March, 15 2021, 12:00am EDT
Former Sen. Udall and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte Support Lawsuit to Reveal Details of Government's Secret Mass Surveillance
Former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) are supporting a lawsuit by Demand Progress Education Fund (DPEF) and the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) filed against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. These two civil liberties organizations seek to compel the government to disclose whether it has secretly concluded it may conduct mass surveillance of people in the United States in the absence of Congressional authorization or court order.
WASHINGTON
Former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) are supporting a lawsuit by Demand Progress Education Fund (DPEF) and the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability (PPSA) filed against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. These two civil liberties organizations seek to compel the government to disclose whether it has secretly concluded it may conduct mass surveillance of people in the United States in the absence of Congressional authorization or court order. This weekend, the two former members of Congress also published an op-ed about this issue.
"In October, Mark and I added our names to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice, the FBI and other agencies asking for information about possible mass surveillance of American citizens," said Bob Goodlatte, senior policy advisor to PPSA. "They did not bother to reply. So Demand Progress Education Fund and PPSA are going to court to get answers to our questions."
The state of domestic intelligence surveillance is unclear with the expiration of Section 215, known as the "business records provision" of the PATRIOT Act (later amended and reauthorized by the USA FREEDOM Act). Section 215 governed the surveillance of a wide range of personal information held by businesses with an elastic standard: If the FBI asserted such data was relevant to a foreign intelligence investigation, it did not need a warrant to access it.
"What legal authority governs surveillance today?" Goodlatte asked. "The truth is, not even Congress is allowed to know. We do know that those in government and their defenders have sometimes claimed that they have an 'inherent' power to surveil Americans."
A fulsome response to the underlying DPEF/PPSA FOIA request (available here) would answer the following questions:
- Are the legal theories that previous administrations relied on to secretly conduct mass domestic surveillance of people in the United States still operative?
- One authority cited for this proposition by then-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC), Executive Order 12333, is not a statute. What guidance is the government giving agencies on the limits of 12333?
- Is the government treating Americans' web browsing information as presumptively foreign, thereby avoiding privacy protections for people in the United States?
- Is the government relying on a legal theory - as it did at least from 2001 through 2004 - that its inherent authority displaces the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when the two conflict?
- Has the government secretly concluded that it may purchase information about people in the United States, for instance the enormous and growing troves held by data brokers, with no Congressional or judicial oversight?
"In December, the public learned that the whole time the DOJ and FBI were urging Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act, more was at stake than even members of Congress knew," said former Senator Mark Udall, who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "And since the partial Patriot Act sunset one year ago, the public also learned that the government has been secretly buying records about people in the United States without any Congressional authorization or judicial due process. This dangerous shell game of domestic mass surveillance must stop long enough for Congress to have its say: the stakes impact the privacy of every person in the United States."
"Every American is already concerned about the potential for misuse of the massive amounts of our data held by businesses, and clearly the problem is getting worse," Goodlatte said. "The American people deserve to know if our records are being accessed without Congressional authorization or judicial due process."
DPEF educates more than two million members and the general public about matters pertaining to the democratic nature of our nation's communications infrastructure and governance structures. PPSA is a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizens who advocate for greater protection of our privacy and civil liberties in government surveillance programs.
Background on the Issue
- A civil liberties coalition called for transparency in May;
- Sens. Leahy (D-VT) and Lee (R-UT) sent a letter in July to the AG and DNI raising concerns, asking a number of critical questions, and concluding reliance on inherent executive authority in lieu of Section 215 would be "plainly illegal";
- Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) asked related questions of Attorney General Barr at a hearing in July;
- A coalition further honed this fact-finding mission and thoroughly substantiated these concerns in August;
- Dozens of Representatives, led by Reps. Davidson (R-OH) and Jayapal (D-WA), further advanced these questions in a letter demanding answers in September; and
- In December, Charlie Savage of The New York Times broke the story that the government had secretly interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act as empowering the FBI to put a warrantless dragnet around a website. As Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) noted, there is no guarantee the FBI or NSA "wouldn't use the Patriot Act to intentionally collect Americans' web browsing information in the future."
The government has missed the relevant deadlines and refused to provide answers in every case.
In August, Rep. Eshoo (D-CA) also demanded information about what surveillance of the legislative and judicial branches has occurred. After being refused a substantive answer, she called on the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to investigate the issue. Similarly, Reps. Eshoo and Rush (D-IL) and Senator Wyden (D-OR) just called on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to investigate executive branch surveillance of protesters.
The FOIA request is available here.
Additional context is available here.
Additional background on Section 215 is available at www.Section215.org.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Despite WSJ Reporting, Julian Assange Lawyer Says 'No Indication' of Plea Deal
"The United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition," said an attorney for the jailed WikiLeaks journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
As the world awaits a U.K. court ruling on Julian Assange's potential extradition to the United States, The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder's attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice officials "have had preliminary discussions" about allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge to end the lengthy legal battle.
"If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense," the Journal detailed, citing unnamed sources. "Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S."
"The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded," according to the report—on which a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The 52-year-old Australian has been imprisoned at London's Belmarsh Prison since British authorities dragged him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019, after the South American nation's president terminated the diplomatic asylum granted to him in 2012. In the United States, he faces Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing material that includes the "Collateral Murder" video, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
Assange attorney Barry Pollack said in a statement Wednesday that "it is inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the U.K. High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
Human rights and press freedom advocates worldwide and even some U.S. lawmakers have warned of the broader impacts of a conviction. Kathleen McClellan and Jesselyn Radack wrote Saturday in Salon that the precedent set by the cases of Assange, Timothy Burke, and Catherine Herridge, "will apply in future to anyone engaging in such entirely normative journalistic activities as cultivating sources while protecting their anonymity, and seeking to publish information in the public interest that governments or other powerful forces seek to control."
Focusing specifically on Assange's case, Croatian philosopher and Belmarsh Tribunal co-founder Srećko Horvat similarly said in December that "more than one man's life is at stake, but the First Amendment and freedom of the press itself. As long as the Espionage Act is deployed to imprison those who expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe."
Ahead of a U.K. High Court hearing on extradition last month, Stella Assange, Julian's wife and the mother of his two children, pointed to her husband's physical and mental health problems, and warned that "this case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."
The Journal noted Wednesday that the court "is expected to decide within weeks whether to grant Assange a further right to appeal his extradition" and the United States has pledged that "he could be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence."
Australia's government "could shorten any sentence once he landed on Australian soil," the paper added. Nick Vamos, a partner at London law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of extradition for England and Wales' Crown Prosecution Service, said that "I honestly think as soon as he arrived in Australia he would be released."
Shortly before the February hearing, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined 85 members of Australia's Parliament in voting for a motion demanding that the U.S. and U.K. drop the extradition effort and allow Assange to return to his home country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders, House Dems Propose Guaranteed 'Paid Time Off for All'
"Americans who put in an honest day's work deserve to take time off," said Rep. Seth Magaziner. "This is a matter of fairness and respect in the workplace."
Mar 20, 2024
With nearly 27 million American workers lacking any annual paid leave days, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday said Congress must "end the international embarrassment" of being the only wealthy country in the world that doesn't ensure people can take time off from work without risking their livelihoods.
The Vermont Independent senator plans to introduce a companion bill to the Protected Time Off (PTO) Act, which was unveiled by U.S. Reps. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas).
"Americans who put in an honest day's work deserve to take time off, and I'm proud to introduce the PTO Act to make this a reality for all," said Magaziner. "This is a matter of fairness and respect in the workplace."
Under the PTO Act, employees who work full time would earn at least two weeks of paid annual leave per year, which they could use for any reason with no loss in pay. Workers would be protected from discrimination for exercising their right to take annual time off. Paid vacation time would be guaranteed in addition to paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave.
"The United States is the richest country in the history of the world—and yet, we fall behind nearly every other developed nation in terms of worker benefits and paid time off. For the millions of American workers, including the vast majority of hourly workers, a day off to care for a sick child or attend a friend's wedding means missing a day's pay—forcing workers to choose between their family, friends, or their own health and well-being, and financial stability," said Crockett. "The PTO Act sets a standard for all employers to adhere to, allowing all workers a set number of PTO days per year and bringing American labor policy closer to that of most of the developed world."
The lawmakers noted that workers in the European Union are guaranteed a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year, with some countries requiring as many as 25 to 30 days off annually.
Forty-three members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation, and labor advocacy groups and unions including the Economic Policy Institute, the National Employment Law Project, and the AFL-CIO have endorsed the PTO Act.
"We're coming out of the gate with a lot of momentum," said Magaziner. "We're going to keep fighting to get this bill passed and signed into law because Americans work hard and everyone deserves to take a break every once in a while."
Susan Valentine, political director for the hospitality industry union UNITE HERE, said paid time off must no longer be treated as "a perk or a bonus" in the United States.
"It is a fundamental right that every worker deserves," said Valentine. "But too often, workers in the service and hospitality industries don't have access to PTO—perpetuating inequality and reinforcing a system that values profit over people. We must strive for a future where all workers have the opportunity to take off without sacrificing their financial security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Finnish Unions Extend Strikes to Fight Right-Wing Attack on Labor, Safety Net
"The policies now pursued by the Orpo-Purra government fulfill long-standing dreams of Finnish big business," said one journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
Labor unions in Finland said Wednesday that they would continue their two-week strike wave through the end of March as they fight attacks on worker rights and social programs by the Nordic nation's right-wing government.
The blue-collar union confederation SAK announced the extension after an unproductive meeting with Finnish Employment Minister Arto Santonen of the ruling center-right National Coalition Party (NCP), state broadcaster
Ylereported.
"From our perspective the meeting was a disappointment and obviously we are very worried over the fact that the government is so stubborn and unresponsive even to our far-reaching compromise proposals," SAK chair Jarkko Eloranta told reporters. "We are ready to suspend the strikes if the government shows an understanding of workers' concerns."
"These policies... were straight from the playbook of the employers' organizations, who generously financed the campaigns of the right-wing parties in the election."
Approximately 7,000 Finnish union members including dock and industrial workers are taking part in the work stoppages, which are disrupting exports, imports, and cargo transportation. Last year, the transport workers' union AKT staged a two-week strike that shut down Finnish ports while demanding higher wages as part of a new collective bargaining agreement. The workers ultimately won a 25-month contract with a 6% raise.
Finland's April 2023 general election saw the defeat of former Prime Minister Sanna Marin's center-left coalition government, which was replaced by a coalition including Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's NCP and the far-right Finns Party, led by Deputy Prime Minister Riikka Purra, who is also the finance minister. The new government angered labor advocates by announcing an agenda that includes making it easier for employers to fire workers, slashing unemployment insurance, cutting social security benefits, weakening sick pay, and limiting solidarity strikes.
Orpo's government also says it will pass legislation creating an "export-driven" collective bargaining model that would cap wage increases, hile localizing collective bargaining, effectively empowering individual companies to negotiate their own contracts with workers.
"These policies... were straight from the playbook of the employers' organizations, who generously financed the campaigns of the right-wing parties in the election," Finnish journalist Toivo Haimi wrote for Jacobin. "It is worth noting that these policies received very little attention during the election campaign, and some of them were even directly opposed by the Finns Party."
"The policies now pursued by the Orpo-Purra government fulfill long-standing dreams of Finnish big business," Haimi added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular