Start A Petition

USA Vs. NSA: Legislative Efforts to Curtail Spying

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, congress, constitution, dishonesty, ethics, freedoms, Govtfearmongering, media, obama, politics, propaganda, republicans, terrorism, Spying )

- 2106 days ago -
In the wake of Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, members of Congress have proposed a litany of bills to put an end to domestic spying.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kit B (276)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 6:27 am
Photo Credit:

In the wake of Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, members of Congress have proposed a litany of bills to put an end to domestic spying. Rather than creating bills that support each other, Congressional members' multiple bills now have to compete against each other, and have clouded the debate.

The sustained grass-roots uproar over domestic surveillance has reached the ear of Congress, which is considering more than a dozen legislative measures to curtail the National Security Agency's various programs that spy on Americans en masse. While most address merely the pieces of the problem, one in particular would address the many facets hidden even in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

Strange bedfellows have coalesced in Congress to restore fundamental rights, including representatives of each of the major political parties. With a bipartisan establishment facing off against populists in each party responding to the outrage among their constituents, rarely has Washington presented so fascinating a drama.

While the controversy surrounding dragnet domestic spying portends the inevitability of fundamental reforms, the only bill commensurate with mounting transpartisan outrage remains politically marginal. Meanwhile, meager proposals proliferate, skewing the debate and potentially undermining the possibilities of meaningful restrictions on NSA spying.

Rather than coalesce around shared proposals, members of Congress have instead clouded the debate by introducing a growing litany of bills that could potentially compete with, rather than support, each other.

Transparency without substantive reforms

Several bills present relatively weak alternatives by merely expanding transparency at the margins. For instance, the "Ending Secret Law Act" (SB 1130 and HR 2475) sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, would require the disclosure (of at least summaries) of the secret FISA court's classified opinions that currently remain hidden from Congress and the public. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, introduced an essentially identical measure in HR 2440 , the "FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013."

Revealing the substance of FISA court opinions to the public is crucial, given the court's modus operandi of undermining constitutional principles in secret. Disclosure alone, however, does not restore any of the legal principles eroded over the past decade. And while these proposals would at least require summaries of even classified opinions, they leave the decision over what level of disclosure to the executive branch, which has proven its unreliability.

Other proposals also aim to expand transparency, not by revealing secret judicial opinions but rather by requiring additional disclosures from the executive branch. While helpful, like the disclosure bills, none of these suffice, either.

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Washington, introduced the "Government Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013" (HR 2736), which would require corporations and government agencies to disclose aggregate data about their surveillance practices. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, has introduced a bill (SB 1452) to require greater disclosure and allow voluntary disclosure by private entities.

Like the "Ending Secret Law Act," the Larsen and Franken bills would claw at the margins of NSA secrecy, without doing anything to actually restrain its abuses.

Transparency with some minimal substantive reforms

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Massachusetts, introduced the "Telephone Surveillance Accountability Act of 2013" (HR 2684) to force disclosure, as well as minimal judicial oversight. In particular, the bill requires the FBI director to compile a report for the Senate and House intelligence committees about searches of telephone metadata. It also requires the government to demonstrate that its metadata search requests are justified by reasonable suspicion of material facts specifically relevant to an authorized investigation.

The Lynch bill, however, is underinclusive: It regards only telephony metadata and does nothing to curtail internet spying under the PRISM or XKeyScore programs, for instance. It apparently was drafted in response to the particular problems revealed in the first of the now several memos disclosed by journalist Glenn Greenwald and whistleblower Edward Snowden but fails to address the vast remainder of other NSA's domestic spying activities.

Second, even the reasonable suspicion standard can be abused. Just ask New Yorkers, who for years have challenged an abusive stop-and-frisk search program by the NYPD. The Supreme Court empowered police to stop and frisk pedestrians for weapons in 1968, but even the Terry v. Ohio decision maintained the need to demonstrate reasonable suspicion before doing so. The NYPD's answer to that limitation has been to consistently claim that its targets (overwhelmingly people of color) make "furtive movements" justifying police intrusions.

The "Restore Our Privacy Act," (SB 1168) introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, goes several steps farther. First, it requires the government to provide "specific and articulable facts" supporting each and every object of a Section 215 order, which currently address multiple sources. For instance, the single court order disclosed by Greenwald authorized the government to monitor every Verizon business customer across the country, including the organization I lead, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (which is why we're represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a lawsuit challenging NSA programs).

The Sanders bill also would limit the purposes of surveillance to specific FBI investigations of international terrorism, preventing intelligence powers from being used by law enforcement agencies.

Reforming the rubber-stamp secret FISA court

Other proposed bills would reform the appointment process for judges to the secret FISA court. Imposing fundamental changes to constitutional principles in secret, while hearing only one side of each case, the so-called "court" has endured well-deserved criticism for failing its constitutional responsibility to check and balance the executive branch, instead becoming a rubber stamp that ultimately has eroded judicial legitimacy.

The court's predilection for favoring the government is predictable: the judges are appointed unilaterally by the notoriously conservative chief justice, whose history of service in the executive branch predisposes him, and the judges he hand picks, to favor the government. Chief Justice John Roberts has voted time and again to insulate intelligence and police agencies from constitutional limits, such as in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which this spring turned the court's blind eye to precisely the issues raised by the Snowden leaks.

The Alliance for Justice has criticized both the unilateral appointment power of the chief justice and the pro-government bias of the particular judges who serve on the court. Its new report explains why "this concentration of power is unlike anything else in our democratic system of checks and balances."

Accordingly, several proposed bills would reform the process for appointing judges to the secret FISA court, including SB 1460, introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, the "FISA Court Accountability Act" (HR 2586), introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, and HR 2761, introduced by Schiff.

The Cohen bill would disperse the power to appoint the various judges on the FISA Court across several congressional leaders. The Schiff bill, in contrast, would give the president power to appoint FISA court judges,

Finally, a separate bill by Blumenthal (SB 1467) would take an additional step of allowing the Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board (which sat dormant for a decade after its creation was recommended by the 9/11 Commission until President Barack Obama finally appointed members last year) to send privacy advocates into FISA court proceedings to challenge the government's view.

Schiff also supports Blumenthal's approach, saying "this court operates in secret and doesn't have the benefit of contrary views," whereas his and Blumenthal's proposed reforms "would provide for some adversarial process on key FISA court decisions, so the court would have the benefit of a well-informed view of the case law."

Addressing the iceberg

In contrast to these helpful - but alone, inadequate - protections, two particular proposals promise fundamental reform that actually would restore parts of the fundamental rights eroded by the expansion of domestic surveillance during the past decade. A third would unwind the domestic surveillance state entirely.

The first two enjoy bipartisan support: the "FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act" (SB 1215), introduced by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, as well as the Libert-E Act (HR 2399), co-sponsored by Reps. John Conyers, D-MI, and Justin Amash, R-MI. Both bills would curtail powers extended in the FISA amendments of 2008, as well as portions of the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act and the 2008 FISA amendments were controversial when they passed, presaging the widespread outrage that has erupted since the revelation this summer of some (but still not all) of the abuses they enabled.

In the midst of the 2008 presidential campaign, the largest affinity group on called itself Get FISA Right. Of course, then-Sen. Obama did not get FISA right and instead wrote to the group with a weak defense of his vote, hanging his hat on the notion that "an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people." He went on to write that the FISA Amendment Act "assures that the FISA court has that responsibility." As we now know, his faith in the FISA court was misplaced.

Reflecting even more widespread dissent, the Patriot Act prompted grass-roots coalitions to pursue and enact resolutions defending the Bill of Rights in more than 400 cities and towns across America. Eight states also followed suit, reflecting a diverse array of political cultures as progressive as California and conservative as Montana, as western as Alaska and Hawaii, alongside states as eastern as Maine.

Even relative to the Leahy and Conyers-Amash proposals, the widest-ranging bill among those pending in Congress is the "Surveillance State Repeal Act" (HR 2818) introduced by Rep. Rush Holt, D-New Jersey, a former Princeton physics professor and former leader of the House Intelligence Committee. The Holt bill, unlike any of the other measures proposed, would fully repeal the Patriot Act and the 2008 FISA amendments in their entirety, essentially restoring limits on executive power and unwinding the surveillance abuses of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations at once.

Even though the Holt bill lacks the widespread support of more conciliatory congressional alternatives, it is crucial for concerned Americans to champion the broad spectrum remedies that it entails. In the absence of a grass-roots clamor calling for dramatic fundamental reforms, the congressional debate likely will slide in an authoritarian direction this fall, once executive agencies and officials regroup from the political drubbing they endured during the summer and flood Congress with armies of corporate and military lobbyists weaving tangled skeins, claiming that dragnet domestic surveillance is a national security imperative.

In fact, the only sectors of American society to which surveillance is necessary are the corporate and military interests that depend on it. Despite claims that national security would be undermined were constitutional rights restored, the only security at risk should Congress finally limit NSA abuses is the job security of the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of contractors and government employees whose careers are built on a fundamentally authoritarian premise.

If only because of the sheer size and existential commitment of that lobbying base, the agencies always have enjoyed an upper hand in Congress. That is why grass-roots support for the Holt bill is so critical: it alone would shift the debate from one about long overdue limitations on government agencies toward, in contrast, the illusory justification for those powers to exist in the first place.

Don't Let NSA's 4th Amendment Violation Center Open. (active link at end of article- See VISIT SITE)

***Petition for: Don't Let NSA's 4th Amendment Violation Center Open in Utah


By Shahid Buttar, Truthout | Report |

Kit B (276)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 6:29 am


Don't Let NSA's 4th Amendment Violation Center Open in Utah

What may be the largest building in the world, seven times the size of the Pentagon, will -- if it opens -- serve only one purpose: to violate the Fourth Amendment.

This center sucks up data on our use of the internet, telephones, skype, emails, texts, credit cards, and financial, legal, travel, and health records.

Tell Congress and the President not to open the NSA Utah Data Center's doors


. (0)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 9:35 am

Kathy C (354)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 11:11 am
I still vote the just throw out the entire patriot act.
I just don't trust any of them except Dennis Kucinich who was the only one who stood up against it to begin with.

Thomas W (1506)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 12:23 pm
911 was the beginning of the great American screw job. More money for secret agencies, courts, spying and of course wars. Anyone who disagreed, was well, unpatriotic. The truth about 911 is far more terrifying the the lie, but what is America if not lies. The whole Columbus thing to start, Lincoln and the Civil War, right up to and including 911. The truth can be hard to take, but it is better than a lie. But the truth will not rally supporters of war and incite young men to join and die. I'm not a nut, nor a conspiracy theorist, just a liberal who was lucky to be born with more than 1 brain cell and no rose coloured glasses. Come to think of it, that's why I'm not a repug. Lucky me.

Birgit W (160)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 12:56 pm

Mike M (8)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 1:41 pm
Thank you for asking Congress and the president to not allow the NSA's Fourth Amendment Violation Center to open.

Mitchell D (82)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 1:47 pm
The Patriot Act, needs to go! too bad that it would be ruinous politics to impeach Bubba Bush and Cheney, at the same time.
When are people ever going to learn that just because a President says"Patriot," it is not automatically time to start genuflecting, and shouting "Hallelujah?"

Sheila D (194)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 3:16 pm
Sigened and noted very gladly. Sick and tired of our Constitutional Rights being erodeed. Also tired of Obama, supposedly For the People, had been leaning more and more towards GOP policies.

JL A (281)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 4:11 pm
Excellent analyses of the various approaches and proposals that should help all readers to understand the relative importance of various aspects of this significant issue! Thanks so much Kit.

marie C (163)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 5:24 pm
Noted Thanks Kit

Past Member (0)
Thursday August 15, 2013, 6:47 pm
With this Congress and Administration, i doubt any serious reform will be passed. It will be like their 'banking reform', (which the bankers are still celebrating).

Lona G (66)
Friday August 16, 2013, 5:42 am
And when is the NSA going to stop spying on foreign individuals, e.g. in Europe where it has no business to be in the first place?

Kit B (276)
Friday August 16, 2013, 8:09 am

That's not going to happen, Lona.

Joanne Dixon (37)
Monday August 19, 2013, 9:51 am
Of course any number of bills can be introduced but getting them passed is something else. Alan Grayson is pretty good at bipartisanship but he also points out that a couple more votes won't hurt. Here's his email:

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives came very close to ending the National Security Agency's unconstitutional and illegal surveillance of every American. An amendment to do just that fell a few votes short.

The "intelligence community" pulled out all the stops to defeat this amendment. Members of Congress were told that if we did not allow the military to collect enormous quantities of data on every single American citizen, the next "9/11" would be on our conscience. NSA General Keith Alexander held four hours of secret briefings on the Hill, just before the vote. Republicans Michele Bachmann and Tom Cotton treated the amendment as though it were the End of Days. Bush-era counterterrorism officials who failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks swore that domestic spying is necessary to prevent new 9/11 attacks. (In the world of counterterrorism, apparently, failure makes you an expert.) Even the White House, sadly, weighed in in favor of continued pervasive domestic surveillance.

Despite this, 111 Democrats -- a majority of all the Democrats in the House -- joined 94 Republicans and voted to end domestic spying. That's 205 votes against the secret surveillance state. Among the votes against surveillance was Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act, and highly respected among right-wing Republicans on national security issues. Even some of the Members who voted wrong on this amendment clearly were with us in spirit, but they were cowed by the fear of being blamed for some hypothetical future terrorist attack.

This large number of House Members voting against the NSA was a stunning rebuke to the "intelligence community". This was the first vote on this issue, but not the last. To win, we need just 11 more House Members with the courage to stand up for our rights.

And I know how we can get two more: by electing them. One can come from a district in Massachusetts, which was vacated when former Congressman Ed Markey was elected to the U.S. Senate. Another can come from a district in Pennsylvania that is being vacated because the current officeholder is running for Governor.

I know candidates in both districts who have a realistic shot at winning these seats. Both candidates strongly oppose unconstitutional domestic surveillance, and both have said they would have voted with me in favor of ending it. I have mentioned one already -- Daylin Leach, from Pennsylvania. The other candidate is Carl Sciortino in Massachusetts, a state legislator who has opposed the expansion of state wiretapping authority.

Help me get two more votes for privacy and constitutionality. Donate to "Democrats Against Big Brother."

And here's Leach on domestic spying:

"The NSA policy that the Amash Amendment attempted to rein in is an outrageous shifting of the historic balance between liberty and security. It abandons not only the requirement of individualized suspicion, but of any suspicion at all. It allows the government just to collect, en masse, the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans. It allows the government to know who we call, when, and for how long we speak, every time we use the phone."

And here's Sciortino:

"I have opposed pointless wiretapping in Massachusetts, and I will fight against it in Congress. Protecting individual liberties is something progressives must stand up and fight for. Unwarranted spying on law-abiding Americans is a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. I would have been proud to have voted in favor of reining in the NSA. Putting aside the fact that it is not even clear that this NSA policy is, in fact, making us safer, that broad justification is insufficient. The noble end does not justify ANY means. We as a people must be wary, not only of those who would make us less safe, but also those who would make us less free. We must defend our borders, and our liberties. And we must do so in an open, transparent and thoughtful way."

If we help elect Leach and Sciortino, that's two more votes to stop the NSA from spying on us. But more than that, if we can demonstrate to current Members of Congress that there is real support by voters and donors against this illegal surveillance, then we can win those Members over to our side. Right now, all too many of them get their campaign money from the Spying Industrial Complex ("SIC"). Let's prove that there are both money and votes on our side of this important issue.

Please contribute to the Leach and Sciortino campaigns today. Let's put more people in the People's House who will stand up for our freedoms.

Now, these are True Blue Democrats.


Rep. Alan Grayson

(Back to Joanne - On the Donate link, I can't give you a link because I am logged in and I don't mind if Care2 members have my email address but I do draw the line at credit card info. But if you go to and search for Democrats Against Big Brother you should find it. If not, enter either Leach or Sciortino and scroll down to Democrats Against Big Brother.)
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.