3 ms·

I'm sorry, but Jim Sensenbrenner has no room to complain. After the Section 215 warrantless wiretapping program was first revealed back in 2006, he voted for t

I'm sorry, but Jim Sensenbrenner has no room to complain. After the Section 215 warrantless wiretapping program was first revealed back in 2006, he voted for the Protect America Act[1] to legalize it. Then he helped renew it in 2008 by voting for the FISA Amendments Act[2]. After the Snowden leaks began, Sensenbrenner suddenly became opposed to them. Later on in 2013, he admitted publicly that as a rule he avoids attending any classified briefings because he doesn't want to be burdened with the responsibility of protecting classified information and would rather find out about these things when they leak to the mainstream media.[3] So every time NSA came down and briefed the program to the intelligence and judicial committees, Sensenbrenner shirked his oversight responsibilities. Now he wants everyone to believe that he's hard at work protecting their civil liberties. [1] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml [2] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll437.xml [3] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/11/the-shameless-revisionism-of-james-sensenbrenner-georgetown-law-center-edition/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/11/the-shameless-revisionism...

cmurf 11y ago
This is a mischaracterization. For one Protect America Act addresses changes in technology that neither FISA nor AUMF directly address. Two, not section 215, not FISA, not any FISA amendments, and not AUMF permit bulk collection. And it's bulk collection that's in dispute, most Americans have far less of a problem with targeted wiretapping of likely terrorist targets even without warrants. Sensenbrenner, and others, have been quite clear the problem they have with current and previous administrations is the bulk collection policy, that there's no authorization anywhere for this. That Sensenbrenner and others lacked sufficient concern or imagination that section 215 would be wordsmithed and construed to support something like bulk collection is fair criticism. If you are a Congresscritter wanting to have your cake and eat it too, you'd write a vague law that steers completely clear of authorizing what you don't like (bulk collection), and then act shocked when it ends up happening. And I don't think that's a big stretch considering the minority of legislation Congress puts an expiration date on, and section 215 is such, expiring next month. So now the question is whether Congress lacks any stomach for bulk collection and just lets it expire including all of the far less controversial programs (i.e. they're considered legal, even if you may not like the law or the policy). I think at best they renew it as is, and let the full appeals court or SCOTUS look at it. But they might just scrap it and come up with a narrower replacement to reauthorize uncontroversial parts.
- csandreasen 11y ago
  > For one Protect America Act addresses changes in technology that neither FISA nor AUMF directly address. No, you're right; I'll concede that. Both PAA and FAA modify law established through the PATRIOT Act, but neither touch Section 215. I was trying to make a point more about hypocrisy and failure to perform oversight. He voted to amend the PATRIOT Act multiple times after the bulk collection program was publicly disclosed[1], but didn't do anything back then. We shouldn't have to fault him for lack of concern or imagination - he should have been sitting in on the classified briefings. There's no excuse for him to not know about this or any other NSA program that was briefed to the Judicial Committee, and he shouldn't be voting to amend his own law without understanding how it's being applied. He's says now that he's opposed to bulk collection, but he could voiced his support to end to it a decade ago by just doing his job. > just lets it expire including all of the far less controversial programs It's my understanding that only 3 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to sunset: Section 215, Section 206 ("roving wiretaps") and Section 6001 (the 'lone wolf' provision). [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...

cmurf 11y ago

This is a mischaracterization. For one Protect America Act addresses changes in technology that neither FISA nor AUMF directly address. Two, not section 215, not FISA, not any FISA amendments, and not AUMF permit bulk collection. And it's bulk collection that's in dispute, most Americans have far less of a problem with targeted wiretapping of likely terrorist targets even without warrants. Sensenbrenner, and others, have been quite clear the problem they have with current and previous administrations is the bulk collection policy, that there's no authorization anywhere for this. That Sensenbrenner and others lacked sufficient concern or imagination that section 215 would be wordsmithed and construed to support something like bulk collection is fair criticism. If you are a Congresscritter wanting to have your cake and eat it too, you'd write a vague law that steers completely clear of authorizing what you don't like (bulk collection), and then act shocked when it ends up happening. And I don't think that's a big stretch considering the minority of legislation Congress puts an expiration date on, and section 215 is such, expiring next month. So now the question is whether Congress lacks any stomach for bulk collection and just lets it expire including all of the far less controversial programs (i.e. they're considered legal, even if you may not like the law or the policy). I think at best they renew it as is, and let the full appeals court or SCOTUS look at it. But they might just scrap it and come up with a narrower replacement to reauthorize uncontroversial parts.

csandreasen 11y ago
> For one Protect America Act addresses changes in technology that neither FISA nor AUMF directly address. No, you're right; I'll concede that. Both PAA and FAA modify law established through the PATRIOT Act, but neither touch Section 215. I was trying to make a point more about hypocrisy and failure to perform oversight. He voted to amend the PATRIOT Act multiple times after the bulk collection program was publicly disclosed[1], but didn't do anything back then. We shouldn't have to fault him for lack of concern or imagination - he should have been sitting in on the classified briefings. There's no excuse for him to not know about this or any other NSA program that was briefed to the Judicial Committee, and he shouldn't be voting to amend his own law without understanding how it's being applied. He's says now that he's opposed to bulk collection, but he could voiced his support to end to it a decade ago by just doing his job. > just lets it expire including all of the far less controversial programs It's my understanding that only 3 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to sunset: Section 215, Section 206 ("roving wiretaps") and Section 6001 (the 'lone wolf' provision). [1] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns...