Key provisions of the Patriot Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, expire at the end of this month. Congress is debating whether to renew or revise those provisions. Some members would just as soon
Key provisions of the Patriot Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, expire at the end of this month. Congress is debating whether to renew or revise those provisions. Some members would just as soon see them dead and gone.
On Thursday, a three-judge federal appeals court panel in New York ruled the most hotly debated provision of the law, the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records by the National Security Agency, is illegal. The judges wrote: “We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far-reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.”
It does have every opportunity, but it’s possible Congress will get caught in knots and fail to extend the expiring provisions. The White House and House Speaker John Boehner are in agreement on a revised law, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to extend existing law without change. And then there are those Republicans and Democrats who despise the law.
Elsewhere in the world, nations are opting for increased scrutiny of terrorist activity. Lawmakers in France are moving to give authorities sweeping new surveillance powers in the wake of the stunning attack on the staff of Charlie Hebdo. Britain passed sweeping surveillance laws last year. The U.S. cannot electronically disarm itself by allowing major provisions of the Patriot Act to lapse.
A simple extension would be fine by us. That doesn’t appear to have broad support, though.
The next best option is the USA Freedom Act, which sailed through the House Judiciary Committee in April and likely is to come to a vote on the House floor next week.
The bill would not permit the collection and storage of metadata — records of Americans’ phone calls, but not their content — by the NSA. Those records would be retained by telecommunications firms, and federal agents could access the records with an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In case of an emergency, no FISC order would be required.
The bill also would create a panel of independent advocates to represent the interests of privacy and civil liberties before the surveillance court, a move we backed. It would increase transparency by allowing telephone and Internet providers to reveal what information they have been required to provide to the NSA. It would require that the court make public all “significant” interpretations of surveillance law.
A revision to the law should make clear that Congress authorizes the investigative use of metadata, in compliance with the appellate court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court might or might not uphold that ruling, but the appellate court did the nation a favor. Congress can resolve that issue now.
Placing the burden of storing metadata on telecom firms has problems — the companies don’t want to do it, and they’re vulnerable to hack attacks. But we presume Boehner can count noses, and doesn’t count enough noses for a simple extension. McConnell’s bid to extend this showdown right to the June 1 deadline creates its own risks.
Thirteen years after 9/11, we get constant reminders of the need for anti-terrorist surveillance. … Federal authorities need the tools and flexibility to investigate and pursue terrorism suspects.
Congress can’t reach June 1 having done … nothing.
— Chicago Tribune
