Secret Legal Interpretation about Domestic Surveillance

This exchange between Dem Senator Ron Wyden (OR) and National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper exposes how futile it is for even a Senator to get answers from the intelligence community.

crooksandliars.com...

Wyden states that intelligence agencies are relying on a "...secret interpretation of what the law says (about domestic surveillance) without telling the public what the interpretations are..." noting that there's a "...gap between what the public believes the law is, and what the government thinks the law is..."

He asks Clapper: "Does the American public have access to key information to figure out how our government is interpreting the Patriot Act?" and adds that "The American public would be stunned if they knew how the Patriot Act is being interpreted and applied in practice."

He clarifies that he's not asking about operations and methods, but for the legal basis for intelligence activities.

Needless to say, he's given the run-around before his time is up...

Hmmm....

The AG does have the authority to determine how a law is enforced (as do county and state prosecutors / AG).

Its going to take a person who is affected by the governments interpretation of that law to gain standing in order to take the issue to court.

The DHS did not refuse to provide the information however. The Senate Slect committee members refused to go forward with the Senators request for the report.

Originally posted by aCurious1


Wyden states that intelligence agencies are relying on a "...secret interpretation of what the law says (about domestic surveillance) without telling the public what the interpretations are..." noting that there's a "...gap between what the public believes the law is, and what the government thinks the law is..."

He asks Clapper: "Does the American public have access to key information to figure out how our government is interpreting the Patriot Act?" and adds that "The American public would be stunned if they knew how the Patriot Act is being interpreted and applied in practice."

In my opinion there is zero restraint, just the myth of it, when it comes to domestic surveillance.