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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Wyden tried to warn us in 2011.
Were getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says, Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. When youve got that kind of a gap, youre going to have a problem on your hands.http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/
I miss Russ Feingold.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1156 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (18)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ron Wyden tried to warn us in 2011. (Original Post)
ForgoTheConsequence
Jun 2013
OP
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,678 posts)1. I miss him too. What a loss he was...
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)2. Wyden didn't try to warn us...
...he warned us. We just tried not to listen.
It is fair to say that the business-records provision is a part of the Patriot Act that I am extremely interested in reforming, Wyden says. I know a fair amount about how its interpreted, and I am going to keep pushing, as I have, to get more information about how the Patriot Act is being interpreted declassified. I think the public has a right to public debate about it.
Thats why Wyden and his colleague Sen. Mark Udall offered an amendment on Tuesday to the Patriot Act reauthorization.
The amendment, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, blasts the administration for secretly reinterpret[ing] public laws and statutes. It would compel the Attorney General to publicly disclose the United States Governments official interpretation of the USA Patriot Act. And, intriguingly, it refers to intelligence-collection authorities embedded in the Patriot Act that the administration briefed the Senate about in February.
Wyden says he cant answer any specific questions about how the government thinks it can use the Patriot Act. That would risk revealing classified information something Wyden considers an abuse of government secrecy. He believes the techniques themselves should stay secret, but the rationale for using their legal use under Patriot ought to be disclosed.
I draw a sharp line between the secret interpretation of the law, which I believe is a growing problem, and protecting operations and methods in the intelligence area, which have to be protected, he says.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)3. A+
........
dkf
(37,305 posts)4. "impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say..."
For several years, two Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, have been cryptically warning that the government was interpreting its surveillance powers under that section of the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming to the public if it knew about it.
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, they wrote last year in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
They added: 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 doesnt know what its government thinks the law says.
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, they wrote last year in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
They added: 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 doesnt know what its government thinks the law says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?_r=2&
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)5. This is frightening.
And sad. But somehow I doubt anyone will speak up. Anymore if you stand up for civil liberties you're lumped in with Ron Paul supporting nutcases.
villager
(26,001 posts)6. You want 4th Amendment protection!? What's a matter, you want Sarah Palin to be President!?
n/t