The GOP never misses an opportunity to scaremonger, and this time they're centering their authoritarian bona fides on the Senate version of the USA Freedom Act. The legislation is rather tame, in my opinion, compared to what is needed to rein in the NSA and other intelligence agencies in their ill-conceived quest to capture every byte of electronic information in the world.
Critics of a proposal to reform the National Security Agency (NSA) say the rising of terrorism in the Middle East should give lawmakers pause as they consider harnessing the government’s spy powers.
The bill from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) would handicap American intelligence officials at a crucial moment, they say, and make it harder to track terrorists around the globe.
Supporters of the bill — including top legal and intelligence officials in the Obama administration — deny that it would hamper the country’s ability to track groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They say that it’s a practical response to the uproar over the NSA programs that were exposed by Edward Snowden last summer.
The persistent opposition to the Senate version of the
USA Freedom Act (pdf) also known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Discipline over Monitoring Act" could become an obstacle to its passage.
According to the usual suspects, the rising threat of terrorism in the Middle East should make supporters of the bill reconsider restricting the government's surveillance powers. Critics claim the bill would handicap American intelligence efforts at a critical moment, making it more difficult to track terrorists around the world.
“If you want to take away the ability to monitor ISIS, then you eliminate the tools that are eliminated in the Leahy bill,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Hill this week. “I can’t imagine anybody wanting to do that.
Of course, Chambliss wasn't alone. More scaremongers below.
The Hill has the story: Senators: Curbing NSA could help ISIS
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of both the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees, said that Leahy’s legislation would “absolutely” undercut the nation’s ability to track terrorists.
“I’m always sensitive to protecting people’s privacy expectations and privacy rights, but I’m also concerned about eroding our capability to gather actionable intelligence that allows us to prevent attacks and take on our enemies,” he said.
And of course, the grumpy old man who shakes fist at clouds had to weigh in as well.
Still, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — who said there was “no consensus” in favor of the bill — predicted that the congressional support would start to fall off as the Obama administration’s campaign against ISIS mounts.
“I think you’ll see support for it diminish,” he said.
Supporters of the legislation dismissed that notion.
Top legal and intelligence officials in the Obama administration support the bill, which is a clear indication that the bill doesn't go far enough. But it is a start. And, in my view, it's better than the
House version.
Leahy and other supporters this week dismissed concerns that the rise of ISIS could derail the USA Freedom Act.
“We’re always going to face threats,” Leahy told The Hill. “The biggest one we can face is the threat to our own liberties and our own privacy.”
“We’ll pass the Freedom Act,” he added.
Still, the strong resistance does not bode well for the future of the USA Freedom Act, especially since the bill is already contending with a jam-packed schedule for floor time.
“I think it’s certainly going to put a hitch in the step of some people sitting on the fence, not knowing whether they want to vote for the Leahy bill or not,” said Gary Schmitt, a former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer and current co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s security studies center.
“I suspect that [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid’s [D-Nev.] not going to put forward a bill that might take a lot more floor time than he’s got,” he added.
The best part of the Senate version is that it would call for a team of privacy advocates to argue positions in favor of privacy and civil liberties to the secret FISC, which, as it stands now, only hears arguments from the government. It would also add provisions to allow tech companies to disclose requests from the government to the public.
Even Senator Feinstein said the reform doesn't need to undercut the intelligence agencies' work, saying that reform could happen without hampering them.
Other supporters do include a few GOP Senate members like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. But it's mostly Democrats, privacy advocates and tech companies pushing for reform.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) — a strong backer of the House’s version of the bill — said the suggestion that it could be delayed by the ISIS campaign was “a nonsense comment.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a co-sponsor of Leahy’s bill, said that the ISIS threat could actually spur movement on the legislation.
“The argument I’d made is I think there’s a strong argument that these reforms actually provide more legal fiber and support for a more robust and targeted intelligence and surveillance operation, because they strengthen public support and confidence,” he said. “And there’s nothing about these reforms that detracts from surveillance.”
Well said, Senator.
A full list of the bill's supporters outside government can be found here.
Here's a petition from Demand Progress.