Skip to main content

View Diary: The Senate is broken when it comes to oversight, too (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yep, I know, however (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, sceptical observer, kurt
    Mary Wheeler

     And so, because the supreme court approved the collection of one robber's phone records in 1979, Mueller insisted, it meant it was reasonable for FBI and NSA to collect and aggregate the phone records for every American today and for ever.

    Mueller even used the same reasoning to address a question from Californian congresswoman Zoe Lofgren about whether it was appropriate for Department of Justice to subpoena the call records of a phone in the congressional press office during the AP leak investigation. Lofgren was upset that those records would have revealed conversations between the press and members of Congress – an infringement of the first amendment, but also of Congress's protection under the constitution's "speech and debate" clause.

    Because it was just metadata, Mueller proposed, collecting that data didn't cross the line of appropriateness.

    New York Representative Jerry Nadler wasn't convinced Mueller's excuse was good enough. He noted that metadata includes so much more information than it did in 1979, and that that earlier ruling might not stand in this case. Utah's Jason Chaffetz got much more specific about the difference between phones in 1979 and now: location.

    Wheeler's arguments and analysis continues. It's a good read.

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 02:42:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site