
Two years later, Senator’s criticism of NSA spying sinks in - eksith
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/two-years-later-senators-criticism-of-nsa-spying-sinks-in/
======
dragontamer
If people want to follow this story, it is imperative for you to follow Wyden
and Udall, and to fully understand the powers of the Senate Intelligence
Committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee was set up in the 70s as a way to
reign in the powers of the Executive Branch, after the abuses that came light
from the Nixon Administration. (Historically, look up the Church Committee for
details on that. There's a lot of history here).

The Senate Intelligence Committee is cleared, has access to all Top Secret
data, and is basically the watchdog of the Intelligence Community. There are
only 15 members on the Committee (8 from the majority party, 7 from the
minority party), so Wyden and Udall consist of 15% of the voting power in
there. Every single bill that affects the intelligence community has to pass
through the Senate Intelligence Committee before it moves to the rest of
Congress.

Wyden's biggest criticism of the intelligence community is the innate
reluctance to declassify data. There is a very strong "overclassification"
culture in agencies, and its at the point where it sniffles debate on this
subject. It would do people good to read up on Wyden's proposals, and to work
with him in the Senate.

He's the "inside man", he's got a TS clearance... he has the power to
investigate the Intelligence Community. (But not leak information, he has to
speak on vague terms of course, because what he talks about is TS
information). And he's been stating his position for years on this subject. If
you want to rally behind someone, its Wyden and Udall. Furthermore, as a
Senator on the Intelligence Committee, he has the power to kill and modify
bills before they even reach debate.

~~~
gizmo686
What do you mean by him not leaking information. Article 1 section 6 of the
constitution gives Congressmen immunity for anything they say in the House.
Gravel v. United States (The Pentagon Papers) established that this immunity
applies to leaking classified information.

Admittedly, using this immunity would require him to officially leak it under
his own name, which likely comes at a significant political cost (could it get
him kicked of the Intelligence Committee?), but legally he is protected.

EDIT: I am aware that him leaking would come at a significant cost and
probably get him kicked off the committee. My point is that he does have the
power to leak, and may decide that the change he can effect by leaking outways
the change he can effect by staying on the committee.

~~~
ceejayoz
The Constitution also protects US citizens from execution without trial. And
yet, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

~~~
rayiner
The constitution grants US citizens "due process." That does not necessarily
mean a trial. If that's what it meant, that's what it would say. The urge to
treat the requirement as a bright line requirement for a trial, regardless of
context, goes against the plain text of the constitution. "Due" is inherently
a context-sensitive word.

The question is: what process is "due" (literally, warranted or owed) to
someone who wages war against the US from lawless regions of Yemen, evading
capture for years? Its not an indefensible position to say "wild west" rules
apply in that situation.

~~~
dragontamer
As much as I appreciate your opinion, I think we all can agree that turning
this into an Anwar Al-Awlaki debate is not going to be beneficial for this
topic at all.

I agree with you... but line of argument is going to open a can of worms I'd
rather not see opened in this debate. This topic should be focused on the
Senate Intelligence Committee.

~~~
rayiner
The problem is that this sort of reasoning poisons every topic. The reason for
bringing up Al Awlaki is basically to say: "if the US government is murdering
Americans in cold blood, what wont't they do?" And at that point debate is
pointless. Okay, the rule of law is dead, let's move to Canada before we get
drone striked for speaking ill of Obama.

~~~
dragontamer
Indeed, but you aren't going to convince ceejayoz on this matter. It isn't
ceejayoz who you want to win over in this fight either, if he's already lost
faith in the rule of law, then it is pointless to try and convince him to do
something productive with the rule of law.

Do you want to get work done? Do you want to see legal change in America?
Well, the way to step forward has already presented itself. Lets work forward,
instead of focusing on tangential issues. I've pointed out the Senators who to
support, and I've introduced the basic lay of the political field.

Focusing on _literally_ dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper
progress. There is a single, clear, resounding message that can be brought to
light here. Champion Wyden and Udall and amplify their message.

PS: Wyden and Udall have been critical of the Drones program as well.

~~~
dllthomas
_" Focusing on literally dead-horse issues like Anwar Al-Awlaki will hamper
progress."_

The "literally" there - and the stressing of it - is rhetoric not argument. If
Obama started assassinating anyone who disagreed, they'd be literally dead
too, but addressing it would be a priority...

------
DanielBMarkham
Some extra information for context:

Here's something I learned in the last week I didn't know: the Senate
Intelligence Committee that Wyden sits on has explicit authority to de-
classify anything it sees fit. All it takes is a majority vote.

Not sure if that's ever happened, or if any senator on the committee has asked
the committee to even vote on declassification. Now might be a good time to
start asking those questions.

Also, as much as the committee is supposed to have access to everything that
is classified, in practice this is not the case, there have been a few cases
where information was only shared from the Executive to the leaders of the
majority party in each legislative body. I believe (but this is wild
speculation) that there have also been cases where individual senators have
asked for material and have been rejected. It's not as if each senator can go
and look at whatever they want.

What's been happening in practice is that these committees are a sieve;
information gets out via political leaks. So there's a big trust problem
between the intelligence agencies and the legislature.

Finally, as much as "National Security" is trotted out as a reason not for
elected representatives to talk to the people, constitutionally I'm not so
sure that the executive can bind the legislature not to talk in any way it
sees fit. What's the president going to do? Start arresting and imprisoning
senators? Not happening. Another case where somebody, anybody just needs to
stand up and do their job.

So there's the way things are constructed to appear, and there's the way
things actually work. It's good to know both.

~~~
dllthomas
_" [C]onstitutionally I'm not so sure that the executive can bind the
legislature not to talk in any way it sees fit."_

Constitutionally, the executive pretty explicitly _can 't_ bind the
legislature with regard to what is said on the floor:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause`](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause`)

~~~
drcube
"...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace,..."

Leaking classified documents is a felony, and potentially could be construed
as treason. Since the executive decides what is or isn't classified, it looks
to me like they clearly _can_ restrict the speech of legislators, regardless
of time or place.

Unless, as was alluded to elsewhere, the Senate Intelligence Committee votes
to declassify those specific topics first.

~~~
dllthomas
Read it again. That clause does not apply to the relevant portion:

 _"...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be
privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their
Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or
Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."_

Facing such charges, they would not "be privileged from Arrest during their
attendance at the Session of their Respective House", but charging them with a
crime seems quite clearly to be "questioning" them for "Speech [...] in either
House" when that crime entailed nothing but disclosure of information in the
record of the respective body.

------
JeremyMorgan
Ron Wyden is awesome. I'm so proud he represents my state. If you look at his
record you'll see he's taken a hard stance on a lot of crucial national
issues, even if he was standing alone at the time.

