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

April 25, 2017
Russell Mokhiber
It’s Impossible to Support Single-Payer and Defend Obamacare
Nozomi Hayase
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Robert Fisk
The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him
Giles Longley-Cook
Trump the Gardener
Bill Quigley
Major Challenges of New Orleans Charter Schools Exposed at NAACP Hearing
Jack Random
Little Fingers and Big Egos
Stanley L. Cohen
Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition
Stephen Cooper
Conscientious Justice-Loving Alabamians, Speak Up!
Michael J. Sainato
Did the NRA Play a Role in the Forcing the Resignation of Surgeon General?
David Swanson
The F-35 and the Incinerating Ski Slope
Binoy Kampmark
Mike Pence in Oz
Peter Paul Catterall
Green Nationalism? How the Far Right Could Learn to Love the Environment
George Wuerthner
Range Riders: Making Tom Sawyer Proud
Clancy Sigal
It’s the Pits: the Miner’s Blues
Robert K. Tan
Abe is Taking Japan Back to the Bad Old Fascism
April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail