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, 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. 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 |
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."
_____________________