NSA Wiretapping

  • April 5, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Amanda Frost, associate professor of law, American University Washington College of Law

    Plaintiffs have won a rare victory against the government in a case involving the state secrets privilege. On April 1, 2010, Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in favor of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc., a now-defunct Islamic charity that had sued the government for intercepting its employees' international telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant. Al-Haramain claimed the government's warrantless wiretap violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a federal law that limits the government's ability to eavesdrop on its citizens. The case is one of several challenging the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program. The government has responded to all such lawsuits by arguing because its surveillance activities concern national security, the state secrets privilege requires dismissal of claims that it violated FISA.

    Yet FISA was enacted for the very purpose of preventing the government from eavesdropping without a warrant, and it provides a mechanism by which individuals or groups who believe they have been victims of an unlawful government wiretap can seek redress in the courts even when the claim relies on classified evidence. Under FISA, if a plaintiff establishes a "colorable basis" for believing that it has been subject to unlawful surveillance, the Court can then examine classified evidence in camera to determine whether the surveillance occurred, and if so whether it was lawful.

  • April 1, 2010

    U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker rejected arguments initially offered by both the Bush and Obama administrations, ruling that the National Security Administration's (NSA) warrantless wiretapping broke federal law. Walker determined that the program violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires warrants that the NSA failed to obtain.

    Rather than mounting a legal defense of the NSA's program, the Obama administration only argued that the state-secrets privilege required the court to block the suit. Judge Walker bucked the administrations' invocations of the privilege, which he characterized as amounting to "unfettered executive-branch discretion" bearing "obvious potential for governmental abuse and overreaching." Walker's 45-page opinion made no mention of the Bush administration's argument that the NSA acted within the president's war time powers to override FISA.

    Writing at Wired's "Threat Level" blog, David Kravets called the ruling "a landmark decision."

    "It's the first ruling addressing how Bush's once-secret spy program was carried out against American citizens," Kravets reports. "Other cases considered the program's overall constitutionality, absent any evidence of specific eavesdropping."

  • October 9, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Greg Nojeim; Senior Counsel and Director, Project on Freedom, Security & Technology; the Center for Democracy & Technology

    The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved legislation to reauthorize the three expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and in the process rejected key amendments to restore civil liberties damaged when the Act was first adopted a few weeks after 9-11. The Obama Administration's opposition to civil liberties protections played an important role in this disappointing outcome.

    The Committee failed to adopt any meaningful limits on National Security Letters (NSLs). Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents can use NSLs, without the approval of a judge, to obtain sensitive financial and communications records about anyone, even people suspected of no wrongdoing, solely on the claim of an FBI official that the information is "relevant" to an ongoing investigation. Earlier I wrote about an amendment that would have ensured that NSLs could be used to obtain sensitive personal information only if there was some reason to believe that the information pertained to a foreign terrorist or spy or somebody in contact with or known to such a person. That's not a very exacting requirement - and the amendment under consideration didn't even go so far as to require judicial approval - but still the Committee rejected it yesterday.

    Instead, Senators opted for the more permissive "relevance" standard in current law. After a protracted debate, the Senators adopted a requirement that government agents write down specific facts showing that the information sought was relevant to an investigation. But that addition offers little protection, especially since intelligence investigations can be very broad and no one outside the FBI reviews the claim of relevance anyhow. The better way to focus intelligence resources would have been to ensure that the government was collecting information about potential bad actors and anyone tied to such people. Absent this minimal grounding, abuses and misuses of NSL authority identified by the DOJ's own Inspector General will persist.

    Perhaps most surprising and troubling about the Judiciary Committee action was the role of the Obama Administration, which opposed civil liberties protections that were even weaker than the civil liberties protections Barack Obama favored as a Senator. As but one example, as Senator, Obama signed a letter calling for an amendment that would have said that the related authority in Section 215 of the Patriot Act to obtain a court order for any "tangible things" could have been issued only for records pertaining to a suspected spy or terrorist or someone tied to a suspected spy or terrorist. Senator Obama also co-sponsored a bill with an even stronger standard. Despite Senator Obama's history of favoring strong standards in the Patriot Act, President Obama's Administration persuaded Judiciary Committee members to reject even limited improvements.

  • September 30, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Kevin Bankston, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation

    The surveillance powers authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act endanger civil liberties, but their impact pales in comparison to that of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) passed by Congress last summer. That law eviscerated Americans’ protections against domestic spying by intelligence agencies and granted immunity to telecommunications companies that illegally assisted in the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping. The PATRIOT renewal debate offers the first, best, and perhaps last meaningful opportunity to reform that law, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urges members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support any amendments to the FAA offered by Senator Feingold when it considers PATRIOT renewal tomorrow morning.

    Last week, Greg Nojeim of the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) ably introduced ACSblog readers to the current state of the USA PATRIOT debate: how three provisions related to PATRIOT are set to expire at the end of the year; how Senators Leahy and Feingold have introduced bills that would renew most or all of the expiring provisions but that also contain critical new privacy protections; how the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider those bills tomorrow; and how, in CDT’s opinion, “reform of NSL authority should be at the top of the congressional agenda for the Patriot Act.” EFF wholeheartedly agrees with CDT’s conclusion that the FBI's authority to issue National Security Letters is the PATRIOT power that poses the most clear and present danger to civil liberties. However, the PATRIOT debate is also a critical opportunity—perhaps the only opportunity—to significantly reform the much more worrisome surveillance powers granted by the FAA.

    From a civil liberties perspective, focusing on reforming the PATRIOT Act without also considering FAA reform is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Although objectionable in the extreme, PATRIOT did not fundamentally change the structure of federal surveillance law; rather, it was a collection of nips and tucks to current law that favored Executive authority over personal privacy, which when taken together constituted a significant new threat to civil liberties. On the other hand, the FAA was a radical facelift to the law, which broadly expanded the government’s warrantless wiretapping authority and reduced Americans’ protections against interception of the content of their phone conversations and emails. Admittedly, NSLs authorized by PATRIOT have been used to obtain the sensitive phone, internet and credit records of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The FAA, however, is being used to intercept and store millions upon millions of private telephone calls and internet communications, including purely domestic communications.

    This assertion is borne out by the investigative reporting of the New York Times, a leader when it comes to covering surveillance issues. The Gray Lady first reported back in April that in its attempts to implement the FAA, the National Security Agency (NSA) had engaged in “significant and systemic” “overcollection”—i.e., illegal interception—of large volumes of domestic email traffic. The Times’ follow-up reporting indicated that the “overcollected” emails likely numbered in the millions, and that those millions of illegally intercepted emails were being kept by the NSA in a database code-named “Pinwale”.

  • May 4, 2009

    With the five-year anniversary having just passed since 60 Minutes aired photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, some are still wringing their hands about what to do with those who tortured in the name of America. Other observers, however, have argued that the rule of law requires one result: investigation and prosecution of any torture supported by credible evidence.

    Congress may have other priorities, though, such as healthcare reform. Headlines on Swine Flu, or H1N1, coincided with the confirmation of former-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.) for Human Health and Services Secretary. Last week also saw the passage of President Obama's budget with language permitting for "reconciliation" on healthcare legislation. With these developments, some see the prospect for healthcare reform brighter than ever.

    IN the HOUSE