Newsweek | - 1 hour ago |
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walks from his office with staff to the
floor of the Senate on May 31, 2015. McConnell called lawmakers back
from recess to debate the expiration of the Patriot Act, which has
divided Congress because of its domestic ...
Opinion
The Patriot Act Is Not Fit for Purpose. Nor Is Its Replacement.
By
Patrick G. Eddington
6/1/15 at 1:28 PM
Mike Theiler/Reuters
Perhaps nowhere on earth is the will to
ignore facts stronger than in America’s Capitol. The ongoing debate over
whether to reauthorize three expired provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act is a perfect case in point. And the proposed reforms in the USA Freedom Act hardly fare better.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and presidential hopeful Senator Marco Rubio have repeated more times than I can count that these Patriot Act provisions are “vital” to preventing another 9/11.
ADVERTISING
But they are objectively wrong. Last month the Department of Justice Inspector General (DoJ IG) released a partially declassified version of a long overdue Patriot Act compliance report.
With respect to Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act, which
encompasses the controversial telephone metadata program as well as a
much larger business records dragnet that just expired, the report found
that, “The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case
developments that resulted from the records obtained in response to
Section 215 orders ... ”
Nearly 14 years of using this provision—which has
swept up tens of millions of records of innocent Americans in the
process—has resulted in zero terrorist plots against America being
uncovered, much less disrupted.
And this applies not simply to the telephone
metadata program exposed by Edward Snowden two years ago, but to every
Sec. 215-related program since the Patriot Act was enacted in October
2001. The DoJ IG report’s findings mirror those of President Obama’s own
Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which
issued its own report over 18 months ago.
This is exactly the same dismal record uncovered by The New York Times’s Charlie Savage with respect to the once-illegal Stellar Wind warrantless
surveillance program initiated by then-NSA Director Michael Hayden
three days after the 9/11 attacks. And both programs have cost millions
to run and to store the personal data of every American who has ever
used a phone, computer, or tablet—a de facto “mass surveillance tax.”
Yet this Patriot Act national security boondoggle
is held up by senior congressional leaders, and even President Obama
himself, as critical to protecting the nation when all available data
says exactly the opposite.
In his weekly address
the day before a fresh Senate debate over renewing the useless
authorities, President Obama engaged in the kind of fear-mongering and
proffering of demonstrable falsehoods we routinely see from
neoconservatives.
“Terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS] aren’t
suddenly going to stop plotting against us at midnight tomorrow,” Obama
said in a statement. “And we shouldn’t surrender the tools that help
keep us safe. It would be irresponsible. It would be reckless. And we
shouldn’t allow it to happen.”
The president and hundreds of members of Congress
in both chambers are supporting the maintenance of mass surveillance
authorities that don’t work, cost millions annually and have been found
either unconstitutional (by one federal district court judge) or illegal (as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in early May).
Obama and many of these same members of Congress,
along with some privacy and civil liberties groups, have spent weeks
claiming that these same illegal and ineffective Patriot Act authorities
can be “reformed” through the House-passed USA Freedom Act. House
sponsors of that bill admit it would simply narrow, not end, the NSA
telephone metadata program.
What the president, Congressional supporters and
outside interest groups have been unable to credibly explain is why
Americans should tolerate even the theoretically reduced level of mass
surveillance offered by the USA Freedom Act.
As Spencer Ackerman of the Guardian noted
in a June 1 story, there is a long, well-documented history of the NSA
and Department of Justice either lying to the courts about the scope of
Patriot Act surveillance or government lawyers engaging in “creative”
interpretations of words like “relevance” to justify the most expansive
interpretation of surveillance powers granted by Congress.
There is no reason to believe that pattern will
change under the USA Freedom Act, assuming it survives the Senate
amendment process now underway, repasses the House and goes to Obama for
his signature.
If mass surveillance is ineffective, expensive and unconstitutional, who actually gains from continuing it?
The telecommunications companies, to take one
example. They get compensated for complying with government orders
issued under the USA Freedom Act, and will claim to their customers and
investors that their support of USA Freedom Act proves they are
“pro-privacy” and not simply corporate extensions of the NSA.
The National Security State
contractors also benefit. They get paid to help the NSA and the FBI
store your personal communications. The extension of these Patriot Act
authorities through 2019 means support contracts will be assured of
government funding.
And last but not least, the politicians who chose
to vote to continue mass surveillance in the name of “protecting
national security”—the same mass surveillance programs that failed to
detect or stop the “shoe bomber,” the “underwear bomber,” the Ft. Hood
shooter, the Tsarnaev brothers or the Garland, Texas would-be shooters.
They benefit too.
Real Patriot Act “reform” should substantively bar
the government from indiscriminate bulk surveillance. Anything less
risks laying the groundwork for another decade of abuse.
Patrick G. Eddington is a policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute.
Related
-
Final Senate passage of the Patriot Act was delayed until...end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment