Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Fri Mar 16, 2012, 09:47 PM Mar 2012

Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall Attack Obama Administration's Use of Patriot Act

Senators Attack Government's Use of Patriot Act
Sens. Wyden, Udall: Americans would be 'Stunned' at Justice Department's Surveillance Powers
by Common Dreams staff
March 16, 2012


Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have expressed concerns that the US Justice Department is abusing provisions in the Patriot Act.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) warned that the government is secretly interpreting sweeping surveillance powers in section 215 of the Patriot Act. They also warned that this "top secret intelligence operation" as the New York Times reported, is "not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained." The senators said Americans would be "stunned" to learn of the nature of this intelligence program.

The dispute is over the government's ability to obtain a secret foreign order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain business records and other items relevant to terrorism or espionage. The specifics of the program are classified.

The letter also expressed discontent over the Obama Administrations failure to establish a "regular process for reviewing, redacting and releasing significant opinions" about the Patriot Act. The senators complained that "not a single opinion has been redacted."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/03/16-3


------------------------------------------------------------------------



Democratic Senators Issue Strong Warning About Use of the Patriot Act
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
March 16, 2012


For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public — or even others in Congress — knew about it.

On Thursday, two of those senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado — went further. They said a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on that secret legal theory is not as crucial to national security as executive branch officials have maintained.

The senators, who also said that Americans would be “stunned” to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do, made their remarks in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. after a Justice Department official last month told a judge that disclosing anything about the program “could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

The Justice Department has argued that disclosing information about its interpretation of the Patriot Act could alert adversaries to how the government collects certain intelligence. It is seeking the dismissal of two Freedom of Information Act lawsuits — by The New York Times and by the American Civil Liberties Union — related to how the Patriot Act has been interpreted.

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/us/politics/democratic-senators-warn-about-use-of-patriot-act.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators Demand DOJ Release Secret Spy Court Rulings
By David Kravets
March 15, 2012


Two Democratic senators urged the Obama administration Thursday to declassify secret court rulings that give the government far wider domestic spying powers under the Patriot Act than intended.

At issue, the lawmakers said, is section 215 of the Patriot Act. The sweeping power, one of the most controversial in the law, allows the secret FISA court to authorize broad warrants for most any type of record, including those held by banks, internet companies, libraries and doctors. The government does not have to show a connection between the items sought under a section 215 warrant and a suspected terrorist or spy: the authorities must assert the documents would be relevant to an investigation. Those who receive such an order are not allowed to tell anyone, ever, that such records were requested.

The senators, in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, wrote:

“We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/declassify-spy-court-rulings/

Read the full letter Senators Wyden and Udall sent to Attorney General Holder at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85512347/Senators-Ron-Wyden-Mark-Udall-Letter-to-Attorney-General-Holder








16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Democratic Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall Attack Obama Administration's Use of Patriot Act (Original Post) Better Believe It Mar 2012 OP
rec SammyWinstonJack Mar 2012 #1
Secret interpretation of laws. Very disconcerting to say the least. neverforget Mar 2012 #2
How many posts before someone says "manufactured outrage"? nt Bonobo Mar 2012 #3
Two? Move along folks .... nothing to see here. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #5
Update: Robb Mar 2012 #4
With any luchk they will have the same teeth they had RE Bush Dragonfli Mar 2012 #6
Are Wyden and Udall noise Mar 2012 #7
You are right any supreme leader is always correct, to question that should be punishable Dragonfli Mar 2012 #8
Why are they coddling terriorists? Why do they hate America and President Obama? Better Believe It Mar 2012 #9
HIgher levels of power? Here's US Government 101 for you... joeybee12 Mar 2012 #10
I believe "noise" is just joking. I hope "noise" is just joking. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #11
Could be...he/she has enough posts to make one think joeybee12 Mar 2012 #12
DU Rec woo me with science Mar 2012 #13
I drove to a restaurant today to celebrate St Patrick's Day. Vattel Mar 2012 #14
But, we are suppose to live in fear and therefore approve of government attacks on our civil rights. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #15
Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #16

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
6. With any luchk they will have the same teeth they had RE Bush
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 02:19 AM
Mar 2012

A sternly worded letter is in order, then business as usual.

noise

(2,392 posts)
7. Are Wyden and Udall
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 02:32 AM
Mar 2012

al Qaeda moles? What is their agenda?

Sorry but I find it bizarre for some grandstanding politicians to question higher levels of power.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
8. You are right any supreme leader is always correct, to question that should be punishable
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 03:26 AM
Mar 2012

by death.

You are quite brilliant, I am so happy you were here to enlighten me

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
10. HIgher levels of power? Here's US Government 101 for you...
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:20 AM
Mar 2012

There are three branches...executive, congress and the supreme court...NONE is higher than the other.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
11. I believe "noise" is just joking. I hope "noise" is just joking.
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 10:29 AM
Mar 2012

Please tell me you were joking "noise".
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
14. I drove to a restaurant today to celebrate St Patrick's Day.
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 07:29 PM
Mar 2012

I took a risk. Fatal car accidents do happen. I take lost of risks. I sure as hell am willing to incur a very slightly increased risk of being the victim of terrorism so that I don't have to feel like I'm living in fucking East Germany. I sure as hell am willing to take an ever so slight risk of being the victim of some Al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan so that in attacking him innocent bystanders aren't killed as collateral damage. I mean what the fuck? Does the goddamn federal government think we are all fucking cowards whose highest value is physcial security? Fuck warrantless surveillance. Fuck collateral damage. Fuck indefinite detention. We can take a few risks for the sake of upholding values. That makes life more worth living than being a fucking coward.

 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
15. But, we are suppose to live in fear and therefore approve of government attacks on our civil rights.
Sat Mar 17, 2012, 07:45 PM
Mar 2012

That's allegedly the only way the government can protect us from terrorist bombers.

Better we lose all of our Constitutional rights than a single person to a terrorist bomb.

That's the real meaning and political bottom line of those who are pushing the destruction of our rights.

Yet soldiers are sent abroad to supposedly fight and die for those very same rights!

Response to Better Believe It (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democratic Senators Ron W...