Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
I guess I am a little naïve, but I was shocked to read that the Obama Administration has a secret legal interpretation of the Patriot Act that is so large in its scope that some Senators consider it a whole new law! “Two Senators have been warning for months that the government has a secret legal interpretation of the Patriot Act so broad that it amounts to an entirely different law — one that gives the feds massive domestic surveillance powers, and keeps the rest of us in the dark about the snooping.
“There is a significant discrepancy between what most Americans – including many members of Congress – think the Patriot Act allows the government to do and how government officials interpret that same law,” wrote the Senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall. “We believe that most members of the American public would be very surprised to learn how federal surveillance law is being interpreted in secret.” The Senators tried to get the government to reveal some of the law’s contents, by forcing the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to produce a report outlining when this secret surveillance has gone overboard. Yesterday, the effort failed. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said no to the report by rejecting Wyden and Udall’s amendment to the FY2012 Intelligence Authorization Act.” Crooks and Liars
If two Democratic Senators cannot convince a Democratically controlled Select Committee to accept their amendment, all hell has broken loose and pigs can now fly. If you think about it, as long as any government agency can keep their interpretation of a law secret, it amounts to a completely independent legislature that does not answer to the American people. Senator Wyden gave an interview in May of this year and he addressed this very subject.
“Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently. “We’re 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 you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.” Wired.com
Kudos are in order for Senators Udall and Wyden for bringing this discussion into the open. However it amazes me that Democrats in the Senate would allow an interpretation of a law be kept as a secret. Especially when that double secret interpretation hides the true meaning of how the government is allowed to spy on us all. In these times of severe fracture within the Legislature, it seems that one of the few agreements that made it out of Washington is one that holds the American people in the dark and prevents the truth from reaching our ears. It is time for Congress to understand that Americans want to know how this Administration and any Administration is interpreting the law. We are not asking them to disclose State Secrets, just the definitions of how the public law is interpreted by the Obama Administration.
Happy Birthday Mr. President, but it is time to come clean on this double secret probation that you have us under!
Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
I have not believed that we live in a democracy, a free society, in a long time and this is just another sign that we live in a totalitarian state. A poster above asked ‘how do you implement secret laws’? With secret courts. With secret police. When the country established a second track of courts and laws and language for ‘foreigner’s’ did anyone really think that would not migrate to the population in general and be rubbed-stamped by our Congress?
Folks, the Soviet system didn’t fall, it just moved to greener pastures.
Various matters
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon, 8/3/2011
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/03/various_matters/index.html
(3) In other news from The Most Transparent Administration Ever, the Senate Intelligence Committee — led by Dianne Feintsein — refused to compel the Obama administration to disclose its interpretation of the Patriot Act and, specifically, the domestic surveillance powers it exercises under that law. Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall tried to compel disclosure of the administration’s interpretation of that law on the ground that it so severely departs from the public’s (and Congress’) understanding of that statute that it amounts, in Wyden’s words, to a “secret law, a secret Patriot Act.” As Obama’s own chosen (but never confirmed) OLC Chief Dawn Johnsen repetaedly argued, “secret laws” — where the Executive Branch refuses even to disclose how it is interpreting a Congressional statute — were one of the most anti-democratic abuses of the Bush years. Yet here it flourishes. The Intelligence Committee also refused to compel the Obama administration to estimate how many Americans have been subjected to electronic surveillance under the 2008 FISA Amendments Act supported by then-Senator Obama.
Thankfully Obama is moving to ban war criminals from entering the U.S. Given that he’s refused to go after any torturers, sorry enhanced interrogators by “looking forward not back,” I guess his position is that we have enough here already. Something tells me that their definition of what constitutes a war crime for this purpose will be lot narrower than the definition Yoo used, and almost got denied tenure for. American exceptionalism worked out quite nicely for Yoo in this context, from “when the President does it, it’s not a crime” to “when an American does it, it’s not a war crime” so he need not fear being denied entry at the border by his fellow Constitutional scholar Obama. We’ve moved from Thomas Paine’s “In America, the law is King” to “In America the King’s lawyer is above the law” and, once again, the King is the Law. The fact that the King deems that we can’t be trusted to read his interpretation of the law demonstrates how mainstream this once radical theory has become.
The Patriotic Act is what happens when policy is dictated by fear rather than reason. Fear causes people to trade freedom for security, and once power is conferred, it is not willingly relinquished. It is a mistake to rely on the perceived benevolence of a particular government because that government will change. It is a mistake to rely on a sunset clause in a statute because powerful interests quickly form to prevent the sun from ever setting by convincing us that our fears were justified in the first place and that the threats that induced our surrender are now even worse.
I have given up the hope that we will elect reasonable people to govern. I would be willing to settle simply for people who are not afraid.
Bob, Esq.,
Great quote and too true!
Mike,
Can’t we find any other law firm in the country to handle this??
I can guarantee this … anon nurse will not be surprised … she has been warning us for months
The CIA has us all exactly where they want us
Not sure why you are surprised the dems “would allow an interpretation of a law be kept as a secret.” The democrats showed that even when they had the majority they were a bunch of spineless jellyfish. This debt ceiling fandango sealed the deal on the dems. I am ashamed of them.
Carol Levy
apainedlife.blogspot.com/
@Anonymously Yours – “If it is “classified” how can it be enforced and how can any judge sign a blank warrant? This makes no sense…. How can you enforce what you don’t know to enforce?”
“We’ll know what’s in it, when we pass it.” Oh wait, that’s DemObamacare. But since this is a secret law, there’s only one court that can handle it – yup, a “secret” court – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
I’m not worried. I have it on good authority that the secret interpretations are buttressed by solidly researched opinions by the firm of Addington & Yoo.
“What right did they have?”
“Catch-22. […] Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing. […] What does it mean, Catch-22? What is Catch-22?”
“Didn’t they show it to you?” Yossarian demanded, stamping about in anger and distress. “Didn’t you even make them read it?”
“They don’t have to show us Catch-22,” the old woman answered. “The law says they don’t have to.”
“What law says they don’t have to?”
“Catch-22.”
Great quote Mespo. And so true.
“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.”
~Oscar Wilde
I always had the impression that the purpose of the Patriot Act, was simply to tell all Americans that we are terrorists (that’s right all of us), until we are told otherwise by dear leader..
This sounds like the evil spawn of the “signing statement” run amok. So, now in lawless America we learn that “The Trial” (1925) by Franz Kafka is not a novel, but a prediction- and we have all become Joseph K.
The good news is that we are no longer lawless. The bad news is that we are forbidden to know what the laws are.
With this mindset and the use of computers, it’s only a matter of time until we drag a person into court and instantly create a law to fit the circumstances of each particular “crime”. Or, simplify the process by sending each defendant in front of Judge Nancy Grace.
Elaine,
Great video clip! It is scary to see Sen. Wyden discuss his concerns. If he is worried and he has seen the “secret interpretation”, then we should all be worried.
rafflaw,
Countdown with Keith Olbermann 08-03-2011 4 – Spies Like U.S. with Ron Wyden
If it is “classified” how can it be enforced and how can any judge sign a blank warrant? This makes no sense…. How can you enforce what you don’t know to enforce?
Raff, I suggest the labe be amended to reflect the following….”Am I nuts or does the executive office have them”
“However it amazes me that Democrats in the Senate would allow an interpretation of a law be kept as a secret.”
___________
I agree rafflaw. Regardless of our different party affiliations—up until lately—I considered Democrats to be the most transparent regarding governmental functions. Now, as others have suggested before me, there are no longer 2 distinct political parties in America.
Sounds as though the “Ghost of Nixon” has arisen from it’s grave, though with a much larger enemies list. And who will play the parts of Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell & Dean? Daley, Holder, Barnes and Reummler, aided and abetted by Reid and Pelosi?
Rafflaw:
when they passed it I wasnt worried about Bush abusing it but some future president using it. I was thinking of Hilary Clinton. But Obama will do.
This was not unexpected in the least. People like Obama are all about the use of force to implement their world views.
I would abolish that evil law if I could, it was made for abuse and the stupid politicians who voted for it should have been thrown out of office and then thrown in jail.
Thank you for posting this article, it shows you are a man of integrity.