to Victorian language.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Absolutely. Thanks Prosense for another great report about this NSA spy apparatus and what our politicians are doing about helping the nation shut it down."
...previously posted Leahy's reform bill here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)be happening.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)when IMHO this is the really important part:
We need straightforward answers and I am concerned that we are not getting them.
Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy. I appreciate that it is difficult to talk about classified programs in public settings, but the American people expect and deserve honest answers.
It also has been far too difficult to get a straight answer about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program. Whether this program is a critical national security tool is a key question for Congress as we consider possible changes to the law. Some supporters of this program have repeatedly conflated the efficacy of the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program with that of Section 702 of FISA. I do not think this is a coincidence, and it needs to stop. The patience and trust of the American people is starting to wear thin.
I asked General Alexander about the effectiveness of the Section 215 phone records program at an Appropriations Committee hearing last month, and he agreed to provide a classified list of terrorist events that Section 215 helped to prevent. I have reviewed that list. Although I agree that it speaks to the value of the overseas content collection implemented under Section 702, it does not do the same with for Section 215. The list simply does not reflect dozens or even several terrorist plots that Section 215 helped thwart or prevent let alone 54, as some have suggested.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Apparently not. I guess you're upset by other people being free to make choices.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Can't you se the tears blurring my words?
You are free to see his statement, and use it, as an attack on Snowden. I am free to see it as a statement about the lack of transparency, the lack of oversight and the actual usefulness of the program.
I guess you are upset that people are free to make choices...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Now, that's "funny."
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Sorry Pro, it takes more than your lame anti Snowden/Greenwald agenda to upset me.
Actually I should be thanking you for keeping this discussion going, and for disseminating information that says I am right to be worried about the abuse of power, and the effectiveness of this data mining operation.
So please, continue your exposition of the horrors Edward Snowden and Glen Greenwald have perpetrated upon the human race. It's helping.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)No more silly then using this statement from Leahey as an attack on Snowden.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No more silly then using this statement from Leahey as an attack on Snowden. "
...my fault you're overly sentitive when it comes to Snowden. So much so that you're complaining about "highlighted" text.
Evidently, you can't deal with that part of his statement. I mean, you're characterizing the fact that it was "highlighted" as an "attack on Snowden."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I bet he'd like to get some justice and some truth, but he's been beat up, held down and held back for years. It is amazing he has not gone insane.
Trolls on DU act much the same s those who have obstructed Leahy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Have you alerted on these "trolls" and selected "TOS violation"?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Catch them lying is the best way.
See my journal if you really want to know more. Hint: All is gone.
Leahy has been a stalwart Libearl <sic + grin> who, were he listened too more, would have this country on much better footing. But he's been held back so much.... Leahy would have made a great President, imo.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"See my journal if you really want to know more. Hint: All is gone."
Good for you. Judging from your transparency page, some long-time posters were on the receiving end in your mission.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Nah. Just picking up litter as I go.
Look, you want to get personal with me, go ahead, but I'll not play your game. I have better things to do. Like giving praise to Leahy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Look, you want to get personal with me, go ahead, but I'll not play your game. I have better things to do. Like giving praise to Leahy."
...you suggested I look at your journal. Your transparency page is public. You have attacked other posters with rude comments and claim you're hunting "trolls" so it's a bit hypocritical to claim that pointing that out is some sort of "game."
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I'll play this game.
Take just two 'hide' votes away and there is no transparency page on me.
Just 2 votes from posters who didn't even have the guts to say why they were voting to hide. Two measly votes and you don't have shit on me.
But since you bring it up, tell us how many people are ignoring you?
Oh, wait, that's a secret, isn't it?
Your move.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Otherwise, one might have to think you mean people who engage in disruptive and abusive baiting and bullying of members here....
cali
(114,904 posts)criticism.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)"Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy."
So, Snowden is the bad guy because he exposed illegal acts, corruptions, lies, deceit, blatant breech of public trust, etc.
Concerns that desperately needed to be addressed that would never have been exposed otherwise, because Snowden had nowhere else to go except to an investigative journalist with his concerns...
[font color="red" size="10" face="face"]BECAUSE HE KNEW HE COULD NOT TRUST ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM[/font]
"Just recently, the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that he provided false testimony about the NSA surveillance programs during a Senate hearing in March, and his office had to remove a fact sheet from its website after concerns were raised about its accuracy."
ProSense
(116,464 posts)that's a lame excuse for Snowden's actions.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's actually a pretty compelling excuse. Whistleblower protections and IGs are only effective when they're believed to be trustworthy and effective.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Well, since the crux of your beef with Snowden is that he didn't use official channels
It's actually a pretty compelling excuse. Whistleblower protections and IGs are only effective when they're believed to be trustworthy and effective."
...that's only part of my criticism (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002328833), and that excuse doesn't hold water given the totality of his actions.
William deB. Mills
(46 posts)So when is breaking the law justified to achieve justice? When is the law less important than the evil being covered up by those who wrote the law to protect themselves? Everyone who has ever served in the Federal Government knows that you destroy your career when you work within the system to correct abuses of power.
I do not know the answer to my own question, but it does seem to me that a fundamental relationship exists between the degree of transparency in government and the justifiability of breaking the law.
There is also a legal response: the ultimate law in the U.S. is the Constitution. If officials violate the Constitution and a bureaucrat or reporter discovers that fact, what is that person's legal recourse? To whom does he report the official violation?
We can slice and dice this all day, but in the end, publicly embarrassing officials who abuse power is pretty much the only hope. You will note that all the brave senators now criticizing NSA domestic spying weren't saying very much until Assange, Manning, and Snowden made all this public.
BumRushDaShow
(129,063 posts)Let's hope that Congress will finally do it's job and stop rubber-stamping. It's more and more apparent that they are not tech-savvy and never envisioned the gaping holes in their law(s) related to this issue and the endless march of technology.
But they are going on a 5-week recess now so we'll have to wait.
cali
(114,904 posts)without much luck. Also, he's very tech savvy and known for it.
BumRushDaShow
(129,063 posts)understand what happens down at the packet level and the OSI model, etc., the problem being that it can cause eyes to glaze over and that's how stuff gets missed.
What was the latest tech 10 years ago is ancient today. The fact that cell phone calls were considered exempt from the 4th amendment is a case in point of a big FAIL. But we shall see.
cali
(114,904 posts)and the smarts to use them. That's why his legislation is usually so well written and informed.
BumRushDaShow
(129,063 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)June 26, 2013
For Background Purposes
Public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the powerful Government surveillance authorities contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), particularly the impact on law-abiding Americans of provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT and Section 702 of FISA. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013 will improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, and also strengthen oversight and transparency with regard to other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Summarized below are some of the highlights of the bills provisions:
New and Shorter Sunset Provisions to Ensure Proper Oversight
- Shortens the sunset for the FISA Amendments Act from December 2017 to June 2015. The June 2015 sunset would align with expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions, and enable Congress to address these FISA provisions all at once, instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
- Adds new June 2015 sunsets on statutes authorizing use of National Security Letters (NSLs).
Higher Standards for PATRIOT Act Surveillance Authorities
- Elevates the threshold standard for obtaining records through Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group.
- Requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approve minimization procedures for data collected under Section 215.
- Requires the government to provide a statement of the facts and circumstances to justify its belief that the Section 215 records for tangible things, or Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices (PR/TT) sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information.
- Strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for Section 215 orders and strikes the conclusive presumption in favor of the government on nondisclosure.
- Requires the FBI to retain an internal statement of facts demonstrating the relevance of information sought to its investigation before it can issue a National Security Letter (NSL).
- For roving wiretaps, requires law enforcement to identify with particularity the target of a wiretap request under FISA.
Increased Transparency and Public Reporting
- Expands public reporting on the use of National Security Letters and authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of United States persons.
- Fixes a constitutional deficiency found by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey by shifting the burden to the government to seek a court order for an NSL non-disclosure order, and allows the recipient of such a non-disclosure order to challenge it at any time.
Increased Judicial Review and Inspector General Oversight
- Requires Inspector General audits on the use of Section 215 orders, NSLs, and other surveillance authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act.
- Provides for a comprehensive review of FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) surveillance by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG).
- Clarifies the scope of the annual reviews for Section 702 currently required by the law, in order to cover all agencies that have targeting or minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court.
The co-sponsors include Senators Richard Blumenthal, Jon Tester, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden.
William deB. Mills
(46 posts)From the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo pre-trial torture, wars for profit, destroying the careers of honest Federal officials who oppose contract fraud, and drone attacks on unidentified civilians to bailouts of billionaires and stay out of jail cards for Wall St. CEOs despite prima facie evidence of fraudulent behavior to the vicious pre-trial torture of individual Americans guilty of embarrassing top officials, we are witnessing the rise of an elite culture based on self-defense against the people. The members of the elite who buy into this culture all agree that it is in their common private interest to treat the people as the enemy. Whether the president or Wall St. banker or arms corporation CEO happens to label himself Republican. Democrat, or apolitical businessman is becoming increasingly irrelevant: the elite is adopting a garrison state perspective that labels all debate, all independent thought as proof of treachery.
On the other hand, we have Senators Leahy, Franken, Udall, and others criticizing NSA domestic spying, while Senators Warren and others criticize laxity in regulating Wall St. casinos. So there is at least some evidence of democracy in action. One can only hope that the senators advocating transparency in government will coordinate their efforts with the senators advocating regulation of Big Finance. It is all part of one issue: abuse of power.
cali
(114,904 posts)but I agree with your statement about abuse of power.
William deB. Mills
(46 posts)Thanks for pointing out Franken's past. Here's a recent source supporting your remark, in which Franken reportedly "assures" the American people that NSA domestic spying is "not about spying." - http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-nsa-has-at-least-1-liberal-friend-left-sen-al-franken-20130611
OK, Senator Franken, exactly where do you stand?