Rand Paul

Parts of Patriot Act Expire Tonight After Senate Fails to Pass Reform

Evgen — Sun, 31 May 2015 08:44:48 +0000

One of the NSA’s most controversial surveillance programs ended at least temporarily Sunday, after US senators failed to pass a bill that would have reformed Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which is set to expire at midnight.

In a contentious Sunday session, US senators tried to pass the USA Freedom Act, which would take the bulk collection of phone records out of the hands of the NSA. Instead, it would be stored by telecoms. The legislation would force the government to obtain a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act any time it wishes to access such records from telecoms and would limit the access to records that are relevant to a national security investigation. It looks likely that the bill will pass sometime this week.

Last week, the senate failed to pass the same bill, but tonight agreed to scrap that vote and try again. Senator Rand Paul stymied that effort, saying in a speech that the bill still didn’t go far enough to curb surveillance. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had originally opposed the bill, announced that it was “now the only realistic way forward” and urged Republicans to vote yes with him. McConnell mustered enough votes to advance the bill procedurally, meaning debate is over and the bill can now be voted on quickly later. The Senate will meet again tomorrow at noon ET, likely to take up the vote again. But by that time, the relevant section of the Patriot Act will have expired.

“Congress should take advantage of this sunset to pass far reaching surveillance reform, instead of the weak bill currently under consideration,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, acting director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

The bulk phone records collection program was first uncovered by USA Today in 2006, although US telecoms denied at the time that they were handing over the records of customers to the government. But in 2013 a document leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden confirmed that the government had been collecting all phone detail records from certain US telecoms for years, including calls that are wholly domestic—meaning both parties are located in the US. The records are collected even though the vast majority of people involved in the calls are not suspected of ties to terrorism or criminal activity. The collection doesn’t involve the content of calls, but instead involves so-called metadata—the phone numbers on both sides of a call and the date and duration of the call.

Civil liberties groups have challenged the program on Fourth Amendment grounds, and although one federal judge called it “likely unconstitutional” a three-judge panel in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals did not go that far in its recent judgement about the program. The panel did, however, rule that the program is currently illegal under US law, since legislation the government had been using to justify it—Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act—does not in fact allow for the mass collection of records in this way.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board convened by President Obama in the wake of the Snowden revelations recommended that the program be overhauled so that the records would be retained by the telecoms while still being accessible to the NSA with a court order. To do this, however, lawmakers needed to draft a law authorizing it, hence the USA Freedom Act.

Although the House passed its version of the bill by a landslide earlier this month, its path through the Senate has been rocky. Last November, Democratic Senate lawmakers hoped to advance their version during an end-of-year lame-duck session before they lost their majority position to newly elected Republicans who would be taking office in January. But they failed by just two votes to obtain the 60 votes necessary to close down a debate on amendments to the bill and advance the legislation to the Senate floor. That outcome was repeated last week during a second attempt to move the bill forward.

The bill’s initial failure last November was due in part to opposition from Mitch McConnell and others who oppose the USA Freedom Act and instead wanted to re-authorize Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the government was still maintaining at the time gave it legal authorization to conduct bulk collection of phone records. Section 215 authorizes the government to obtain business records—including medical, credit card and financial records—if they are relevant to an FBI investigation. But it, along with two other sections of the Patriot Act, are set to expire after midnight tonight. This means the bulk collection would have to stop without re-authorization, but so would the collection of other records allowed by Section 215.

The recent 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling made a straight re-authorization difficult, however. Because the three-judge appellate panel ruled that Section 215 as written cannot be used to legally justify the mass collection of US phone records, lawmakers were left with the choice of either revising Section 215 so that it does authorize bulk collection or re-authorizing it as is and leaving the government with no legal coverage for its bulk collection program.

The USA Freedom Act was proffered as a compromise—it would essentially re-authorize Section 215 so that the government could continue to obtain business records relevant to an investigation, but kill the bulk collection of phone records. Under the legislation, the government would have six months of transition to close down its collection program.

McConnell failed last week to get the Patriot Act re-authorized, so he tried to get a temporary extension for the expiring sections to buy time until lawmakers could decide on a permanent solution. But opposition was strong, particularly after a report released last week by the Justice Department’s own inspector general office revealed that between 2007 and 2009, the government had been using Section 215 to also obtain access to large collections of electronic communication transactional information—which likely refers to the “to” and “from” lines of emails and text and instant messages, as well as web addresses visited and internet protocol addresses.

The report also called into question the efficacy of the collection programs. The inspectors found that neither the call records collection program—nor any other bulk surveillance conducted under Section 215—had produced significant intelligence or intelligence that they weren’t able to obtain through other means.

“[T]he agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from use of the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders, but told us that the material produced pursuant to Section 215 orders was valuable in that it was used to support other investigative requests, develop investigative leads, and corroborate other information,” the inspectors stated.

This provided more fodder for those opposed to the Patriot Act. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) staged a kind of filibuster last week to prevent any re-authorizion or extension of the Patriot Act. With that failing as well as the USA Freedom Act, McConnell convened the special session today, following a week-long holiday recess, to revisit them. The Senate was looking at two motions today—one to advance the USA Freedom Act and the other to pass an extension for the sections of the Patriot Act that are set to expire.

The White House was clear on what it wanted senators to do. During his weekly address to the nation on Saturday, President Obama called on Americans to “join me in speaking with one voice to the Senate. Put the politics aside. Put our national security first. Pass the USA Freedom Act—now.”

Though the senators didn’t heed those words tonight, it appears likely that eventually the bill will pass. The procedural voice vote earlier in the evening agreeing to take up the reform bill passed by 77-17, showing there is likely sufficient support to pass the law soon and put an end to the bulk collection program for good.

Story originally written by Kim Zetter for WIRED

Tagged with

Systemic Government Theft Under Fire Again

Evgen — Fri, 22 May 2015 08:48:33 +0000

Civil asset forfeiture is coming under the spotlight again, this time by bloggers, journalists, and analysts, who met at a daylong conference to discuss the issue. Logan Albright, a Research Analyst at FreedomWorks who attended the conference, writes in an article for Watchdog.org:

Here’s how it works: If police or federal agents suspect that property has been involved in the commission of a crime, they can simply take it. No charges need be filed against the property owner, no trial must occur. In effect, the property itself is accused of a crime, and it’s up to the owner to prove its innocence if they ever wants to see it again.

US Attorneys seized $679 million in criminal assets and $3.9 billion in civil assets last year. The legal fees and lengthy bureaucratic process often means that assets taken are never recovered — even in the absence of a criminal charge or conviction. The obvious conflict of interest results in a perverse incentive for law enforcement to not only focus on crimes which have a higher chance of resulting in personal gain, but to contrive scenarios in which they seize assets where there may not have been any crime at all.

In one case last October, businessman Lyndon McLellan, who owns the L&M Convenience Mart in Fairmont, N.C., had his entire life savings confiscated by the IRS after they alleged he might be engaged in an obscure financial crime known as “structuring.”

Lyndon McLellon, owner of the L&M Convenience Mart in Fairmont, N.C.

McLellan had routinely been making deposits to his bank account just short of $10,000, which apparently aroused the suspicion of the IRS. Banks are required by law to report transactions over $10,000, and intentionally making deposits under that amount in order to avoid those reports is a crime known as “structuring.”

IRS enforcement agents used this suspicion to seize $107,000 from McLellan. After assistance from the Institute for Justice and pressure from a petition with over 12,000 signatures, McLellan fortunately received the money back on May 12.

Many others are not so lucky.

The Atlantic tells another recent story about Joseph Rivers, a 22-year-old from Romulus, Michigan, who boarded a train for Los Angeles with aspirations to produce music videos. Rivers said he’d been saving money for years in order to make the trip. In total, he carried $16,000.

Federal agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) also boarded the train and began interrogating passengers. Rivers believed he had nothing to hide, and made the mistake of speaking to the agents and consenting to a search. The DEA agents found the $16,000 Rivers had saved and seized it. He has yet to get it back.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill in 2014 that ostensibly aims to increase the federal government’s burden of proof in civil forfeiture proceedings. The bill has since been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but the reform is unlikely to be effective in solving the problem. While the federal government and its various agencies engage in asset forfeiture, individual police and state departments are raking in the cash as well.

Earlier this year, TruthVoice reported a case where it was revealed Missouri Police received $349,617 in civil asset forfeitures by taking advantage of a federal loophole called Equitable Sharing. Senator Rand’s bill does not appear to address this loophole.

Tagged with

Rand Paul Re-Assures Evangelicals That he Will Not End The War on Drugs

Evgen — Mon, 11 May 2015 08:45:13 +0000

FAIRFAX, VA – OCTOBER 28: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul listens speaks at a “Get out the Vote” rally for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia, October 28, 2013 in Fairfax, Virginia. Cuccinelli is running against Democratic candidate Terry McAullife in a very close race. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Gage SkidmoreIn preparation for a 2016 presidential run, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is courting evangelical leaders. And we all know what that means! It’s time to throw those hedonistic, libertine, drug-obsessed libertarians under the bus. The Washington Post reports on how that’s going:

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

Just to hammer home what’s been said already: Paul isn’t a libertarian on drugs. He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That’s not remotely libertarian. (Is it politically practical? Sure. So are farm subsidies.)

As for “traditional marriage,” here’s how Paul is selling his position to evangelicals:

He said he’s not ready to “give up on” the traditional family unit. But he added that it is a mistake for conservatives to support a federal ban on same-sex marriage, saying, “We’re going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now.”

“If we’re to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people,” he said.

“Win back the hearts and minds of people”? What does that even mean? That if we give the country enough time, a majority of voters will change their minds about extending equal protection to same-sex couples, and revoke it? And that would be a good thing?

Considering just how “radical” candidate Obama was, I can’t help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president.

Published on reason.com by Mike Riggs

Tagged with