Do you support Senator Leahy's Patriot Act/FISA reform bill?

[ProSense]

The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013

June 26, 2013

For Background Purposes

Public revelations about two classified data collection programs have brought renewed attention to the powerful Government surveillance authorities contained in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), particularly the impact on law-abiding Americans of provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Director of National Intelligence has acknowledged that they are being conducted pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT and Section 702 of FISA. The FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act of 2013 will improve the privacy protections and accountability provisions associated with these authorities, and also strengthen oversight and transparency with regard to other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. Summarized below are some of the highlights of the bill’s provisions:

New and Shorter Sunset Provisions to Ensure Proper Oversight

• Shortens the sunset for the FISA Amendments Act from December 2017 to June 2015. The June 2015 sunset would align with expiring USA PATRIOT Act provisions, and enable Congress to address these FISA provisions all at once, instead of in a piecemeal fashion.
  
  
• Adds new June 2015 sunsets on statutes authorizing use of National Security Letters (NSLs).

Higher Standards for PATRIOT Act Surveillance Authorities

• Elevates the threshold standard for obtaining records through Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group.
  
  
• Requires that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approve minimization procedures for data collected under Section 215.
  
  
• Requires the government to provide a statement of the facts and circumstances to justify its belief that the Section 215 records for tangible things, or Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices (PR/TT) sought are relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information.
  
  
• Strikes the one-year waiting period before a recipient can challenge a nondisclosure order for Section 215 orders and strikes the conclusive presumption in favor of the government on nondisclosure.
  
  
• Requires the FBI to retain an internal statement of facts demonstrating the relevance of information sought to its investigation before it can issue a National Security Letter (NSL).
  
  
• For “roving” wiretaps, requires law enforcement to identify “with particularity” the target of a wiretap request under FISA.

Increased Transparency and Public Reporting

• Expands public reporting on the use of National Security Letters and authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including an unclassified report on the impact of the use of these authorities on the privacy of United States persons.
  
  
• Fixes a constitutional deficiency found by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe v. Mukasey by shifting the burden to the government to seek a court order for an NSL non-disclosure order, and allows the recipient of such a non-disclosure order to challenge it at any time.

Increased Judicial Review and Inspector General Oversight

• Requires Inspector General audits on the use of Section 215 orders, NSLs, and other surveillance authorities under the USA PATRIOT Act.
  
  
• Provides for a comprehensive review of FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) surveillance by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG).
  
  
• Clarifies the scope of the annual reviews for Section 702 currently required by the law, in order to cover all agencies that have targeting or minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court.

http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/the-fisa-accountability-and-privacy-protection-act-of-2013

The co-sponsors include Senators Richard Blumenthal, Jon Tester, Mark Udall and Ron Wyden.

[Savannahmann]

1. You know, this would have gone better from someone else.

After all, your position has been pretty clear, it's all about Greenwald and Snowden and their irrational hatred of President Obama. Your position has been that there is nothing to the FISA story, so asking how people feel about changes to the FISA court, after making sure it was all about the messenger, is a little problematic.

I'm afraid I can't comment until I hear it from an acceptable source. Sorry.

[cali]

2. +1

I don't know if you consider me an acceptable source, but here's a link to one of my posts about the FISA Accountability and Privacy Protection Act.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023133397

[ProSense]

7. LOL! Yeah, that went over well.

[ProSense]

14. Of course,

"it neither went over well or badly but your comment is just a wee bit odd considering that the post a responded to is one that slams you and holds you in clear contempt. "

...personal attacks are right up your alley.

[cali]

15. pot meet kettle. and I didn't pen that.

perhaps you shouldn't have posted the personal attack on me in this thread. Pretty clear that YOU attack me and I responded reminding you that mocking me was a bit odd in this context.

[ProSense]

21. No

...this is not "pot meet kettle": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans

[ProSense]

24. Transparency

DU Mail Message from cali

5:54 PM

cali

ignore

I'm putting you on ignore. I don't consider any of your ops to be anything more or less than propaganda and therefore of little value and our exchanges are petty and pointless. at least I know when I've made a personal attack. you seem to be totally clueless about it- and you do it incessantly.

bye bye and what a relief.

oh, don't bother responding. I'm blocking you.

Don't send me PMs.

[Cirque du So-What]

32. Last tag!

That means you're 'it' forever

[Cha]

36. Jury results

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Publishing private messages in a thread? Really? C'mon, mods, this personal stuff has gone way too far. It is alienating readers. If I may be blunt, it's time to tell them to knock it the fuck off.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:37 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.


Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said:

Why is this wrong to do? I'm failing to see how this meets the standard for hiding threads.

Leave it.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The pompous person who sent this PM wants transparency.. I say give it to them.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sounds like these two have a personal issue. It is good that someone finally used ignore I suggest the other do the same.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Meh, DUers tell each other that they are putting someone on Ignore all the time. Just because this is a PM I don't see why this post needs to he hidden.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[ProSense]

38. Thanks. n/t

[Cha]

41. Sorry, I didn't think it posted so I did it again.. I think

we get the picture with just the one.. so I eliminate the other.

[Whisp]

37. o gawd.

Honest, this is like kindergarten here sometimes.

How do people survive in the real world when punching keys is too much to handle. Everyone can get their goat taken once in a while, but some people here are in attack overdrive constantly - and usually those attacks are toward DU members that support Obama.

I have rarely, if ever, seen Prosense on the attack without provocation - it's always in defense of all the ugly shit thrown at her - but if she defends herself then she's the baddie.

What horseshit.

If I get a puppy or kitten in the next while, I'm going to name it Prosense. And treat it real nice.

[ProSense]

40. Oh no,

"If I get a puppy or kitten in the next while, I'm going to name it Prosense. And treat it real nice. "

...that's really sweet and...

[Cha]

46. ...

[Cha]

39. Sorry, it posted twice..

[Number23]

56. I would consider it a blessing, if I were you.

[JaneyVee]

5. You don't consider the link she provided to be an acceptable source?

[ProSense]

8. LOL! n/t

[freshwest]

44. Or are Democratic Senators Leahy, Blumenthal, Tester, Udall and Wyden not acceptable here?

Last edited Mon Jul 1, 2013, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Anyone know where I can find and discuss Democratic lawmakers and officials and actions that match the Democratic Party platform?



http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=101962

Uh, yeah, that old thing. I found a few websites. I need to find a person to talk to about this stuff!

http://www.politicususa.com/

https://www.dscc.org/

http://democratsforprogress.com/forum/

https://www.dscc.org/-/support-obama?action_KEY=727&track=SEM_GS_Evergreen13-S_Party_31970035892

http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Political+Bodies/Democratic+Party

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic

If another party is bigger on equality and can get the job done, somone needs to post a link for that. To show which politicans and political parties are acceptable.

[ProSense]

6. Wow,

"You know, this would have gone better from someone else. After all, your position has been pretty clear, it's all about Greenwald and Snowden and their irrational hatred of President Obama. Your position has been that there is nothing to the FISA story, so asking how people feel about changes to the FISA court, after making sure it was all about the messenger, is a little problematic.

I'm afraid I can't comment until I hear it from an acceptable source. Sorry."

...does that mean you support the bill?

I posted it here originally: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3126302

Notice how the OP I responded to sank like a rock?

Your theory is obfuscation and a big FAIL.

[arely staircase]

49. We have too many rw libertarians masquerading as liberals/progressives on this site

seriously.

I'm not talking about anyone specifically, of course.

[Savannahmann]

51. No, I was pointing out the substance of your posts on the issue

I was pointing out that for the entire discussion you have in essence ignored the meat of the story, instead focusing on Snowden and Greenwald in an effort to make the story about them. I was pointing out that many of your posts discussed how awful Snowden was for harming our intelligence gathering, and causing diplomatic problems with his theft of the information. For you, it was all about the messenger, over the message.

Hardly a fail, and hardly obfuscation. I wonder when I'll be the problem as to why the legislation isn't doing more?

[treestar]

17. Bullshit

We all have a right to discuss this proposed legislation, regardless of prior positions on the issue. What a disgusting post.

[ucrdem]

47. Try to get over it. nt

[sibelian]

3. ....."Elevates the threshold standard for obtaining records....

.... through Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act by requiring the government to show relevance to an authorized investigation and a link to one of three categories of a foreign agent, power, or group...."

[Lady Freedom Returns]

4. There is only one reason they are doing this, any of those in Congress.

They want to use this to hide how bad they are hurting the poor in America.

To react to shock and awe 'news' is a safe way to hide what they are doing. It is also something they can do and not rock the boat when it comes to the corp. donations that are still, in one form or the other, going on.

We somehow ended up putting in 'republican lites' instead of Democrats into Congress. What we need is real Dem. Congress to push for higher taxes on the upper echelon, bring back the WPA, stop cutting public programs, the list as we know goes on.

Till them we get a Congress that does thing like this to cover up the destruction they are doing.

[cali]

10. oh please. this is just the newest iteration that Senator Leahy has introduced

he's been introducing this kind of legislation for over a decade.

Furthermore, my Senator has long been an advocate for the poor and working class and has spoken out strongly for raising taxes on the wealthy and for raising the minimum wage.

He authored the standing with minimum wage earners act in 2006 with Kennedy and Harkin.

he's introduced and authored a lot of bills aimed at helping workers.

http://beta.congress.gov/member/patrick-leahy/1383?pageSize=25&Subject_of_Legislation=Labor+and+Employment

And in 38 years in the Senate he hasn't gotten rich off his Senate gig. He's one of the least wealthy Senators.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-assets/member/patrick-leahy/

I have my beefs with Senator Leahy, but you have this all wrong.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

13. He is not doing enough.

He is doing this for shock and awe news and he has been there to long. He needs to go. All of Congress needs to go.

[cali]

18. no, he's not. and if you informed yourself by doing a little research, you'd know that

Did he see this as an advantageous moment to reintroduce such legislation? No doubt, but that's just smart legislating.

And just who are YOU to tell Vermont voters what they should do?

It's less than intelligent to proclaim that every member of Congress needs to go.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

23. One who see the pantry lines growing.

One who sees people in homeless shelters that are doing all kinds of programs that say they will help them get a job and get into a home. Then for those people to find out that the program does not have the funding to do what they say or the program is so outdated it is just a revolving door. It is just there to try and look like something is being done.

A person who has seen whole families living on the street.

A person, thanks to legislation being passed to protect such companies like the insurance companies, lose everything and was not paid for it, even though I paid for 6 years on the plan.

A person that will tell you and everyone in this country that the Congress as it stands right now needs to go!

[cali]

26. one who is on foodstamps (me)

no, Leahy does not need to go and neither does Bernie or Peter. It's just nuts to want to get rid of those who advocate for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the workers.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

33. He is doing stuff for his small area...

to stay in. But he is in the federal part of the Government.

To many in Congress is doing just enough to keep those that vote for them happy, thus sell the rest of us out.

The whole Congress as it sits needs to go. We need people in there that relies they work for the whole country at that level.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. That is just stupid. Leahy is a stalwart defender of civil liberties and social justice.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

31. No, people trying to make a TRAITOR a hero is stupid.

To clean out the Congress as it stand, everyone, is a long overdue need. I don't care if they are R or Dem, new or old, if they are in office now, they need to go.

New blood all they way, every seat!

[cali]

45. oh for fuck's sake. Now Pat Leahy is a traitor? Only in your mind.

tough for you but the likes of YOU, thankfully, have no say whatsofuckingever over what VT voters do.

It's just loony tunes to advocate the shit YOU are advocating.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

52. No, Snowden is the traitor and people are making him a hero.

Congress as it sits just needs to hit the bricks!

[BlueStreak]

9. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

I don't see any terrible ideas in there at first glance, but it doesn't address some of the most fundamental issues. Namely:

1) We need an effective whistle-blower system such that employees don't have to be on a worldwide manhunt just to get out the facts of criminal and unconstitutional practices within our Security Industrial Complex. Foxes guarding the hen house will never work.

2) Our document classification system is a sham. That whole thing needs to have a great deal more scrutiny.

3) It is just wrong to have 4 million Americans with security clearance and nearly a million with TOP secret clearance. That is a direct result of #2. We all acknowledge there are some things that really do have to be secret for the good of the nation. But the number of people who need to know about those things should be measures in the low thousands, not the millions. And it should never be possible for a low-level employee to get to the kind of stuff that Snowden was able to access.

4) We need to get private contractors out of this system, or at least make sure they are subject to all the FOIA and other regulations that would be in effect if they were government agencies. It should never be to the advantage of the Security Industrial Complex to privatize in order to hide things or avoid scrutiny that would come upon government agencies.

So at best, I would say that Leahy's effort is a welcome first step to open the conversation, but much more should be in whatever is passed into law.

[jazzimov]

11. Looks good - THIS is the conversation we should be having!

I would have to read the bill itself. Of course, the Repukes - I mean Republicans - will try to water it down, so I'll have to see what amendments they attach to it, as well. But the blurb looks good. We need to discuss it, instead of the distractions.

[treestar]

16. Sounds very good

And of course it will not be good enough for some people.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. I support ANYTHING that limits the government's ability to surveil its citizens.

This seems to be a start, but no way would it pass as written. Too many republicans are quite happy with a surveillance state.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Too many Republicans,

and too many people masquerading as Democrats, it would seem.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. I guess the real question is, will the white house?

hmmmm... :fingers-crossed:

[whatchamacallit]

25. Lol! +1000

[Comrade Grumpy]

28. This is worth discussing.

Unlike a lot of stuff this poster has been stinking the place up with lately.

I give a tip of the hat to Senator Leahy, although I think this should be only the beginning of a reevaluation of the role of the national surveillance state.

[ProSense]

30. "Unlike a lot of stuff this poster has been stinking the place up with lately. "

That comment smells like roses.

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

This was a decent OP. Some of the others, you're down in Breitbart territory. I encourage more of the former, less of the latter.

[ProSense]

35. Please do

"This was a decent OP. Some of the others, you're down in Breitbart territory. I encourage more of the former, less of the latter."

...get over yourself. Somehow the irony of your silly comments, now accusing me of being in "Breitbart territory" because you don't like my opinion, are pure hypocrisy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

43. +1

[BenzoDia]

29. Sure, yeah. I have no doubt that the potential for abuse is high in the current system.

A little more accountability and transparency is a good thing imo.

[Skip Intro]

42. Two Things:

First, according to Obama, we've already struck the right balance between rights and govt snooping. So what's to fix?

Second, how can we be ready to fix a problem that is still being exposed? How do you craft a real fix for a problem that has yet to be fully defined?

Let's get the whole story, the whole truth, and put some real thought into and have a wide debate over the extent to which we will allow the government to trample our rights.

[arely staircase]

50. well let us know when it's ok nt

[ProSense]

53. Kick! n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

54. K&R

although the whole thing needs to be thrown out. But if they can align it so all of the provisions sunset at once, maybe it will be thrown out completely.

[bunnies]

55. Surprised this thread doesnt have more recs.

Its definitely a step in the right direction.