Conyers to Holder: Give Us the 215 Info

I guess I’m not the only one who noticed that DOJ is trying to reauthorize Section 215 without leveling with the American people how they’re using it. John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bobby Scott have written Eric Holder, requesting that he make more information on the way Section 215 is used public.

In order to meaningfully consider whether and how to extend the "business records" section of the Act, however, we ask that the Department work to provide additional public information on the use of that provision.

Specifically, at the September 22 hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hinnen testified that orders under Section 215 of the Act, which authorizes compulsory production of "business records," have been used to obtain "transactional information" to support "important and highly sensitive intelligence collection." He explained that some members of the Subcommittee and cleared staff have received some briefings on this topic, and that additional information could be made available to them "in a classified setting."

We have appreciated the information that has been provided, and fully understand the importance of safeguarding our country’s national security secrets. Too often in 2007 and 2008, however, crucial information remained unknown to the public and many members of Congress when Congress voted on important surveillance legislation affecting the interests of all Americans. As has also been requested in the Senate, we ask that the Department work to make publicly available additional basic information on the use of Section 215, so that Congress can more openly and thoroughly consider the future of this authority while fully protecting our national security secrets.

I’m hoping they have more leverage than Russ Feingold, who I believe made this request in the Senate, since nothing is going to pass through HJC without these three gentlemen’s involvement.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

21 Responses to Conyers to Holder: Give Us the 215 Info

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @iPadMTG Yes, but at times the family does weigh in both on donation and when organs will be harvested. @LDoren
27sreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren Yes. But you're the one limiting her choice to make medical decisions, not me.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren Mind you, in many cases, such a choice might make it impossible to donate the organs.
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren So if a fetus ends up killing the woman in that situation is it cool for her to donate her organs?
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren A medical decision made for medical reasons? Is "death" voluntary in your list of voluntary things that are mere "choices"?
10mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren So, yes, you are applying a non-medical term to a medical procedure, one which very often involves doctor's recommendations?
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren You know in medicine "elective" is reserved to operations that aren't necessary for health? Like knee replacement. This like that?
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren I'm hoping you can think about where your notion of the kinds of "choices" being made for late term abortions come from.
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren So you don't know? Know anyone who has had to get one? (Emphasis on "had")
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren "By choice." what is your understanding of why most late terms happen?
31mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren So mom's have MORE guardian authority over babies than they do over fetuses?
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LDoren But if same mom's kid dies (or was always nonviable, another common late term issue), then it's okay for her to choose to donate?
37mreplyretweetfavorite
October 2009
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031