Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Republicans Love Federal Snooping

(Unless it's against Trump).

Binu Omanakkuttan/Dreamstime.comBinu Omanakkuttan/Dreamstime.comPresident Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers in Congress insist that the president and his aides were inappropriately snooped on by politically motivated federal intelligence officials during the 2016 election. Yet when given the opportunity to scale back the FBI's power to secretly engage in domestic surveillance of American citizens, the president and the GOP did not take advantage of it. In fact, they did the opposite.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments was scheduled to sunset at the end of 2017 unless Congress renewed it. That provision authorizes the federal government to poke into communications of foreign targets, overseen by a secret court. While these powers are supposed to be used only to collect foreign intelligence and fight terrorism overseas, domestic communications also get quietly vacuumed up. Because these communications are typically collected without a warrant, there is reason for significant concern about privacy violations.

Surveillance officials are supposed to mask the identifying information of any Americans, but civil rights advocates warn that these powers are actually being used to collect evidence in wholly domestic cases, circumventing the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Their fears were bolstered by Edward Snowden's disclosure that the government is storing massive amounts of data from Americans' email accounts and phones.

As Congress prepared to renew Section 702, a bipartisan coalition of concerned lawmakers demanded reforms. One bill—introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Reps. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) and Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), among others—would have required officials to get a warrant to access Americans' communications or data, except in very limited emergency circumstances. The bill was supported by groups from across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks.

Although Trump and Republican allies like Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, say the FBI broke the rules to engage in surveillance against members of Trump's campaign, they resisted the chance to fix the underlying problem. In January, Nunes and 177 other GOP legislators voted against the bill to restrict domestic snooping, then advanced and passed a different bill to renew Section 702. Rather than scaling back domestic surveillance powers, the legislation expanded them, explicitly permitting the FBI to use foreign surveillance rules to fight domestic crimes.

Photo Credit: Binu Omanakkuttan/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Democrats borrow trillions to pay for free stuff.
    Republicans borrow trillions to pay for free tax cuts.

    Actual libertarians will note that money is required to buy stuff, but it doesn't take a penny not to take other people's money.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans borrow trillions to buy munitions, micromanage health care facilities for women, pay extra soldiers to sit around in Germany and Japan, conduct the drug war, buy more military ships, invade the wrong country, overpay for military procurement, engage in government surveillance, support authoritarian right-wing regimes, operate secret torture and endless detention facilities, and fund moronic abstinence programs.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats thought Hillary would have been the best queen in US history.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    OMG, you wrote gibberish.

  • wareagle||

    And the Dems borrow for social programs, union giveaways, the occasional military adventure because they also hold defense contractor stocks, etc etc. Is there a point?

  • Agammamon||

    micromanage health care facilities for women

    1. You're upset that the Republicans only want to micromanage it for women, instead of the Democrats wanting to micromanage it for everyone?

    2. Allowing health care clinics to select which services they will or will not provide is the opposite of micromanaging.

    3. Abortion clinics, no matter how you stretch the term or how pro-life you are, are not health care facilities.

    4. Everything else, the Democrats have done when they had control - they are key party planks of the Democratic Party. Yes, even the War on Drugs.

  • JesseAz||

    Hey idiot... Less than ten percent of planned Parenthood have any diagnostic equipment. They write referrals to actual clinics. Ones the poor on Medicaid can go to without ever stepping into a planned Parenthood.

  • Agammamon||

    Planned Parenthood is the ONLY Medicaid provider in many inner cities.

    1. That's just patently untrue. Its not true. That's not the way the real world is.

    2. Accepting Medicaid doesn't mean you provide health care services.

  • Devastator||

    1. Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same "do as i say not as I do" coin
    2. I somewhat agree
    3. Abortion clinics are health care facilities providing women what they want, no one gives a fuck about your morals.
    4. The Republicans are just as bad, they just want to take a different set of freedoms than the democrats and just as full of shit.

  • Devastator||

    Libertarians are the only party that support a balanced budget. Sure the Republicans said they did, but they were full of shit, they just want to spend it somewhere else and make sure their 0.1% don't have to pay any taxes at all.

  • Just Say'n||

    Are you nuts? Rand Paul has been consistent on this issue. No other senator has been (including Fonzie and the gang's favorite senator)

  • Just Say'n||

    God you're dumb

  • Just Say'n||

    Tax cuts do not create deficits this is a Democratic talking point that cosmotarians have embraced because there really isn't a difference between them and progressives anymore.

    The federal government has a spending problem- not a revenue problem.

  • JesseAz||

    You're premise only works if you think the government grants citizens the right to keep the government's money. Instead of people keeping what they earn.

  • DenverJ||

    Yeah, because spending too much is exactly the same as letting people keep more of their own money. Fuck you, cut spending.

  • JesseAz||

    You're base premises that earned money is the government's and not the individuals is proof you are not a libertarian, moron.

  • The Metonymy||

    Yup.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Indeed, Rand Paul has been far more consistent on privacy than Democrats.

  • Just Say'n||

    Don't tell Fonzie and the gang.

  • Shirley Knott||

    "Authoritarian president" is redundant. When, in the last 120 years, have we had a president who wasn't authoritarian?
    When have we had a congress that wasn't gut.ess?
    Left = Right = Authoritarian

  • Agammamon||

    Jimmy Carter FTW

  • Agammamon||

    So, its the President's fault when a recession happens now?

  • Agammamon||

    As for 'flunking history, Carter is, literally, the only genuinely religious President from Nixon onwards. And quite possibly of the 20th and 21st centuries combined.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Both parties are authoritarian by and large, but they are that way because politicians have exploited the electoral system by appealing to the most uninformed segments of the public. So, in the end, the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the American people.

    It's exactly why we now have far, far too many laws and so much bad law, and the public essentially demands that instead of repealing that bad law, they should double-down on that bad law.

  • Brian||

    How did the 2016 election effect your cited poll results from 2006?

    Left - Right = time travel?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Also not calling youself something is not necessarily a rejection of a label. Particularly if they are not familiar with the label.

  • Brian||

    What does "such that" mean?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    You don't pay for tax cuts, you pay for spending.

  • Agammamon||

    No man - I'm not stealing anything because I am not consuming the 'services' funded by deficit spending. That's where your welfare entitlements are funded from. That's where your Federal police forces fighting the War on Drugs/trafficking/whatever comes from. That's where your eternal War on Terrorism comes from.

    The politicians you keep telling us to support are stealing their power from *your* (not my) grandchildren.

    Stop trying to steal my present to protect your kids.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Another one to prove my point.
    "We don't NEED no steeenkeeeng spending cuts ... it's letting me keep my own money!"

    Stolen from his own children and grandchildren. Welcome to right-wing snowflakery.

    What the hell are you babbling about? Reducing revenue is not something one pays for. You pay for the things you spend on, and if you don't have the money on hand you have to borrow to pay for the spending you want. That borrowing is done to pay for ... spending, not tax cuts.

    P.S. Why would you CELEBRATE feeding live humans into woodchipppers for ... daring to disagree with you?

    If that's what you think I'm doing then you're nuttier than squirrel shit -- but I repeat myself.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Still confused?

    Nope, but apparently you still are.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    STILL confused????

    Nope, but apparently you still are.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Hihn, if you make $500 per week from your employer, but then suddenly your pay is cut to $450 per week going forward, how much money per week do you begin paying your employer?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Depends if it's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

    Um, are you feeling okay, Mike? Pain in your left arm, perhaps? I really think you should call 911 just in case.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Oh. It was gibberish only to you, I would think.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Anything else?

    Yes. You should probably look into the possibility that one can believe one shouldn't be arrested for doing something while at the same time not CELEBRATING what was done. It's probably a distinction that's too subtle for you to grasp though.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    NO ANSWER! (lol)

    No answer you'd comprehend, anyway.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    If responding to you = stalking, then you have been stalking me just as much.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Says the guy who ranted about 'right-wing snowflakery' in response to me before the post he's citing as aggression.

    Do you smell bread?

  • JesseAz||

    Your idiocy only comes close to rational thought if you believe government had an efficiency factor near one. Or if you're an idiot liberal who believe the multiplier is above one. Both Harvard and the Chicago school of economics has reviewed the so called Keynesian multiplier and found it to be near .7 in the most efficient of government programs. Any taxes raised by the government is a 30% loss to market based economics. So your entire belief system is based on idiocy.

  • Star1988||

    How is it that in our free-market healthcare system, MRI's routinely 'cost' $30,000, when they cost $400-$1,200 everywhere else on the planet?

    It's an honest question. I don't really understand how the private insurance market has jacked up the cost of simple medical procedures by such crazy amounts. I.e., how is that in their best interest? What is going on with costs in the US? Shouldn't our market-based system provide lower cost health services?

  • Nardz||

    Really don't see the point of this note from Scott.
    Politicians are hypocrites who expand power over others while reducing people's power over themselves... stop the presses!
    Since it calls out Rs, can we be assured that Ds voted against the bill en masse, and/or reduced surveillance authority when they were in power?
    No? Is that why they're not mentioned?
    Looks like this note, then, serves the purpose only of bashing the Rs... implicitly promoting Ds via omission.
    Looks like nothing more than a note of partisanship hiding under the guise of a "libertarian" "article".
    R:D::Ba'ath:ISIS

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You sound like a fan of right-wing authoritarians, Nardz. Which part attracts you most -- the bigotry, the lousy education, or the superstition-laced backwardness?

    Thank you.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Someone needs a hug.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    The WINNER.

    Correct?

    (is joke)

    Would we like to play a game, Professor?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I thought this was going to be a lot more difficult than it's turning out to be. Thanks for being willing to hear me. I appreciate it.

    Also, thanks for taking it philosophically that I took your handle for a joyride. I apologize for the discomfort that must have caused.

    Did you see the general tone and tenor in the comments on Gillespie's latest? By Jove, I think it's having an effect. Just a touch - here and there. It's a start.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The Republican party holds the majority of seats in the House and the Senate, and they control the executive branch. The point of this article is that the Republicans had the rare opportunity to pare back the surveillance state regardless of what the Democrats wanted, but they didn't.

  • Just Say'n||

    Kind of like when Democrats had super majorities in both houses and the executive in 2008 and 2009? Or is that different because reasons?

  • Just Say'n||

    They even had a president who pledged to end the Patriot Act during the campaign. Haha

  • JesseAz||

    If you think ACA was ever going to work let alone kill the push for single payer, the you're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yes, most of them are hypocrites. But, couldn't someone easily say "so called civil libertarians hate the surveillance state unless it's being used against people they don't want in office"?

    There are a lot of people who have exposed themselves as hypocrites during this presidency.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Important news from Raw Story's Twitter!

    Corey Lewandowski flashes white power 'OK' symbol on stage at Trump's Michigan rally

    Disgraceful. I really wish Mueller would hurry up and throw this white supremacist regime out of office.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Mueller's got nothing against Trump so far or he would have done it already.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I have faith in Mueller. He has years of experience and an unblemished record of service to the American people. I even read on Twitter that he single-handedly dismantled the Gambino crime family.

    The process is moving more slowly than I'd like, but maybe he's waiting to present his full case until after the midterm elections, when the #BlueWave gives us a Democratic House.

    #Impeach
    #Resist
    #TrumpRussia

  • Rat on a train||

    Mueller is waiting for someone to turn and testify that it was Trump on the grassy knoll.

  • JuanQPublic||

    ...when the #BlueWave gives us a Democratic House.

    The Democrats are already sealing their fate, though. The latest numbers aren't encouraging for them at all, with no consideration for actual voter turnout. Essentially, the same reason they lost the 2016 presidential.

    Riding the anti-Trump wave isn't going to cut it. They aren't running on a platform at all. You can count on Trump voters to show at the polls. What's going to mobilize Democrats to actually vote?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Mueller is pushing the obstruction of justice charge for firing Comey--which is laughable.

    You might disagree with the president's decisions, but he is constitutionally charged with firing his subordinates.

    The president exercising his constitutional powers in firing a subordinate cannot be obstruction of justice.

    It might be awful or bad or wrong or stupid or not advisable. But it isn't obstruction of justice.

  • wareagle||

    Trump confessed to it, on live TV, witnessed by over 100 million Americans.
    The executive confessed to firing someone who worked for him. Comey wasn't investigating dick. Meanwhile, his #2 - McCabe - was recommended for dismissal by the agency itself. Hmmmm.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If you're being investigated, firing the investigator is obstruction"

    That might be interesting if Comey were investigating Trump. And it might seem that way--since Mueller was Comey's mentor and although he's supposed to be investigating his former protege, he seems to be looking at everything except for his Comey's obvious misbehavior.

    Regardless, firing the director of the FBI still isn't obstruction of justice. It cannot be a crime for the president to exercise his executive powers in a constitutional way--no matter how much you disagree with his decisions or dislike him personally. There isn't anything in the Constitution about how it's obstruction of justice for the president to fire the people who are working for him. To the contrary, the president is charged with firing the people who work for him--by the Constitution.

    If you don't like what the Constitution says, you can change it through an amendment. You can pretend that it's obstruction for the president to fire the people who work for him. You can pretend that doing jumping jacks in the Lincoln bedroom is money laundering and arson. What you can't do is show that it's obstruction of justice for the president to fire the people who are working for him in real life--and that's because it isn't.

    No matter how much you want it to be obstruction of justice, it still isn't.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mueller's got nothing against Trump so far or he would have done it already.

    That sounds like an Ouachita Baptist education talking.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think that's much of a stretch.

    So far, Muller has managed to force two potential star witnesses to confess to lying--which hurts their credibility. No prosecutor wants to force the people he's trying to flip with by charging them with lying. After you've forced someone to plead guilty to lying, their credibility as witnesses is shot.

    On the other hand, Mueller is going after the president for obstruction of justice--for performing his duties as president in a perfectly constitutional manner.

    If Mueller had something, he wouldn't be making his best witnesses plead guilty to lying and chasing the president on a constitutionally ridiculous grounds. If he had something substantial, he'd have shown his hand by now. The most reasonable assumption given the absence of evidence or charges is that Mueller is biding his time, hoping that the Democrats take control of congress and use what little he has to impeach.

    He's just waiting for a Democrat jury--and that is not the behavior of a prosecutor with a smoking gun.

  • DenverJ||

    Please cite the administration's policies which make it a white supremacist regime. Ok thanks.

  • DenverJ||

    So a bunch of retards in Charlottesville = administration policy? God, I'd forgotten what an idiot you are.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    OK, let's be fair;

    'Republicans' of the political class love surveillance because they believe that they are exempt - not because they are Republicans but because they are of the political class.

    Republican voters have reluctantly accepted that common sense anti-crime and anti-terrorism measures (like not accepting young men refugees from Islamic States who have spotty backgrounds) are't going to be kept in place in the face to Leftist schweeming, and at least want enough surveillance in place that violent nuts get caught before they kill hundreds.

  • Cy||

    It's a valid point that, we're basically being given two choices by our "betters;" either total surveillance by the pubs or a tidal wave of illegals, including terrorists, by the rats.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers in Congress insist that the president and his aides were inappropriately snooped on by politically motivated federal intelligence officials during the 2016 election. Yet when given the opportunity to scale back the FBI's power to secretly engage in domestic surveillance of American citizens, the president and the GOP did not take advantage of it. In fact, they did the opposite.

    This bit makes me suspect that Shackford doesn't fully grok what the FBI did to the Trump campaign.

    The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (FISA) rejected only 12 of 38,169 requests for surveillance warrants between 1979 and 2015.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/03.....-rejected/

    With a 99.9% batting average, the FISA court rejected the FBI's application for a warrant to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign (twice). I guess even the rubber stamp of a FISA court was reluctant to okay something that smelled like a Nixonian campaign surveillance scheme.

    The FBI eventually resubmitted the application--but the last time they included the infamous "Piss-gate" dossier. Despite being aware of the "Piss-gate" dossier's provenance, the FBI neglected to mention in their application for a FISA warrant to the court that the dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We shouldn't conflate the issue of FISA courts being a rubber stamp 99.9% of the time with the issue of the FBI running interference for the Hillary Clinton campaign. One is a question of whether our Fourth Amendment rights are being adequately protected. The other is a question of whether the FBI was working to undermine one presidential candidate in favor of another.

    If Shackford can't tell the difference between those two issues, he should review the available information until it becomes clear.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I guess the highly abbreviated version is:

    Why would Republicans react to abuse of the FISA court by the FBI with scaling back the FISA court?

    "President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers in Congress insist that the president and his aides were inappropriately snooped on by politically motivated federal intelligence officials during the 2016 election. Yet when given the opportunity to scale back the FBI's power to secretly engage in domestic surveillance of American citizens, the president and the GOP did not take advantage of it. In fact, they did the opposite.

    Where have I seen this logic before?

    Republicans criticized some nutjob for killing innocent children with an "assault rifle" at an elementary school. Yet when given the opportunity to ban "assault weapons", the president and the GOP did not take advantage of it?!

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't like the FISA courts and the fact that they're effectively a rubber stamp. However, misuse does not justify taking away legitimate use. Criminals using guns don't justify taking guns away from people who have never done anything wrong, and it's perfectly understandable if some in the GOP think the FBI running interference on one presidential campaign for the benefit of another is unacceptable--even if they also think that the FISA courts serve a legitimate purpose (when the FBI isn't withholding critical information from the court and abusing the system).

    We throw people in jail for misusing their guns and violating people's rights. Not sure I understand why we aren't pursuing the same strategy with rogue agents of the FBI who appear to have abused the FISA court.

    I bet the judge is livid.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Democrats love snooping and want more.

    Water is wet.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The amount of denial of Democratic voters about their own party on most of the issues regarding authoritarianism is nearly overwhelming at this point. Like the GOP, they simply have no guiding principles on issues of privacy and government overreach. Essentially, they are guided by reflex to Trump and the GOP, and little more, save for a handful of Democrats.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn, Remember when Obama actually ordered an American and his American son shot dead with a drone?

    When has Trump ever shot an American dead?

  • Devastator||

    Quit living in a silo, both parties want to be able to snoop. It's one of the few bipartisan supported overreaches of government.

  • Birdie||

    Sarah Sanders got a small taste of the medicine Trump dishes out all the time and suddenly Republicans are outraged.

  • Just Say'n||

    Reporters are so brave. How dare Trump insult them for being blatantly partisan hacks! The other guy only spied on them and tried to prosecute them. But, mean words are worse than Hitler

  • wareagle||

    Oddly, a good many members of the media in attendance were embarrassed. And how classy to attack Sarah over being mad at Trump.

  • SDN||

    No, we've been outraged since you were lying about Reagan.

  • Ken Shultz||

    GOOOOOOOOOOAL!

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Jesus fucking Christ, it's an entire thread of mentally deranged psychopath Mary Stack talking to herself.

  • SDN||

    Republicans simply insist that Trump not be the only one snooped on. Equal treatment under the law used to be a Libertarian thing....

  • Devastator||

    Both major parties want to take away your ability to communicate via encryption. They don't see any value in digital freedom. Both parties support invasion of privacy, just look at the support for the Patriot Act, one of the few bipartisan laws still supported strongly by both parties, and it's a nightmare and rescinding of major parts of the Bill of Rights and democracy.

  • Devastator||

    The bill will never pass, although I appreciate the efforts of a few congress critters who still have some respect for the Constitution rather than use it for toilet paper. Both parties are equally complicit in trying to roll back our rights and make the government ever bigger.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online