As key provisions of the Patriot Act near their expiration date, the call for stronger NSA reforms is growing. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)
May 08, 2015
In the wake of Thursday's federal court ruling that the U.S. National Security Agency's mass data collection program is illegal, officials in Congress have been left at odds over surveillance reform.
In the remaining six days of the legislative session, some Senate Republicans are rushing to find a short-term solution to keep the program in operation until it comes to the floor for a vote--one which is unlikely to pass in light of the court ruling. The government previously held that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, set to expire on June 1, justified the NSA's mass surveillance of U.S. citizens.
One option would be a one-month extension of the provision to get it past the deadline in exchange for Republicans allowing a vote on the USA Freedom Act--a bill aimed at reforming the NSA by replacing surveillance programs with a plan for phone companies to retain data instead. Some in Congress see the USA Freedom Act as their best chance to rein in the NSA's spying powers.
"I hope we can [pass a clean reauthorization] for at least a short period of time just so we can have this debate," majority whip Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told reporters. "It's an important debate and an important law, it's protected Americans and saved lives, and so we don't need to make this decision in haste."
That statement conflicted with Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) response to Thursday's court ruling, which he said should not impede a full reauthorization of the act. The provisions are "ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015," McConnell said.
However, the call to reject the Patriot Act has grown stronger, with allies from both sides of the aisle framing the court ruling as a turning point in the debate.
Even a short-term extension would amount to "reauthorizing for five years a statute that right now is deeply flawed," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the Guardian. "It fails to protect essential rights and clearly could be improved by having an adversarial system for example, changing the makeup of the [Fisa] court, reforming the system as needs to be done."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a presidential candidate for the 2016 election, wrote in an op-ed for Time that not even the USA Freedom Act is enough to reform the NSA and should be rejected alongside the Patriot Act. "Now that the appellate court has ruled that Section 215 doesn't authorize bulk collection, would the USA Freedom Act actually be expanding the Patriot Act?" he wrote. "That would be a bitter irony if the attempt to end bulk collection actually gave new authority to the Patriot Act to collect records."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the case to the federal court, has also noted that the USA Freedom Act does not go far enough to rein in the government's surveillance powers or ensure sufficient transparency from the FBI. "We can't help but worry that the vague language in the bill's key provisions will provide a new lease on life to surveillance programs that haven't yet been--and may never be--disclosed to the public," wrote ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer and ACLU staff attorney Patrick Toomey in a blog post last week, ahead of the ruling.
On Thursday, the ACLU called the court's decision a "resounding victory for the rule of law."
Staff attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case, said in a statement, "For years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority.... Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
In the wake of Thursday's federal court ruling that the U.S. National Security Agency's mass data collection program is illegal, officials in Congress have been left at odds over surveillance reform.
In the remaining six days of the legislative session, some Senate Republicans are rushing to find a short-term solution to keep the program in operation until it comes to the floor for a vote--one which is unlikely to pass in light of the court ruling. The government previously held that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, set to expire on June 1, justified the NSA's mass surveillance of U.S. citizens.
One option would be a one-month extension of the provision to get it past the deadline in exchange for Republicans allowing a vote on the USA Freedom Act--a bill aimed at reforming the NSA by replacing surveillance programs with a plan for phone companies to retain data instead. Some in Congress see the USA Freedom Act as their best chance to rein in the NSA's spying powers.
"I hope we can [pass a clean reauthorization] for at least a short period of time just so we can have this debate," majority whip Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told reporters. "It's an important debate and an important law, it's protected Americans and saved lives, and so we don't need to make this decision in haste."
That statement conflicted with Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) response to Thursday's court ruling, which he said should not impede a full reauthorization of the act. The provisions are "ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015," McConnell said.
However, the call to reject the Patriot Act has grown stronger, with allies from both sides of the aisle framing the court ruling as a turning point in the debate.
Even a short-term extension would amount to "reauthorizing for five years a statute that right now is deeply flawed," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the Guardian. "It fails to protect essential rights and clearly could be improved by having an adversarial system for example, changing the makeup of the [Fisa] court, reforming the system as needs to be done."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a presidential candidate for the 2016 election, wrote in an op-ed for Time that not even the USA Freedom Act is enough to reform the NSA and should be rejected alongside the Patriot Act. "Now that the appellate court has ruled that Section 215 doesn't authorize bulk collection, would the USA Freedom Act actually be expanding the Patriot Act?" he wrote. "That would be a bitter irony if the attempt to end bulk collection actually gave new authority to the Patriot Act to collect records."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the case to the federal court, has also noted that the USA Freedom Act does not go far enough to rein in the government's surveillance powers or ensure sufficient transparency from the FBI. "We can't help but worry that the vague language in the bill's key provisions will provide a new lease on life to surveillance programs that haven't yet been--and may never be--disclosed to the public," wrote ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer and ACLU staff attorney Patrick Toomey in a blog post last week, ahead of the ruling.
On Thursday, the ACLU called the court's decision a "resounding victory for the rule of law."
Staff attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case, said in a statement, "For years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority.... Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
In the wake of Thursday's federal court ruling that the U.S. National Security Agency's mass data collection program is illegal, officials in Congress have been left at odds over surveillance reform.
In the remaining six days of the legislative session, some Senate Republicans are rushing to find a short-term solution to keep the program in operation until it comes to the floor for a vote--one which is unlikely to pass in light of the court ruling. The government previously held that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, set to expire on June 1, justified the NSA's mass surveillance of U.S. citizens.
One option would be a one-month extension of the provision to get it past the deadline in exchange for Republicans allowing a vote on the USA Freedom Act--a bill aimed at reforming the NSA by replacing surveillance programs with a plan for phone companies to retain data instead. Some in Congress see the USA Freedom Act as their best chance to rein in the NSA's spying powers.
"I hope we can [pass a clean reauthorization] for at least a short period of time just so we can have this debate," majority whip Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told reporters. "It's an important debate and an important law, it's protected Americans and saved lives, and so we don't need to make this decision in haste."
That statement conflicted with Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) response to Thursday's court ruling, which he said should not impede a full reauthorization of the act. The provisions are "ideally suited for the terrorist threat we face in 2015," McConnell said.
However, the call to reject the Patriot Act has grown stronger, with allies from both sides of the aisle framing the court ruling as a turning point in the debate.
Even a short-term extension would amount to "reauthorizing for five years a statute that right now is deeply flawed," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told the Guardian. "It fails to protect essential rights and clearly could be improved by having an adversarial system for example, changing the makeup of the [Fisa] court, reforming the system as needs to be done."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a presidential candidate for the 2016 election, wrote in an op-ed for Time that not even the USA Freedom Act is enough to reform the NSA and should be rejected alongside the Patriot Act. "Now that the appellate court has ruled that Section 215 doesn't authorize bulk collection, would the USA Freedom Act actually be expanding the Patriot Act?" he wrote. "That would be a bitter irony if the attempt to end bulk collection actually gave new authority to the Patriot Act to collect records."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which brought the case to the federal court, has also noted that the USA Freedom Act does not go far enough to rein in the government's surveillance powers or ensure sufficient transparency from the FBI. "We can't help but worry that the vague language in the bill's key provisions will provide a new lease on life to surveillance programs that haven't yet been--and may never be--disclosed to the public," wrote ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer and ACLU staff attorney Patrick Toomey in a blog post last week, ahead of the ruling.
On Thursday, the ACLU called the court's decision a "resounding victory for the rule of law."
Staff attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case, said in a statement, "For years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority.... Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.