5 ms·

The sourcing is "current and former administration and congressional officials". As with the New York Times article on the FISA Court's secret body of law, it'

by jdp23 13y ago

The sourcing is "current and former administration and congressional officials". As with the New York Times article on the FISA Court's secret body of law, it's interesting to me that people are discussing this with the press. Are the current administration officials talking with permission? In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling.... Two senators on the Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Mark Udall (D., Colo.), have argued repeatedly that there was a "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. The senators' offices tell the Journal that this new interpretation of the word "relevant" is what they meant.

thwest 13y ago
They could always enter facts into the congressional records with impunity a la Ellsburg and Kucinich
- mpyne 13y ago
  And honestly, I'm not sure why they haven't. I mean, it's not like Oregon wouldn't re-elect if they had a Senator famous for sticking up for civil liberties, and they must be well aware of history and precedent. Are they afraid that the First Lady won't invite them to the Christmas dinner? Perhaps they're afraid they'd get kicked off of the Intelligence Committee and lose what little ability to provide oversight they already have?
ihsw 13y ago
Some congressional representatives are working hard to put an end to mass-surveillance programs, however their options are limited to talking to the media. Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers.
- jdp23 13y ago
  You're right that Wyden and Udall (and earlier Feingold) have been working hard on this, and have repeatedly expressed frustration about what they can't discuss. So it's good to see their offices now feel they can confirm that this is what they were getting at. But what I was calling attention to is the "current and former administration officials", similar to Eric Lichtblau's NY Times description of the people who had seen the FISA court orders. If they're talking with permission, it's a decision by the administration to have a little more transparency (either as spin or because they really believe their rhetoric that the American people will approve once they have the facts). If not, then it's new people taking whistleblower-like actions. Either way, interesting. EDIT: Orin Kerr speculated about Lichtblau's story: I would guess that this leak coming from “current and former officials” is an authorized leak designed to see if revealing some information will take the pressure off to reveal more. If I’m right, we’ll see if it works, or if this leak only creates more pressure to release the opinions or at least reveal more about them. http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-the-secret-fourth-amendment-rulings-of-the-fisa-court/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-t...
  - roc 13y ago
    "anonymous leaks" are not transparency.
- chez17 13y ago
  >Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers. Saying things like this only serves to validate the action. They are elected to serve the people, if they choose to be a terrible person and throw millions of people under the bus for personal gain, then lets call them on it. Call them a terrible person, don't let them off the hook with "they might lose their job".
  - mrt0mat0 13y ago
    i think that it's beyond that. I think that someone suggested the idea of limited elections. People make careers out of being politicians, and that wasn't the intent. If they can only be in a political position for a limited time, they would then be likely to focus on their lives outside of the government, and hopefully consider what the laws they pass will do to their lives after they are done "serving"

by jdp23 13y ago

thwest 13y ago

They could always enter facts into the congressional records with impunity a la Ellsburg and Kucinich

mpyne 13y ago
And honestly, I'm not sure why they haven't. I mean, it's not like Oregon wouldn't re-elect if they had a Senator famous for sticking up for civil liberties, and they must be well aware of history and precedent. Are they afraid that the First Lady won't invite them to the Christmas dinner? Perhaps they're afraid they'd get kicked off of the Intelligence Committee and lose what little ability to provide oversight they already have?

ihsw 13y ago

Some congressional representatives are working hard to put an end to mass-surveillance programs, however their options are limited to talking to the media. Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers.

jdp23 13y ago
You're right that Wyden and Udall (and earlier Feingold) have been working hard on this, and have repeatedly expressed frustration about what they can't discuss. So it's good to see their offices now feel they can confirm that this is what they were getting at. But what I was calling attention to is the "current and former administration officials", similar to Eric Lichtblau's NY Times description of the people who had seen the FISA court orders. If they're talking with permission, it's a decision by the administration to have a little more transparency (either as spin or because they really believe their rhetoric that the American people will approve once they have the facts). If not, then it's new people taking whistleblower-like actions. Either way, interesting. EDIT: Orin Kerr speculated about Lichtblau's story: I would guess that this leak coming from “current and former officials” is an authorized leak designed to see if revealing some information will take the pressure off to reveal more. If I’m right, we’ll see if it works, or if this leak only creates more pressure to release the opinions or at least reveal more about them. http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-the-secret-fourth-amendment-rulings-of-the-fisa-court/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-t...
- roc 13y ago
  "anonymous leaks" are not transparency.
chez17 13y ago
>Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers. Saying things like this only serves to validate the action. They are elected to serve the people, if they choose to be a terrible person and throw millions of people under the bus for personal gain, then lets call them on it. Call them a terrible person, don't let them off the hook with "they might lose their job".
- mrt0mat0 13y ago
  i think that it's beyond that. I think that someone suggested the idea of limited elections. People make careers out of being politicians, and that wasn't the intent. If they can only be in a political position for a limited time, they would then be likely to focus on their lives outside of the government, and hopefully consider what the laws they pass will do to their lives after they are done "serving"