In a letter addressed to Intel Chief James Clapper Thursday, 26 Senators demanded answers regarding the legality of the NSA spy program. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/ AP)
Jun 28, 2013
Lawmakers blasted the Obama administration for their "secret reinterpretation" of known laws, which they say has effectively "mislead" both the public and their representatives, granting the federal government broad powers to monitor and mine the world's communications.
"We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law," writes the group of 26 Senators in a letter sent Thursday.
"This and misleading statements by intelligence officials have prevented our constituents from evaluating the decisions that their government was making, and will unfortunately undermine trust in government more broadly."
Civil liberties groups--who have issued repeated warnings regarding the Patriot Act and the changes to FISA in 2008--may or may not find the lawmakers' surprise convincing given Congress's role in passing both pieces of legislation.
The letter--addressed to Director of National Security, James Clapper--demands that the intelligence chief answer a series of questions on the scale and legal justification for the widespread secret spy campaign recently revealed by the Guardian via documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
They write:
To ensure that an informed discussion on PATRIOT Act authorities can take place, we ask that you direct the Intelligence Community to provide unclassified answers to the following questions:
- How long has the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans' records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?
- Has the NSA used USA PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records'?
- Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans' cell--site location data in bulk'?
- Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.
- Please identify any specific examples of instances in which intelligence gained by reviewing phone records obtained through Section 215 bulk collection proved useful in thwarting a particular terrorist plot.
- Please provide specific examples of instances in which useful intelligence was gained by reviewing phone records that could not have been obtained without the bulk collection authority, if such examples exist.
- Please describe the employment status of all persons with conceivable access to this data, including IT professionals, and detail whether they are federal employees, civilian or military, or contractors.
As their colleagues in the Senate spout false statistics about the efficacy of the dragnet program and denounce Snowden as a "traitor," the coalition behind the letter--which was organized by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)--admitted in a press statement that this reliance on secret law raises "serious civil liberty concerns and all but removes the public from an informed national security and civil liberty debate."
The Senators signing the letter are: Ron Wyden (D-Or), Mark Udall (D-Co), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), Mark Kirk (R-Il), Dick Durbin (D-Il), Tom Udall (D-NM), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mt), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Dean Heller (R- Nev),Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Patty Murray (D-Wash), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Al Franken (D-Minn), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chris Coons (D-Del), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc) and Mike Lee (R-Utah)
_____________________
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
al frankenalaskabernie sandersbig brotheredward snowdenelizabeth warrenhawaiimike leensapatriot acttom harkin
Lawmakers blasted the Obama administration for their "secret reinterpretation" of known laws, which they say has effectively "mislead" both the public and their representatives, granting the federal government broad powers to monitor and mine the world's communications.
"We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law," writes the group of 26 Senators in a letter sent Thursday.
"This and misleading statements by intelligence officials have prevented our constituents from evaluating the decisions that their government was making, and will unfortunately undermine trust in government more broadly."
Civil liberties groups--who have issued repeated warnings regarding the Patriot Act and the changes to FISA in 2008--may or may not find the lawmakers' surprise convincing given Congress's role in passing both pieces of legislation.
The letter--addressed to Director of National Security, James Clapper--demands that the intelligence chief answer a series of questions on the scale and legal justification for the widespread secret spy campaign recently revealed by the Guardian via documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
They write:
To ensure that an informed discussion on PATRIOT Act authorities can take place, we ask that you direct the Intelligence Community to provide unclassified answers to the following questions:
- How long has the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans' records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?
- Has the NSA used USA PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records'?
- Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans' cell--site location data in bulk'?
- Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.
- Please identify any specific examples of instances in which intelligence gained by reviewing phone records obtained through Section 215 bulk collection proved useful in thwarting a particular terrorist plot.
- Please provide specific examples of instances in which useful intelligence was gained by reviewing phone records that could not have been obtained without the bulk collection authority, if such examples exist.
- Please describe the employment status of all persons with conceivable access to this data, including IT professionals, and detail whether they are federal employees, civilian or military, or contractors.
As their colleagues in the Senate spout false statistics about the efficacy of the dragnet program and denounce Snowden as a "traitor," the coalition behind the letter--which was organized by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)--admitted in a press statement that this reliance on secret law raises "serious civil liberty concerns and all but removes the public from an informed national security and civil liberty debate."
The Senators signing the letter are: Ron Wyden (D-Or), Mark Udall (D-Co), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), Mark Kirk (R-Il), Dick Durbin (D-Il), Tom Udall (D-NM), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mt), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Dean Heller (R- Nev),Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Patty Murray (D-Wash), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Al Franken (D-Minn), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chris Coons (D-Del), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc) and Mike Lee (R-Utah)
_____________________
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
Lawmakers blasted the Obama administration for their "secret reinterpretation" of known laws, which they say has effectively "mislead" both the public and their representatives, granting the federal government broad powers to monitor and mine the world's communications.
"We are concerned that by depending on secret interpretations of the Patriot Act that differed from an intuitive reading of the statute, this program essentially relied for years on a secret body of law," writes the group of 26 Senators in a letter sent Thursday.
"This and misleading statements by intelligence officials have prevented our constituents from evaluating the decisions that their government was making, and will unfortunately undermine trust in government more broadly."
Civil liberties groups--who have issued repeated warnings regarding the Patriot Act and the changes to FISA in 2008--may or may not find the lawmakers' surprise convincing given Congress's role in passing both pieces of legislation.
The letter--addressed to Director of National Security, James Clapper--demands that the intelligence chief answer a series of questions on the scale and legal justification for the widespread secret spy campaign recently revealed by the Guardian via documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
They write:
To ensure that an informed discussion on PATRIOT Act authorities can take place, we ask that you direct the Intelligence Community to provide unclassified answers to the following questions:
- How long has the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans' records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?
- Has the NSA used USA PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records'?
- Has the NSA collected or made any plans to collect Americans' cell--site location data in bulk'?
- Have there been any violations of the court orders permitting this bulk collection, or of the rules governing access to these records? If so, please describe these violations.
- Please identify any specific examples of instances in which intelligence gained by reviewing phone records obtained through Section 215 bulk collection proved useful in thwarting a particular terrorist plot.
- Please provide specific examples of instances in which useful intelligence was gained by reviewing phone records that could not have been obtained without the bulk collection authority, if such examples exist.
- Please describe the employment status of all persons with conceivable access to this data, including IT professionals, and detail whether they are federal employees, civilian or military, or contractors.
As their colleagues in the Senate spout false statistics about the efficacy of the dragnet program and denounce Snowden as a "traitor," the coalition behind the letter--which was organized by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)--admitted in a press statement that this reliance on secret law raises "serious civil liberty concerns and all but removes the public from an informed national security and civil liberty debate."
The Senators signing the letter are: Ron Wyden (D-Or), Mark Udall (D-Co), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), Mark Kirk (R-Il), Dick Durbin (D-Il), Tom Udall (D-NM), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jon Tester (D-Mt), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Dean Heller (R- Nev),Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), Patty Murray (D-Wash), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Al Franken (D-Minn), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chris Coons (D-Del), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc) and Mike Lee (R-Utah)
_____________________
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.