

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________

Speaking before a panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit, Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny
They argue that when a legal opinion is adopted by an agency as legal justification for its action, the opinion loses its advisory nature and is thus subject to disclosure. Failure to do so amounts to what senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) refer to as "secret law."
"The OLC opinion at issue in this case set forth for the executive branch an authoritative, controlling interpretation of federal surveillance and privacy statutes," argued EFF staff attorney Mark Rumold.
"In its cover letter to McClatchy, the Office of Legal Counsel disclosed more detail about its legal position, specifying a section of a 1978 federal wiretapping law that the Justice Department believes gives the FBI the authority," the paper reports. "That section of the law appears to be what was redacted from the inspector general's report and reveals the type of records the FBI would be seeking."
They continue:
Nonetheless, Tenny told the judges Tuesday "there's no evidence" that the FBI relied on the memo after it was issued.
"There's no evidence that the FBI ever did anything to anyone in the public based on the rationale in this OLC opinion," he said.
The opinion, he said, is "classic deliberative process material."
_____________________