While Congress Looks Set To Push Back On NSA Surveillance, Sen. Feinstein Wants To Codify Current Practices

from the of-course-she-does dept

At this point, it's no secret that Senator Dianne Feinstein is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the NSA -- she exhibits the signs of a co-dependent with the NSA. Now, with a powerful coalition in Congress getting set to introduce meaningful reform to limit the NSA's efforts, Feinstein is going in the other direction, preparing a counter-attack bill that serves to codify current practices:
"I do not want to leave the United States in a position where we are open to another major attack because we can't ferret out who terrorists might be calling in this country to put it together," Feinstein said in an interview.

Her committee is drafting legislation to codify the phone records program, the existence of which was leaked in June by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. The legislation would grant the agency explicit authority to gather records listing the numbers, duration and time of all U.S. telephone calls, but not their content.
Of course, since the very beginning of this, Feinstein has been insisting at every opportunity that everything done was perfectly legal. If that's truly the case, why would she need to "codify" current practices? The political reality is that she needs to do this to have "something" to push people to support instead of the USA Freedom Act being supported by Senator Patrick Leahy. Basically, these two bills are likely to be a referendum on who believes in the 4th Amendment, and who thinks the US should cower in fear and spy on everyone.

Filed Under: dianne feinstein, nsa, nsa surveillance, pat leahy


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 11:13am

    Of course, since the very beginning of this, Feinstein has been insisting at every opportunity that everything done was perfectly legal. If that's truly the case, why would she need to "codify" current practices?

    The way I understand it, she's been insisting that it's legal under a (by her standards) reasonable interpretation of existing law - but what she's trying to do by codifying it is make it explicitly legal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.

    It's the same thing as Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing. He says it's illegal under existing law (which he wrote in the first place), but people have interpreted existing law to say it's legal - so he's trying to make it explicitly illegal, so that no interpretation to the contrary has a leg to stand on.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.