A Patriot Act History Lesson: How Prescient Warnings Were Mocked

[Are_grits_groceries]

During the winter of 2006, the U.S. Senate was debating the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act. The legislation would ultimately pass by a wide margin, and George W. Bush signed it into law. But before that could happen, civil libertarians led by then Senator Russ Feingold tried to amend the 2001 law. They warned that its overly broad language would permit government to pry into the privacy of innocent Americans, and warned about the likelihood of executive branch "fishing expeditions." Dismissive Senate colleagues scoffed at their concerns.
<snip>
Feingold was trying to amend the PATRIOT Act, arguing that Section 215, a part of the law core to the NSA controversy, gives the government "extremely broad powers to secretly obtain people's business records."
Said Feingold:

The Senate bill would have required that the government prove to a judge that the records it sought had some link to suspected terrorists or spies or their activities. The conference report does not include this requirement. Now, the conference report does contain some improvements to Section 215, at least around the edges. It contains minimization requirements, meaning that the executive branch has to set rules for whether and how to retain and share information about U.S. citizens and permanent residents obtained from the records. And it requires clearance from a senior FBI official before the government can seek to obtain particularly sensitive records like library, gun and medical records.

But the core issue with Section 215 is the standard for obtaining these records in the first place. Neither the minimization procedures nor the high level signoff changes the fact that the government can still obtain sensitive business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans. The standard in the conference report - "relevance" -- will still allow government fishing expeditions. That is unacceptable.

He went on:

Next, let me turn to judicial review of these Section 215 orders. After all, if we're going to give the government such intrusive powers, we should at least people go to a judge to challenge the order. The conference report does provide for this judicial review. But it would require that the judicial review be conducted in secret, and that government submissions not be shared with the challenger under any circumstances, without regard for whether there are national security concerns in any particular case. This would make it very difficult for a challenger to get meaningful judicial review that comports with due process.

Today we know that Section 215 has been invoked by the government to obtain call data on all Verizon customers, and has very likely been used to collect data on tens or hundreds of millions of Americans who are customers of all the major telecom carriers. Feingold was exactly correct: the sensitive business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans were seized because the minimization standard, "relevance," turns out not to minimize affected Americans at all. Additionally, it has so far proved not just very difficult, but impossible to get meaningful judicial review.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/a-patriot-act-history-lesson-how-prescient-warnings-were-mocked/277612/

And the loud mocking about data collection warnings continues.

[Melinda]

1. Indeed. K&R. n/t

[rhett o rick]

2. Our system failed us. nm

[Egalitarian Thug]

3. It can't happen here.

& R

[lastlib]

4. yeah, we're Murkans, goddammit!

(spoken in the best Freeper dialect I can muster.......)

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. "We told you so", would ever so much more satisfying if they would then

follow up with, "Well, since you've been right about everything else, what do you think should be done now?"

Alas,...

[AlbertCat]

11. Well, since you've been right about everything else, what do you think should be done now?

I know! Let's ask Dick Cheney! He'll know what to do!


Why we keep seeing these colossal failures expounding on what should be done blah bah blah....

Can we not ask someone who at least got it 1/2 right?

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. I hope you feel better now. The fact is that we've been right all along and the so-called

leadership has been wrong on almost everything, if you assume doing what's best for the nation as the goal. Ulterior motives, stupidity, or blatant servitude, why they're wrong doesn't matter, only that they are and continue to be so.

What should be done now? Pick an issue. The Patriot Act must be repealed, there are no other options. As long as this abomination exists we will see progressively worse abuses by succeeding administrations into the future.

[malthaussen]

5. It is always important to voice one's outrage only when it is fashionable...

... to do so. Ask the Premature Anti-Fascists. Those of us who declared on 9/11 that the Government now had a blank check to dismantle the Constitution were looked at mostly with condescending pity, if not genuine outrage.

"The system failed us," forsooth? The Patriot Act was passed by a majority of the size usually only seen in third-world Presidential elections. Our legislature couldn't sign on the dotted line fast enough.

-- Mal

[daleanime]

7. .......

[bemildred]

8. Yes, the mocking continues, because they have no real argument.

And the appeals to authority, red herrings, threats, and straw men will continue too, for the same reason.

[G_j]

9. K&R

[L0oniX]

10. The loud mocking from enemies of the constitution who cower in fear of terorrists.

The irrationality of the masses has given the controllers the opportunity to take advantage of 911 and usurp the constitution. Odd that those that fear the terrorists allow the terrorists to foment the undoing of our rights. It's one thing to volunteer your information and a whole other thing to have those that rule over you take it from you.

[Electric Monk]

13. k&r for the "attack the messenger" crowd that's quite active tonight. nt