FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Feinstein Reform Formula

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It’s clear that Feinstein thinks that if you’re going to legalize bulk collection you’ve got to claim to be banning it.

Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute, Oct 31, 2013

Commentators should not be surprised.  The public should not be surprised.  Students of Congress’ venal and sometimes vacuous antics should not be surprised.  But Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Intelligence Committee was always going to make good her promise to reform NSA practices while not reforming them at all.

So what does this very rough jewel of reform, the FISA Improvements Act of 2013, supposedly do?  First, the candyfloss: making the NSA issue public reports about how often it consults and questions its databases; opening the FISA court process to greater involvement from external advocates by way of amicus briefs.  The NSA will also report to Congress on significant FISA court opinions, though this will only come in the form of summaries.  The full decisions will not be released.

Where the bill is an abysmal failure is the area most people have an interest in: the issue of bulk collection of calls and its presumptive violation of privacy.  A reading of the bill suggests that it does prohibit bulk collection (section 2 (a)(i)) only to then explain extensively the various supplemental procedures that authorise the government to retain bulk records.  As Adam Serwer noted, “The Senate intelligence committee just gave the National Security Agency the best bill it could have asked for” (MSNBC, Oct 31).

Feinstein’s own statement is revealing about this double play.  First, the program is legal and justified.  “The NSA call-records program is legal and subject to extensive congressional and judicial oversight.”  The underlying message here is that reforming what is legal to begin with is hardly necessary.  Then, she claims that “more can and should be done to increase transparency and build public support for privacy protections in place.”  This is Feinstein’s Halloween gift to the American public, the song and dance routine on reform that ends with the status quo triumphant.

In June, it was revealed that the NSA had used a rather elastic interpretation of s. 215 some six years ago to engage on massive surveillance and gathering of every phone record in the United States.  The provision had found its way into the Patriot Act in 2006 to authorise the use of secret warrants to gather virtually any type of “tangible” record.  An unconstitutional program that commenced in 2001 was thereby expanded.  As Trevor Timm of the Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, “This is not an NSA reform bill, it’s an NSA entrenchment bill” (EFF, Oct 31).

According to Michelle Richardson of the ACLU, “I think they want to create a veneer of oversight and privacy without substantively changing the programs, and you just can’t do that.”  Unfortunately, Feinstein thinks she can.   In other words, the operative nature of s. 215 is that it can only be used if the rules are complied with, thereby allowing the codification of an insidious practice.

This peculiarity in legislation has precedent.  A way of targeting a practice deemed inappropriate, if not patently illegal, is to legalise it.  It is, in fact, one of the oldest rules in the book of legislation.  Since surveillance is habitual, the collection of data on US citizens and non-citizens constant despite calls to the contrary, why not regulate it by congressional fiat?

This is reminiscent of the argument on torture warrants trotted out by a somewhat blunted Alan Dershowitz when water boarding by US agents became all the rage: torture might be illegal under US and international law but it is unavoidable.  States and their agents can’t help themselves when confronted with terror suspects.  Hence the need to regulate it via the judicial process.  The only catch here is that no such process can ever be regulated.  The emphasis must always be on absolute prohibition.  Such laws cannot be picked, chewed and adjusted.  Elasticity has no part to play in freedoms that should otherwise be indivisible.

The lawmakers on the Hill were always going to be divided on the subject of how to go forth “reforming” the NSA.  Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy and Republic Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner are of the view that manic bulk gathering of data is an unjustified violation of privacy.  Their own version of reform – the Leahy-Sensenbrenner bill, is also on the cards and will do battle with Feinstein’s version.  The two senators on the Intelligence Committee who might have made a difference – Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Colorado Democratic Senator Mark Udall – were outgunned in the committee, which fittingly held their meeting in hermetic, closed session.  The bill passed 11-4.

Udall’s statement on Thursday was clear.  “The NSA’s ongoing, invasive surveillance of Americans’ private information does not respect our constitutional values and needs fundamental reform – not incidental changes.”  In the reform wars over the NSA, there is little doubt that the information gatherers and their backers have drawn first blood.  But the days and battles promise to be long on this subject.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail