Grassroots Central Updates

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

NSA director Keith Alexander says his agency's analysts, which until recently included Edward Snowden among their ranks, take protecting "civil liberties and privacy and the security of this nation to their heart every day."
(Credit: Getty Images)

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."

If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney who serves on the House Judiciary committee.

Not only does this disclosure shed more light on how the NSA's formidable eavesdropping apparatus works domestically, it suggests the Justice Department has secretly interpreted federal surveillance law to permit thousands of low-ranking analysts to eavesdrop on phone calls.

Because the same legal standards that apply to phone calls also apply to e-mail messages, text messages, and instant messages, Nadler's disclosure indicates the NSA analysts could also access the contents of Internet communications without going before a court and seeking approval.

The disclosure appears to confirm some of the allegations made by Edward Snowden, a former NSA infrastructure analyst who leaked classified documents to the Guardian. Snowden said in a video interview that, while not all NSA analysts had this ability, he could from Hawaii "wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge to even the president."

There are serious "constitutional problems" with this approach, says Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who has litigated warrantless wiretapping cases. "It epitomizes the problem of secret laws."

PAUL: Americans who cherish freedom must push back against government surveillance

By Sen. Rand Paul
Friday, June 14, 2013

On Thursday, I held a news conference announcing my intent to pursue legal action against the federal government for infringing on Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. The National Security Agency’s collection of Verizon’s client data probably only scratches the surface. A court order that allows the government to obtain a billion records a day and does not name an individual target is clearly beyond the scope of the Fourth Amendment, which states clearly that warrants must be specific to the person and the place.

Joining me Thursday to show support for this action were U.S. Reps. Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Mick Mulvaney, Louie Gohmert and Mark Sanford, along with representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, FreedomWorks, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Campaign for Liberty, as well as constitutional scholar and lawyer Bruce Fein.

Mr. Gohmert joked about standing next to the ACLU, but he pointed out that upholding the Constitution is not about Republican versus Democrat or conservative versus liberal. It is about liberty versus power. It recognizes and attempts to limit the inevitable arrogance of power. President Obama says that we can trust his administration not to abuse the mountains of data he admits it gathers. Perhaps we can also trust the Internal Revenue Service not to target those who speak out against the government. Perhaps we can also trust the Justice Department not to seize the phone records of Associated Press reporters.

Our Founders never intended for Americans to trust their government. Our entire Constitution was predicated on the notion that government was a necessary evil, to be restrained and minimized as much as possible.

...

Fighting racial bias in the federal judicial process

Jun. 13, 2013 8:40 PM
by Sen. Rand Paul

Here are two statistics that disturb me, and should startle everyone:

• African Americans in Kentucky are six times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession.

• While African Americans are 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they make up 37 percent of the prison population.

What is the reason for these disparities?

In both cases, using a federal government, one-size-fits-all approach to address these issues is a primary culprit. The problem is Washington’s habit of undermining the system our Founding Fathers created, which left as much power as possible in the hands of local and state officials, and sought to treat people as individuals, not as groups or classes of people.

In the case of arrests, federal agencies have hamstrung local law enforcement agencies by requiring them to meet numerical arrest goals in order to secure funding. Morally, this is troubling. In practical terms, instead of local enforcement agencies spending their time investigating serious felony crimes, they concentrate on minority and depressed neighborhoods to increase their drug arrest statistics.

...

Snowden Has a Few Defenders on the Hill

Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old defense contractor who leaked details on the National Security Agency’s phone and data surveillance programs, faces numerous calls from powerful members of Congress for his prosecution. But a few not-so-powerful members think he should go free — and more are calling for changes in the law.

“I’m not a lawyer, but based on what I know so far, I don’t think he should be prosecuted,” Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a self-styled libertarian, told CQ Roll Call on Monday. “If someone reports illegal activity as a whistle-blower, they shouldn’t be prosecuted.

“Whether or not this program was authorized by Congress, it seems to me that this is an unconstitutional activity,” he continued, “which would make it illegal, and he should have some kind of immunity.”

Massie said the first step was seeing whether relevant amendments could be considered in relation to the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal 2014, set for House floor consideration later this week. The next step, he said, could be through the introduction of formal legislation.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., was taking the lead on the initiative, Massie continued, and Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla., was helping push an amendment that would specifically prohibit Americans to be detained indefinitely if they are suspected to be involved in supporting terrorist activities.

Massie said the amendment could be linked to the possible repercussions Snowden might face for disclosing classified information to the press.

Thomas Massie ‏@RepThomasMassie
Snowden has dfndrs on the Hill. Based on what I know so far,I dont think he should be prosecuted.RT if you agree. #NSA http://bit.ly/1bpWrWS