• Tag Archives NSA

  • Amash amendment only enforced Patriot Act, not Fourth Amendment

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    Last week, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., introduced an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. It required the NSA and other government agencies merely to obey the Patriot Act, not the Fourth Amendment. That the data to be collected are “relevant to an ongoing national security investigation” doesn’t mean that there is probable cause that the person whose records are collected has committed a crime.

    The language was taken from Sec. 214 of the Patriot Act, which amended Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1842).

    Amash’s amendment did not attempt to enforce the standard set in the Fourth Amendment, which requires “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” That the data to be collected is merely relevant to an ongoing national security investigation doesn’t necessarily mean that there is probable cause that the person whose records are collected has committed a crime.

    That means the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, according to any reasonable interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.

    The NSA’s activities do not even meet the lower standards set by the Patriot Act. They are illegal even under an unconstitutional law.

    It is important to remember the difference between “constitutional” and “legal.” Legal means the activity in question complies with existing law passed by a legislative body. Constitutional means the legislative body had been given the power to pass the law in the first place.

    The U.S. Congress not only wasn’t given the power to pass the Patriot Act, it was strictly prohibited from doing so by the Fourth Amendment. Congress passed the legislation anyway. The NSA hasn’t even complied with that.

    Not only was Amash’s amendment defeated, but its sponsors were met with a backlash of scorn and ridicule from Governor Chris Christie and other defenders of the national security apparatus, citing the need to protect Americans from terrorism, regardless of the legal and constitutional issues.

    Source: Amash amendment only enforced Patriot Act, not Fourth Amendment


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • You live, so you’re obviously guilty, according to Congress

    Posted on by Azrael Comment

    There’s more Orwellian double-speak in action in Congress.

    On Wednesday, the House passed the USA Freedom Act 338-88. As is always the case in the District of Corruption, the new law does exactly the opposite of what its name purports.

    The bill overturns the recent ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that National Security Agency bulk telephone metadata collection exceeded what was authorized in the so-called USA Patriot Act. The misnamed Freedom Act actually expands the statutory basis for the large-scale collection of most data.

    Now phone companies have to hold, search and analyze the data at government’s request. The Freedom Act authorizes the government to order phone companies to turn over records based upon a “specific selection term.” Think of it as using a search term in a search engine.

    A non-specific term can turn up a vast amount of unrelated data that will find its way into the NSA’s computers. In short, it casts an even wider net than the one the NSA was using without authorization, but now it’s an “authorized” net. For more on why the bill is bad, read this synopsis by Rep. Justin Amash, one of the few who stood for the Constitution during the vote.

    Source: You live, so you’re obviously guilty, according to Congress


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged

  • Why did so many libertarians vote against a bill that’s supposed to rein in the NSA?

    Posted on by Azrael 1 Comment

    If the USA Freedom Act, which passed the House overwhelmingly Wednesday, really reins in the National Security Agency’s bulk telephone metadata collection program, why did so many Republican critics of mass data collection vote against it?

    This not only included Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., who spearheaded a bipartisan push to end blanket surveillance in 2013, but a virtual who’s who of libertarian-leaning Republican members of the House and their conservative fellow travelers: Thomas Massie, Raul Labrador, Dave Brat, Tim Huelskamp, Jim Jordan, Tom McClintock, Mark Meadows, Mick Mulvaney, Walter Jones, Mark Sanford and Jimmy Duncan. Duncan is the only Republican still in Congress who voted against the Iraq War.

    Amash, who explains all his votes on Facebook, argues that the bill in its current form erodes a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling that the mass data collection isn’t legal under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

    The third-term congressman writes, “It’s true that the bill ends the phone dragnet as we currently know it — by having the phone companies themselves hold, search, and analyze certain data at the request of the government, which is worse in many ways given the broader set of data the companies hold — but H.R. 2048 actually expands the statutory basis for the large-scale collection of most data.”

    In other words, a federal court ruled that there was no statutory basis for the blanket data collection being carried out by the NSA. The USA Freedom Act as now written, Amash contends, provides one.

    Some outside organizations like the Sunlight Foundation have made similar arguments. Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, said in a statement, “Letting Section 215 expire would be preferable to passing the current version of this bill, which fails to adequately protect Americans’ information from unwarranted government intrusion.”

    Source: Why did so many libertarians vote against a bill that’s supposed to rein in the NSA?


    📂This entry was posted in News and Politics 📎and tagged