National Security Letters Reform Act Reintroduced

eldavojohn writes "A bill introduced today, similar to one that died in 2007, would reform the plague of National Security Letters and greatly narrow their scope. On top of that, it would mandate the destruction of any wrongly obtained information discovered in audits by the Inspector General that uncovered widespread improprieties in NSLs."

Comments

um, no.

[Reality Master 201]

According to Thomas it was introduced by a Democrat.

But, sure, Republicans can sign on to bills that restore the rule of law to the USA, too.

Trustworthy Fine Articles?!?!?

[rts008]

Apparently, you are right, but in the parent's defense:

Now, with a new administration and a sturdier Democratic majority in place, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on Monday reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act.

First sentence of the second paragraph.
Without further clarification being given in the entire Fine Article, it is easy to see where his comment(while biased) was not entirely wacked out.

I would put more faith in the site you linked to compared to TFA linked in the summary.

Two Thumbs Up(tm), and a standing ovation from me for:
1. The link with the info
2.* The motivation to double-check the source. That is too rare these days.

Well done!

Having said that, while information and documentation should be accurate, this is a small blip on the RADAR* overall.
Wat's important here for the current discussion is the possibility of increased openness and manner of redress in regards to National Security Letters, and due process.

I'm not trying to demean you or the above applause I gave, just adding some perspective overall. You do point out by example how discussion of a topic can break down into useless partisan flamewars though.

But, sure, Republicans can sign on to bills that restore the rule of law to the USA, too.

This is apparently what happened.

In my mind, who introduces a bill carries slightly more weight in my mind than the co-sponsors.(although the more the merrier in regards to co-sponsors for a 'wanted' bill-YMMV!)

Again, well done! You have shown admirable restraint with your reply.

*I'm not shouting, it's an acronym.

Re:Wrongly discovered info?

[rts008]

Good questions...but, some of them could have been answered by RTFA.

Why not remove the muzzeling of anyone issued such letters? After all if they were improperly issued letters in the first place any inducement to STFU about such a letter must also be wrong.

FTFA:

The National Security Letters Reform Act would do that, and a good deal more. While it would still permit high-ranking FBI officials to issue NSLs with temporary gag orders attached, the Bureau would have to petition a judge in order to extend that order beyond an initial 30 days. Instead of requiring NSL recipients to challenge such orders, showing there was "no reason" to think disclosure might harm public safety or the integrity of an investigation, the agency would have the burden of showing a court specific facts justifying each six-month extension of the gag.

Not ideal, but moving in the right direction.

Why not criminal prosecutions of those issuing the letters from which information was wrongly discovered?

FTFA:

The bill also establishes strict "minimization" requirements, mandating the destruction of any wrongly obtained information. While intelligence agencies often rely on "minimization" to protect the privacy of US persons, this often means only that innocent information will be retained without being indexed in a log or database for the relevant case. Anyone whose records are obtained via an NSL without adequate factual basis, or in violation of the statutory restrictions, is entitled to sue the person responsible for issuing the letter, to the tune of $50,000.

Not as harsh as you suggest, but again, moving in the right direction.(ie:redress)

Why not toss out any court case based on such wrongly discovered info?

FTFA:

Perhaps most significantly, however, the law would radically narrow the scope of National Security Letters, which can currently be used to obtain financial or telecommunications transaction records that an FBI agent asserts are "relevant" to an ongoing investigation. Under the Nadler-Flake bill, NSLs would have to certify that the target to whom the information sought pertained was believed, on the basis of "specific and articulable facts," to be a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power."

Not an 'Epic Fail', but far from ideal...again, it's moving in the right direction.

Have some patience, it took us a while to get here, so it will take us a while to climb back out.(now we are in a hole, here's to hoping we have stopped digging finally)

Be observant, be vigilant, be aware, and be active...if you really care.

BTW, I do agree with your ideas.

so where are the Republicans on this?

[Trepidity]

This bill has 17 cosponsors: 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. I will admit that, on the issue of National Security Letter reform, there are two Republicans so far who have shown an interest: Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. And Ron Paul is well known for his frequent divergence from the party's positions. What about everyone else? Of course, they can still vote for this when it hopefully comes up; Representatives need not consponsor everything. But there seems to be a decidedly lopsided enthusiasm in the 15 vs. 2 cosponsors there.

minor quibble

[Trepidity]

That was actually the previous introduction, in 2007, which died at the end of the last Congressional session. This reintroduced one is here. It was introduced by the same person, though, so no substantive disagreement with your post.

The 2007 version had 30 cosponsors, who were 27 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The 2009 version has 17 consponsors so far, who are 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. So I wouldn't say it's hugely bipartisan, especially since one of the few Republicans in both cases was Republican-with-an-asterisk Ron Paul (Jeff Flake is the other).

The Thomas link you give shows that the 2007 version was passed out of subcommittee in 2008 by a 7-3 vote. I'd be curious who the votes on each side were. By which I mean, of course, I want the names of those 3 fellows.