Losing by 12 is not usually cause for celebration. But for a growing number of Americans worried that the National Security Agency has gone too far, last week's narrow defeat to a bipartisan amendment is more a glimmer of hope.
Thirty-eight years before Edward Snowden’s leaks, the NSA was embroiled in its first scandal over secret surveillance. A review of that history reminds us that abuses, even severe ones, can be met by investigation, broad debate, and reform.
A recent complaint filed in Brooklyn federal court alleges that the NYPD violated American Muslims' constitutional rights by monitoring them based on nothing more than their religion.
Secret surveillance has thrived under the indifference of Americans. If one has nothing to hide, then why care about being watched? However, over-surveillance has consequences for everyone.
According to a Pew Research poll, the majority of Americans believe the government's claims that the harvesting of domestic phone records is legal. The law, however, says otherwise.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the government to collect data as long as that data is “relevant” to a terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. Recent news that the government has spied on millions of Americans brings into questions how this law is being used.
Following the revelation that the NSA was collecting phone records of millions of customers, how did the FBI and NSA maneuver rules and regulations to collect, mine, and use collected data?
You might think the government would be satisfied that Bradley Manning has entered a guilty plea that could put him away for 20 years. Instead, in the court martial that began Monday, prosecutors are reaching for more.
In the trial over the NYPD's controversial stop and frisk program, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner for Strategic Initiatives gave troubling testimony indicating a lack of internal oversight — oversight that experts say should be managed by an independent monitor.
Although President Obama outlined positive new actions in his recent counter-terrorism speech, he failed to address a number of key questions and policy changes needed for reform.
