Every few days, more details leak from the Senate's $40 million, 6,300 page report on the CIA's torture program. We'd already heard about how the torture program turned up no useful info and how the CIA lied to Congress about it (pretending information gleaned from other places was obtained via torture, when the truth was it wasn't). We've also heard about how the CIA's torture practices went beyond the (already too high) levels approved by the DOJ and CIA leadership. The folks over at McClatchy have another batch of details, repeating the revelation from last week that the report details how the torture program went beyond its "legal authority" and also detailing how it was used on many more people than the CIA has admitted to in the past:

The report also found that the spy agency failed to keep an accurate account of the number of individuals it held, and that it issued erroneous claims about how many it detained and subjected to the controversial interrogation methods. The CIA has said that about 30 detainees underwent the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.

The CIA’s claim “is BS,” said a former U.S. official familiar with evidence underpinning the report, who asked not to be identified because the matter is still classified. “They are trying to minimize the damage. They are trying to say it was a very targeted program, but that’s not the case.”

There are also additional details about how CIA officials tried to mislead practically everyone about all of this. Of particular importance was how the CIA misled the Justice Department, which was in charge of determining if the program was legal. The DOJ did, in fact, approve the use of certain "interrogation methods" (which already seemed way too extreme), but it appears the CIA misled the DOJ about what it was actually doing from the very start:

[Defenders of the CIA's torture program] based their defense on a series of top-secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Department beginning in August 2002. At that time, the agency sought advice on whether using the harsh techniques on Zayn al Abidin Muhammad Husayn, a close aide to Osama bin Laden who went by the nom de guerre Abu Zubaydah, would violate U.S. law against torture.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel found that the methods wouldn’t breach the law because those applying them didn’t have the specific intent of inflicting severe pain or suffering.

The Senate report, however, concluded that the Justice Department’s legal analyses were based on flawed information provided by the CIA, which prevented a proper evaluation of the program’s legality.

“The CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program,” the report found.

All of this seems consistent with earlier reports, but it's good to see more details coming out. Of course, we're still only seeing bits and pieces, which is why it would be better if the full report were released.

In a new interview with Vanity Fair magazine, Ed Snowden seems to be hitting back at nearly every bogus claim made by his critics. He kicks it off by responding to the claims that if he were a real whistleblower, he should have just gone through "official channels." He claims that he did that and nothing happened. In fact, he suggests that Congress ought to ask the NSA about that.

The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.'s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].

How about the silly claim that he took 1.7 million documents? As we've mentioned this number keeps going up. First it was 50,000 documents. Then 70,000. Then 1.5 million. And the latest is 1.7 million. And all of it seems based on a faulty assumption that every document Snowden has ever "touched" he took with him. That is almost certainly false. And, as we've also noted in the past, Snowden has made it clear that he no longer has any of the documents. He reiterated that to Vanity Fair:

Snowden cautions about some of the numbers that investigators have publicized, especially the 1.7 million figure, which, he tells Vanity Fair, is “simply a scare number based on an intentionally crude metric: everything that I ever digitally interacted with in my career.” He adds, “Look at the language officials use in sworn testimony about these records: ‘could have,’ ‘may have,’ ‘potentially.’ They’re prevaricating. Every single one of those officials knows I don’t have 1.7 million files, but what are they going to say? What senior official is going to go in front of Congress and say, ‘We have no idea what he has, because the N.S.A.’s auditing of systems holding hundreds of millions of Americans’ data is so negligent that any high-school dropout can walk out the door with it?’ ”

“I know exactly how many documents I have,” Snowden continues. “Zero.”

There's more in the publicly released summary, and apparently the full story (not yet released) will have even more. Of course, it won't stop the NSA's defenders from making the same old claims again and again without proof.

It would appear that former NSA and CIA boss Michael Hayden has some anger management issues to work out. We thought he was just a little nutty in the past -- calling Snowden's supporters internet shut-ins and insisting that Snowden himself (a non-drinker) was bound to end up an alcoholic. But in the past few days, he's gone somewhat ballistic in attacking various elected officials and government employees in a manner that sounds like he's literally asking to get into a fist fight.

Yesterday, we noted how odd it was that he decided to go the misogynistic route, by arguing that Senator Dianne Feinstein was too emotional to put out a credible report on the CIA's torture practices (while, at the same time admitting that he was defending the report despite not knowing what's in it). However, apparently that was just the latest in his round of weird ad hominem attacks. Trevor Timm points us to a couple of even more bizarre and outlandish quotes from Hayden from late last week. He was speaking at Johns Hopkins University, debating issues related to the NSA, when he was asked about James Clapper lying to Congress (something Clapper has flat out admitted to doing) concerning whether or not the NSA was collecting data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans. Hayden used the opportunity to not just defend Clapper, but to say that Senator Ron Wyden wasn't "man enough" and to call Senate staffers a bunch of "sissies". He tries to play off the "sissies" comment as him just pronouncing the acronym of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- SSCI -- but having it coupled almost immediately with the "not man enough" comment, it's pretty obvious what Hayden is suggesting.

Does he think this is high school? If you can't watch it, here's what he says:

Jim's a good friend and an honest man. But, frankly, it was a horrible answer to -- and here's the new news -- a really horrible question. Ron Wyden knew the answer to that question. Everyone on that dais, every member of that Committee, knew the answer to that question. Everyone sitting behind every member of that committee -- all those sissies -- the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence staffers, knew the answer to that question. That question had been briefed to them multiple times in closed sessions.

What Jim should have said is, "we'll take it to closed session." He didn't. But Senator Wyden doesn't get a free pass either. If he wanted Jim Clapper to commit a felony, and reveal something that was appropriately classified, Senator Wyden should have acted like a man and revealed it himself, rather than trying to "trap" a career public servant into what for him would be a criminal act. This thing cuts two ways.

There's so much crap here to unpack. Over the last few months we've noticed this line of argument appearing from one (anonymous) individual in particular in our comments -- that Senator Wyden was somehow to blame for, in his role on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asking a basic question to the Director of the Office of National Intelligence. Of course, even as Hayden himself admits above, if the answer to that question went too far, there was an easy response to that, to just note that to give a full answer to that question, it would require a closed session. Clapper had said exactly that in the past, and has done it again since then. None of that required lying.

Second, just because the person asking the question -- or any of the "sissies" -- knows the answer is pure misdirection by Hayden. In many Congressional hearings, the people asking the questions know the answers ahead of time. These are efforts to get that information into the public record from those responsible. And, it is Clapper who is the responsible party here, so it was perfectly reasonable for Senator Wyden to ask Clapper that question in a hearing. Besides, the point -- as Wyden had been clear about for years before that session, and ever since then -- was that this was an issue that needed public debate, and he was asking those responsible to provide the information for the public debate.

Even the NSA's main defender, Senator Dianne Feinstein noted that she was shocked by Clapper's answer to Wyden's question, since she knew it was a lie. Furthermore, Senator Wyden made it clear that if the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had asked him beforehand not to ask that question (which he'd sent to them the day before), he wouldn't have asked it. But the situation gets worse. After Clapper lied, Senator Wyden's office wrote his office, asking if he'd like to correct the false statement, and Clapper's office refused to do so, even though the knew it was a false statement.

As for Hayden's claim that Clapper would be "committing a felony," that's also erroneous. Revealing the details of a classified program is a felony, but simply stating, without context or explanation, that the NSA is collecting data on millions of Americans (a factual statement) is not revealing a classified program at all. Furthermore, you know what is a felony? Lying to Congress.

Either way, the entire point of the Senate Intelligence Committee is that it's in charge of oversight to make sure that the intelligence community isn't overreaching its limits, including doing things like collecting data on millions of Americans. Thus it seems flat out crazy to suggest that Senator Wyden should be tarred and feathered for doing his job on the committee.

Worse, to attack Senator Wyden's "manhood" for not revealing the information himself, rather than asking Clapper is another rhetorical attack from someone who clearly has an axe to grind. After all, it was Hayden who kicked off the clearly unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping program that these more recent efforts were cooked up to try to "make legal." And it was Hayden who, back when he was CIA director, did everything possible to stop Senator Wyden from revealing CIA wrongdoing. At that time, seven years ago, Wyden questioned why Hayden was so scared over a little basic oversight by the Senate. Apparently Hayden's way of getting back at Wyden is to toss out schoolyard insults at him.

Senator Wyden seems man enough to actually respect the Constitution, to stand up against a powerful intelligence community and his own party, and to try to initiate public review of warrantless surveillance on Americans. How about Hayden? He's the guy who kicked off that warrantless spying on Americans which he's worked very hard to keep in the shadows ever since. Wyden himself has ignored Hayden's schoolyard taunts directed at himself, but has called out Hayden for his "outrageous" attack on Feinstein's motives, while also pointing out:

General Hayden unfortunately has a long history of misleading the American public – he did it on domestic surveillance when he was the head of the NSA, and he did it on torture when he was the CIA Director. The best way to correct this culture of misinformation is to give the American people a chance to review the facts for themselves, and I’ll be working with my colleagues and the administration to ensure that happens quickly.

Meanwhile, Marcy Wheeler notes that Senator Wyden is almost being far too kind to Hayden in not detailing Hayden's blatant lies to the very same Senate Intelligence Committee concerning the CIA's torture program. Fear not, though, because Wheeler details the list of Hayden's past lies.

That's not a schoolyard taunt about who is or who is not "man enough." It's a simple fact. All of this makes you wonder just how much there is about Hayden in his role as director of the CIA during the torture regime in the report. You almost have to ask if Hayden simply isn't "man enough" to stand up for whatever is in the report about him.

At the bottom of a Mother Jones article covering a "behind-closed-doors talk" by former Vice President Dick Cheney -- in which he talked up (to applause) the idea of bombing Iran and whined that President Obama was too weak in the Middle East -- the authors mention that actually much of his speech was devoted to defending the NSA. Apparently, he did this by flat out lying.

There is the belief, he said, "that we have created in the National Security Agency this monster bureaucracy that's reading everybody's mail, listening to everybody's phone calls, infringing upon our civil liberties and civil rights. Hogwash." He claimed that there has not been a single case of NSA abusing its authority.

Well, except an internal NSA audit that was reported on months ago actually found that the NSA abused its authority thousands of times per year. And, really, a big part of the complaints aren't necessarily that the NSA abused its authority, but that even if they didn't "abuse their authority" that the ability to collect all this information was legal in the first place. Meanwhile, we also know that there are also a bunch of cases where the NSA has admitted analysts willfully abused their powers. And, while the NSA claims that it's caught all of those involved, a large percentage of them involved "self-reporting," which suggests many cases of abuse slipped under the radar. And, of course, there were many other known abuses as well, including many years in which the NSA flat-out ignored the FISA court's rules on handling metadata, allowing it to be shared widely, despite rules and promises not to do so.

This also ignores the fact that both a federal judge and the federal government's privacy and civil liberties oversight board (PCLOB) found the program unconstitutional and illegal. Yes, others have found that the program is legitimate, but to ignore the still open-ended question as to the legitimacy of the program to argue that there's been "no abuse" of authority is ridiculous. Hell, even the famed rubber stamping FISA court came close to shutting down the program and elsewhere discussed how the so-called privacy protections within the program was "so frequently and systematically violated" as to mean that they have "never functioned effectively."

I don't know about how Dick Cheney defines "abuse their authority," but it seems like there's fairly strong evidence of pretty widespread abuse -- much of it taking place while Cheney was in power. Of course, since his definition of "abuse" seems to be "doing something that Dick Cheney personally doesn't like," then, I guess he'd be correct. But, given the rather clear -- and flat-out admitted -- cases of abuse, combined with significant claims that the entire program is abusive -- it would appear that Cheney is simply lying.

With the introduction of fast track authority (also known as "trade promotion authority") in Congress, by which Congress abdicates its constitutionally-granted sole power to regulate foreign commerce, the USTR (which gains that power) is out in force, spreading all sorts of lies about what this means. It's not exactly encouraging when the organization that has been hiding all the details of the TPP agreement for years is now trying to push it forward by directly lying to the American public. It's almost as if the USTR can't be honest or people might realize that it's spent the last few years pushing forward on an agreement designed to prop up old legacy businesses at the expense of the public and new innovators.

The USTR's statement on the fast track proposal is full of lies, half-truths and misleading statements. Let's look at a few.

TPA does not provide new power to the Executive Branch.

Hell yes, it does. Trade Promotion Authority gives the power of regulating foreign commerce directly to the USTR, rather than Congress. It allows the USTR to negotiate a "final" agreement with other countries, which Congress cannot seek to change, amend or fix. Instead, Congress can only give a simple "yes or no" vote on what the USTR comes back with. Without TPA, the USTR actually needs to engage Congress, and win its support and approval on everything within the agreement. That gives Congress -- which is supposed to represent the public -- a chance to make sure that (as the USTR has shown a proclivity to do) the agreement is not filled with ridiculous "gifts" for cronies and friends at the expense of the public and disruptive innovation.

TPA is a legislative procedure, written by Congress, through which Congress defines U.S. negotiating objectives and spells out a detailed oversight and consultation process for during trade negotiations.

If TPA didn't tie Congress' own hands, the USTR might have a point here. But it's not true. While the TPA bill does officially "define" the negotiating objectives, those objectives listed in the current bill are basically the USTR's own list of what it's working on, reprinted by friends in Congress. And, honestly, how is it possible that it "spells out detailed oversight," when what the bill really does is make sure that the USTR can give Congress whatever it comes up with and say "take it or leave it"? Without TPA, the USTR actually has to go convince Congress that what it's been proposing (secretly and with no public review) is actually in the public interest.

Under TPA, Congress retains the authority to review and decide whether any proposed U.S. trade agreement will be implemented.

Misleading at best. Insulting to anyone with at least half a brain. Congress has significantly less authority under TPA to review and decide any trade agreement. That's because without TPA, Congress can review and question different aspects, or introduce amendments and fixes to all the stuff that the USTR screwed up. With TPA, Congress can only give an up or down vote on the entire package. That means, as long as the USTR includes enough "pork" to outweigh the crap for the majority of Congress, it can get through a ton of dangerous proposals -- like those we've already seen in the still officially "secret" intellectual property chapter.

TPA ENSURES TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN TRADE

TPA bills establish consultation and notification requirements for the President to follow throughout the trade agreement negotiation process – ensuring that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations.

It's tough to read this and not laugh. This is an out and out lie. And it's a direct insult on the public. Remember, the TPP negotiations have been going on for years, and we still don't officially know what's in the TPP, other than what's been leaked. The idea that the public is "closely involved" is an insult. The public is not involved at all, entirely by the choice of the USTR, which has chosen to keep them out. As for Congress? They're also mostly in the dark. Yes, elected officials can go see the negotiating text, but they have to go to the USTR's offices, and they're not allowed to bring any staffers, make any copies or take any notes.

The USTR keeps pretending that because it will "meet with anyone who asks" that it's being transparent. But transparency is not about listening to whoever knocks on your door. It's about the other direction: it's about providing information out to the public -- something that the USTR has absolutely refused to do. The TPA does absolutely nothing to increase transparency, and actually gives the USTR fewer incentives to be transparent because now it knows there's no real oversight any more.

The USTR is flat out lying here, and it's a disgrace.

In addition to our congressionally mandated committees of industry and public sector advisers , the United States consults with all interested stakeholders at each trade agreement negotiating round and in between. We do this to share information and get views that make the negotiated product better. For TPP, these stakeholders have included representatives from academia, labor unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. Under TPA, this activity would continue and be strengthened.

Misleading again. Yes, the USTR "shares" information, but only with a very small list of advisors -- who almost exclusively come from old legacy businesses. Everyone else? The USTR's response is to give them the middle finger. The claim about consulting with "interested stakeholders" at each round is also misleading. As we've covered in the past, at many (though not all) of the negotiating rounds, there would be an hour or two where "stakeholders" would have the opportunity to sit at a table and hope negotiators came to talk to them. Sometimes this would be done far away and at times when negotiators had better things to do -- like eat lunch. Sometimes stakeholders were allowed to give presentations, but with no guarantee that any negotiators would attend.

As for using those meetings to "share information" -- that's again highly misleading. Again, the USTR has been negotiating the TPP for years and still has not released any information at all on what's in it. What we know is what's been leaked out, and that little that's been leaked shows exactly why the USTR fears transparency and fears the public: because they're crafting an agreement designed to protect a few corporate interests at the expense of just about everyone else.

An honest an forthright USTR wouldn't fear the public, and it wouldn't insult and lie to the public as is happening here. The USTR is trying to pull a fast one over on the American public. It's negotiating an agreement in secret, pretending that it's being transparent, and then encouraging Congress to give up its right to review the agreement (without even seeing it), with insulting promises that by doing so, that will create more transparency.

We've been hearing regularly from the NSA's biggest defenders -- including former NSA boss Michael Hayden, current head of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers and President Obama -- that despite all of the revelations about the NSA, there hasn't been any evidence of abuses. We've discussed over and over and over again why that's clearly untrue. Over at the Guardian, Trevor Timm has done an excellent job laying out in detail how President Obama and others are simply lying when they say there's been no evidence of abuses by the NSA. He details example after example of abuses that have come to light. Here's just one which shows not just abuses, but a pattern of regular abuse:

For years, as new data came into the NSA's database containing virtually every phone call record in the United States, analysts would search over 17,000 phone numbers in it every day. It turns out only about 1,800 of those numbers – 11% – met the legal requirement that the NSA have "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the number was involved in terrorism.

What were the other 89% of the numbers being searched for? We're not exactly sure. But we do know that five years after the metadata program was brought under a legal framework, the Fisa court concluded it had been "so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall … regime has never functioned effectively".

Part of the issue, of course, is that the NSA's defenders, including the President, seem to be trying to redefine the word "abuse" just as they've tried to redefine lots of other common English words concerning their surveillance efforts.

One reason might be that, like many other words, the NSA has a different definition of "abuse" than most people. After LOVEINT was brought up to Director of National Intelligence general counsel Robert Litt on a conference call with reporters, he replied:

I'm using abuse in a slightly more limited term. I'm not talking about the LOVEINT kind of thing, but people using surveillance for political purposes or to spy on Americans more generally or anything like that, as opposed to individual people screwing up.

Apparently to qualify as "abuse", the surveillance has to be on a massive scale, wilful, in bad faith, hidden from the Fisa court, and it has to about political views. Spying on loved ones or unauthorized spying on criminal behavior does not count.

Even worse, as Timm points out (and as we've discussed in the past), the LOVEINT disclosures revealed that many of those very willful abuses were only "discovered" years later when they were self-reported, meaning that there's a very good chance that there are many more abuses that were never discovered or reported.

But, of course, there's an even larger issue. Abusing the programs (no matter how you define that) presupposes the programs themselves are legitimate. That's highly questionable.

With all that said, it's unclear why we're quibbling over whether or not the government truly abused the data it has. The programs themselves are an abuse. A primary reason the founding fathers declared independence from the British was in protest of "general warrants" – the idea that the police could seize everything in a given neighborhood, only to go through it afterwards and find the criminal.

The Fourth Amendment requires particularized, individual court orders, and as long as the NSA is collecting such a vast database on every innocent person in the United States, and then searching it at their own discretion, they are abusing our constitution.

As Timm says, we don't allow police to search our homes or listen to phone calls without individual warrants and then say it's okay so long as they "don't abuse" what they discover. We say that those searches themselves are an abuse and unconstitutional. The same should be true of the NSA's efforts. They're all an abuse. An abuse of the Constitution and basic rights.

Another court, another set of problems for Team Prenda: Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy and John Steele are certainly in trouble, and the damage just keeps adding up. Following yet another big loss for Team Prenda in Illinois, in Lightspeed Media v. Anthony Smith, we noted that Prenda's ridiculous decision to sue Comcast and AT&T for failing to hand over names in that case was backfiring in a big way, since both of those companies asked for attorneys' fees as well. Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele did their usual dance: filing motions arguing that none of them did anything wrong, that the ruling should be overturned, and (of course) that there was a violation of due process because they weren't informed about these proceedings. This is basically the same crap they file every time.

Southern District of Illinois Judge Patrick Murphy is having none of that. In a scathing opinion he rips to shreds the arguments of Duffy, Hansmeier and Steele. Beyond noting the basic procedural deficiencies in their own filings (once again, they don't seem to actually understand the law and just fling as much shit at the wall as possible, and the judge clearly recognizes this), he also appears to be well aware of the larger scam Team Prenda has been pulling. There's a long discussion about the claim that Hansmeier and Steele weren't properly served, in which the judge makes it clear this is simply beyond belief. Here's just a snippet of a much longer discussion:

First and foremost, Steele’s claim that he never got notice of Smith’s motion for fees is baseless. A review of CM/ECF records reveals that notice of Smith’s motion for attorney fees (Doc. 61) went to numerous email addresses, including: docket@wefightpiracy.com—an email address used by both Steele and Paul Duffy. Therefore, it is irrefutable that Steele had actual notice of Smith’s motion for attorney fees prior to the Court’s order granting the motion.

The judge also points out the tremendous evidence that Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy are working quite closely together on all of this anyway.

Aside from being from the same firm, there is other evidence suggesting these three men worked in concert with one another. First, Duffy, Steele, and Hansmeier used each other’s CM/ECF login information, and/or filed documents on behalf of one another. For example, both Steele and Hansmeier used Duffy’s CM/ECF login information to enter their appearances, or Duffy attempted to do so for them (See Doc. 11, 15); Hansmeier also used Steele’s CM/ECF login information to file his motion to continue, or Steele filed it on Hansmeier’s behalf (Doc. 73). Second, the similarities in documents filed by Duffy, Steele, and Hansmeier indicate an ongoing relationship. For example, in the instant motions to vacate/reconsider, the three men use identical formatting from the caption, to the font, and the signature block, and the substance is largely the same...

Then, of course, there's the citation to the numerous other cases that have found against Team Prenda, and noted that those three are clearly in control. The judge also notes that even if they didn't have notice, they clearly had notice in time for a later hearing and still their filings did not state any actual grounds for relief. Basically, the judge points out that they absolutely knew about all of this, and he won't overturn the original decision because for all the shit they threw at the wall, none of it actually stuck.

But then the judge goes further. He calls them liars. He doesn't dance around it. He flat out calls them on it.

The Court also finds that Duffy, Hansmeier, and Steele exhibited a “serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice.” .... These men have shown a relentless willingness to lie to the Court on paper and in person, despite being on notice that they were facing sanctions in this Court, being sanctioned by other courts, and being referred to state and federal bars, the United States Attorney in at least two districts, one state Attorney General, and the Internal Revenue Service. For example, at the November 13 hearing, Hansmeier skirted the Court’s direct questions, Steele made feigned protestations, and both flat-out lied about their association with Prenda Law, Inc. in the face of documentary evidence on the record in this case, and their sworn declarations in other cases.

In the end, the judge grants all the requests for attorneys' fees, adding yet another $261,025.11 to the rapidly increasing total from other cases. I imagine it won't end there, though it's unlikely anyone will see any of that money. Instead, we're all still waiting for the main act, when the criminal charges almost certainly arrive.

Despite Dianne Feinstein's supposed "conversion" earlier this week about the NSA being out of control with its spying, and the associated performance of NSA folks claiming that they were screwed, it's quickly become apparent that this was all pure theater to make people think that real reform might be coming. Feinstein claimed she was shocked about this and called for a full investigation... and yet, just two days later, she held a markup of her planned "reform" bill for the collection of intelligence by the NSA (and held the markup in secret -- because nothing says "let's increase transparency of the NSA" like keeping the debates and votes secret). That bill was moved out of committee today by a vote of 11 to 4, leading Feinstein to release the bill with a bunch of misleading claptrap designed to make people think it's real reform. It even confused some folks who know this stuff into thinking, after a quick first pass, that it "banned" the bulk data collection. And you might think that's the case because her description says:

• Prohibits the collection of bulk communication records under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act except under specific procedures and restrictions set forth in the bill;
• Establishes criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison for intentional unauthorized access to data acquired under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the United States;
• Prohibits the bulk collection of the content of communications under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act;

Reading that, you might think it actually banned the bulk data collection that's been reported on, but it does not. That "except under specific procedures and restrictions set forth in the bill" just takes the highly questionable reasoning of the FISA Court in approving the bulk data collection and makes that the "exception." In other words, it does exactly the opposite of what Feinstein claims. Rather than banning bulk data collection, it legalizes it. That third point on the "content" is just a red herring -- the same red herring that Feinstein and others have been waving about wildly for months, pretending people are upset about the collection of actual recordings, rather than the collection of metadata. She's wrong. People are upset about the collection of metadata, which this legalizes.

Even more ridiculous, the focus (both in the marketing and the bill itself) on collection of content "under Section 215" is another red herring, since it appears that much of that collection actually happens under other programs anyway. So this doesn't change a damn thing.

Other supposed "changes" in the bill -- including limiting who can perform queries on the data, how many "hops" they can analyze and how long they can retain the data, all match with current practice and don't change a thing. Even though James Clapper and Keith Alexander more or less seemed to concede at yesterday's House hearing that they'd be okay with cutting back on the data retention from five to three years, this bill keeps it at five. There are a few other minor changes, but this bill is almost entirely as expected, simply codifying the status quo, even though Feinstein has insisted that it was legal all along. The one minor "concession" which many had expected -- having a third party at the FISA Court who could fight for civil liberties -- is watered down. Rather than an actual adversarial setup, with this person representing civil liberties, it's set up as an appointed "amicus cureia" or "friend of the court," where they basically just advise the court on the issue.

This bill is a farce, and made even more farcical by the misleading way in which Feinstein has presented it, pretending it bans bulk data collection when it actually legalizes it.

As you hopefully have heard by now, a group of US intelligence community whistleblowers traveled to Moscow last week to present Ed Snowden with the Integrity Award from the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence. As I saw mentioned (and repeated) on Twitter, this image of all of them together is like the Justice League of Whistleblowers. Wikileaks has now released some short video clips from the dinner they all had together. A few of them are quite interesting. Here's the one I thought most on point: If you can't watch it, this is the key quote:

It's led us to a point in our relationship with the government, where we have an executive -- a Department of Justice -- that's unwilling to prosecute high officials who lied to Congress and the country on camera, but they'll stop at nothing to persecute someone who told them the truth. And that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to democracy.

That encapsulates so much of what the problem is with everything that's happened in the past few months. It's a point well worth repeating. The other video I really liked was the one where Snowden talked about the problem of secret laws and secret programs and the idea that the government is supposed to be in power with the consent of the governed, but how that's impossible without oversight. The key statement:

This is not about any particular program. This is about a trend in the relationship between the governing and the governed in Amercia, that is coming increasingly into conflict with what we expect as a free and democratic society. If we can't understand the policies and programs of our government, we cannot grant our consent in regulating them....

Snowden has mostly stayed hidden away from the public eye since all of this began. He's turned down basically all interview requests, so there's been very little shown of him actually speaking, other than the initial video he recorded with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald. Once again, these videos show someone who appears to have thought deeply about what he is doing and why he did it.

In a recent comment on the site, reader PT pointed us to a statement from Representative Joe Heck explaining why he voted against the Amash Amendment. The statement was from back in July, soon after the Amash Amendment to defund certain NSA activities was narrowly defeated. While the statement is now a couple months old, what amazes me is the statements of fact that are flat out false in there. And we're not just talking about statements that were later proven to be false. These are things that were known to be false at the time -- from a Representative who is on the House Intelligence Committee and who must have known these statements were lies. Just for simplicity's sake, let's focus on the main one and stand back in amazement at just how many flat out lies Rep. Heck told in a single sentence:

The Amash amendment would have eliminated Section 215 of the Patriot Act which we know has thwarted 54 terrorist plots against the US (and counting).

This is a lie. It's not a half truth. It's not a misstatement. It's not confusion. It's an out and out lie. Actually, it's a whole series of lies. Almost nothing in that statement is true. In fact, I can't find anything in that statement that is true. Every single part is a lie. At no point has anyone in the Intelligence Community stated that Section 215 thwarted 54 terrorist plots against the US. First off, the 54 number, which was first released by the NSA's Keith Alexander, wasn't about "terrorist plots" but rather "potential terrorist events." Yes, that language is purposely broad and opaque. What counts as a "terrorist event"? A meeting? A party? It's not at all clear that these were actual "terrorist plots." In fact, a month before Heck's totally bogus claim above, the NSA clarified that only 42 "plots" were involved in that 54 number. The other 12 weren't plots, but rather "material support to terrorists" whatever that might mean.

Second, Alexander wasn't talking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act for most of those "events." He admitted that 53 of the 54 cases actually involved Section 702 of the Patriot Act (the PRISM program) which wasn't the part that was up for a vote in the Amash Amendment. So Heck is, once again, lying in claiming that Section 215 stopped those plots.

Third, at no time did Alexander or anyone at the NSA say they were all targeted against "the US" as Heck falsely claims. The very same day that Alexander shared the 54 number, he also admitted that only about 10 involved the US -- a number that was quickly clarified a few days later: only 13 "had a homeland nexus." So, already, it's pretty clear that the claim of "54 thwarted terrorist plots against the US" is completely bogus (and, remember, all of this was public a month before Heck's statement).

Fourth, of those 13 that "had a homeland nexus," almost none required the NSA's surveillance efforts. When confronted by Senator Leahy in a Senate hearing, the NSA's deputy director John Inglis admitted that the surveillance merely "made a contribution" to the efforts against 12 of those plots, but wasn't particularly key to stopping them. Inglis admitted that the surveillance programs were actually only "critical" in a single case: the Zazi NYC Subway case.

So now we're down to just one plot in the US -- and we're not even talking about Section 215 any more, but Section 702. Oh, and as for that one case, multiple press reports have pointed out that the claim that NSA surveillance was needed to catch Zazi just isn't true, because traditional police work was able to do the brunt of the work in identifying Zazi and the plot.

Oh, and finally, the Amash Amendment would not have "eliminated Section 215." It merely would have defunded using Section 215 to justify collecting metadata on every phone call. Section 215 would still be in place, and the government would still be able to use it to access "tangible things" and various "business records" so long as they were actually related to a counterterrorism operation.

So there you have it. A Congressional Representative who is on the Intelligence Committee, who voted against the Amash Amendment, and defended it with a cascading series of flat out lies. While the Amash Amendment would have defunded the data collection of metadata on all phone calls, it did not get rid of Section 215, which was not used to thwart 54 terrorist plots (not even one!) and many of those "plots" weren't "plots" and very few were actually in the US.

What gets me, however, is that few people seem willing to say that he flat out lied. This isn't a case of a misstatement or confusion or even things that were revealed later. Nearly all of the points that I highlighted above were public knowledge nearly a month before Heck made his untrue statement.

Isn't it time that someone actually called out elected officials when they state things that are clearly lies to constituents?