August, 05 2020, 12:00am EDT
Adam Schiff Sought to Allow for Domestic Surveillance by Selling Out Dreamers During PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Congressional Intelligence Committees' Actions Suggest Dragnet Domestic Surveillance without Congressional Authorization
WASHINGTON
Today, a coalition of groups led by Demand Progress Education Fund sent a letter to House and Senate leadership detailing several extraordinary efforts by House intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) and former Senate intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) to potentially allow for dragnet internet surveillance under the PATRIOT Act.
As detailed in the letter, during the ongoing debate over whether to reauthorize three expired Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorities, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chairman Schiff altered a privacy measure related to government surveillance of internet activity to ensure it did not protect certain immigrants, such as recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Activists fear that this was part of an effort to create a loophole to bless dragnet surveillance of internet activity, potentially affecting everyone in the United States. In sum, the efforts helped the FBI and NSA avoid disclosing to Congress whether the government is conducting such dragnet surveillance, and to evade a Congressional decision on whether such dragnet internet surveillance is lawful.
The FISA authorities in question, including Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, sunsetted on March 15, 2020, but, as detailed in the letter, this surveillance may be continuing.
The letter, signed by Americans for Prosperity, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, FreedomWorks, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, and others, is available here (pdf).
The following statement can be attributed to Sean Vitka, senior policy counsel for Demand Progress:
Throughout the 2020 PATRIOT Act reauthorization fight, Schiff has run point for Bill Barr to make sure Congress doesn't know what the law it is considering means, including whether it allows the FBI and NSA to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' internet activity.Schiff most recently provided for dragnet internet surveillance by cutting Dreamers and many other immigrants out of a proposed protection, which, in context, appears to have served as a loophole to protect something else: potential undisclosed surveillance of Americans' internet browsing and search histories.
The consequences of Schiff's actions are inescapable: In trying to hand the Trump administration Section 215, he repeatedly sabotaged efforts to protect privacy. This is dangerously bad law and dangerously bad oversight.
Ironically, if Schiff has been trying to sneak ratification of such surveillance through Congress, he has unwittingly demonstrated that he knows Congress wouldn't support it.
Demand Progress Education Fund and several other organizations called for transparency on May 7, but have not received an answer. Several members of Congress have pressed the issue further:
- May 20, Senator Wyden -- who famously prompted then-Director of National Intelligence Clapper to deny that the government was collecting records on "hundreds of millions of Americans" just months before the Snowden revelations began -- questioned whether dragnet surveillance of internet activity would be captured in public transparency reporting. He has not received an answer.
- July 21, Senators Leahy and Lee asked critically important, related questions in a letter to Attorney General Barr and Director of National Intelligence Ratcliffe. They have requested an answer by August 7.
- July 22, the Senate intelligence committee released questions from Senator Wyden to the nominee for general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including whether Section 215 can be used for the collection of internet activity. Senator Wyden was once again refused an answer.
- July 28, Representative Lofgren challenged Attorney General Barr to disclose the legal authority upon which the government is basing domestic deployment of advanced surveillance techniques against protesters. Barr refused to provide a substantive answer.
Although Congress has not endorsed the use of Section 215 for warrantless internet dragnets, several pieces of information detailed in the organizations' new letter suggest it may have occurred or be occurring nonetheless.
Claims of surveillance authority under Executive Order 12333 also of concern
Moreover, although Congress has not endorsed distinct executive branch claims of authority that would effectively permit domestic mass surveillance under claimed inherent executive power, Chairman Schiff recently included the following rhetorical nod to such claims in the House's still-pending Intelligence Authorization Act:
although all elements of the intelligence community are authorized under Executive Order 12333 to provide assistance to law enforcement that is "not precluded by applicable law," activities that may be appropriate in the context of routine criminal investigations may nevertheless be inappropriate in the context of law enforcement response to protest or civil disturbances.
According to Congress.gov, this is the only time the phrase "not precluded by applicable law" has been included in legislation. The phrase comes directly from EO 12333 (Section 2.6, "Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities"), which enshrines the executive branch's own interpretation of its authority to conduct surveillance -- an interpretation that sees virtually no limit to what records the Trump administration can collect about people in the United States.
A longstanding pattern of surveillance overreach
Government surveillance practices that are based on legal interpretations that stretch -- or break -- the bounds of the law are not unusual. Over recent decades, the government has repeatedly relied on such flawed, secret legal interpretations to start illegal, domestic mass surveillance programs of unknowable impact. In 1992, during Bill Barr's first tenure as Attorney General, he personally authorized a DEA surveillance program, the "first known effort to gather records on Americans in bulk" -- and did so without legal review. That program operated for over 20 years before the public learned of its existence.
Stellarwind, a notorious program for which the DEA's bulk collection was a "precursor," was initiated in 2001 and operated for most of a decade in direct contradiction to FISA and the Constitution. After the public learned about Stellarwind, it too was shuttered -- while the government secretly shifted bulk collection of Americans' phone records under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, creating a program that would also be shuttered once exposed by Edward Snowden.
Demand Progress Education Fund and the FreedomWorks Foundation have released numerous materials about Section 215 at www.Section215.org, including a graphic depiction of the government's unlawful collection of records since 2001.
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular