Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end

[eomer]

84. There is no way that the language of 215 can reasonably be interpreted to justify what they're doing

`SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--

`(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
`(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(b) Each application under this section--

`(1) shall be made to--
`(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
`(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

This language clearly says that for a US person to be investigated there must be some basis of activities of that person ("shall ... not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States&quot . And it clearly states that a collection of tangible things can only be made as part of such an investigation.

The NSA's interpretation, as explained by hack James Clapper, is absurd and outrageous. Clearly the legislature intended for collection to be only as part of an actual investigation of a person for some purpose. A claim that the above wording justifies collecting data on every single person in the US just in case it is needed in an investigation is really beyond the pale. Are you really saying that or am I not understanding correctly?

While it's surely true that changes in some of the laws are needed, the entire body of our laws is a moot point unless and until we return our country to the rule of law. These outrageous interpretations - this one and to cite another example, John Yoo's absurd interpretation of the Geneva Conventions - are in fact a refusal on the part of the Executive Branch to submit itself to the rule of law. The President could make a tremendous step in the right direction by ordering some specific interpretation of this law that is reasonable and making it clear that he has done so in order to return us to the rule of law.