Why We're Challenging the FAA(Originally posted on Huffington Post.) On Wednesday, July 22, PEN American Center will join the American Civil Liberties Union in court to challenge the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which greatly expanded the ability of the U.S. government to spy on Americans without a warrant. PEN is an 87-year-old organization that defends writers and the freedom to write around the world. We are plaintiffs in this lawsuit first and foremost because we believe our own communications, which include sensitive phone calls and emails with writers facing persecution in countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, are vulnerable under the program. Like our coplaintiffs in the case, which include human rights, labor, legal, and media organizations, we rely on confidential international communications to carry out our work. The trust we depend on is hard-won: those with whom we work abroad have often been monitored, imprisoned, or persecuted in their countries, and some of them are living and working in countries where a history of cooperation between their governments and U.S. intelligence agencies has left a legacy of fear and distrust of the United States. The fact that the National Security Agency (NSA) now has nearly limitless authority to monitor our international calls and emails severely compromises our ability to communicate freely with our endangered colleagues, undercutting our ability to ascertain and serve their needs. But surveillance powers like those the National Security Agency now possesses do more than damage our ability to do international human rights work. We know from the experiences of our colleagues in countries where governments had unchecked surveillance powers (including the United States as recently as the 1970s) that programs that allow governments to spy on their own citizens are often directed against writers and intellectuals, and that surveillance in general poses a serious threat to the intellectual and creative freedoms of all citizens. While its full scope remains unknown, the surveillance program that the Bush administration first implemented late in 2001 clearly gave the National Security Agency unprecedented power to monitor telephone and internet communications, and concerns about its constitutionality have surfaced repeatedly. In 2004, the Department of Justice even refused to provide the legal certification necessary for reauthorization of the original program because top department officials — all Bush appointees — were not convinced of its legality. When elements of the program were finally exposed in 2005, however, Congress failed to hold accountable the officials who had authorized it or to put new legislative protections in place. Instead, in 2008 it passed a new law — the FISA Amendments Act — that not only granted immunity to telecommunications companies for their participation in the NSA program, but also provided the executive branch with even broader authority to monitor the communications of innocent people. Wednesday's hearing is the first in a lawsuit specifically targeting the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act. It comes amid new and disturbing revelations about the NSA's surveillance activities. Earlier this month, the Inspectors General of the NSA, CIA, Defense Department, Justice Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report describing a surveillance program that was far larger than previously acknowledged; that report, too, questioned the legal basis for the program the Bush administration launched in 2001 and revealed that most of the intelligence leads generated by the program had questionable relevance to terrorism investigations. Meanwhile, ongoing Congressional investigations have uncovered new information suggesting that the NSA continues to scrutinize emails on a scale that may even violate the terms of the FISA Amendments Act. First the Bush administration and now the Obama administration insist that these surveillance powers are necessary to protect the country from individuals and groups that threaten national security. In fact, the laws that the FISA Amendments Act eviscerated were specifically crafted to ensure the U.S. government could spy on suspected terrorists and other foreign threats. What those laws also guaranteed, however, was that the constitutional right of American citizens and residents to be secure against unreasonable searches was protected. History has repeatedly shown how, without such protections, surveillance in the name of national security often extends to spying on peaceful political activists, journalists and writers, and other ordinary, law-abiding citizens. So we are heading to court, asking a federal judge to strike down those provisions of the FISA Amendments Act that allow unchecked, warrantless surveillance of our telephone and email communications. And we will continue to press the Obama administration and Congress to rein in a range of post-9/11 surveillance powers that threaten the right of our members, and all American citizens and residents, to read, write, and communicate freely without fearing that our government is listening in or gathering private, First Amendment-protected information. Larry Siems, Director of the PEN American Center's Freedom to Write program, is one of the ACLU's clients in our lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 10 Responses to "Why We're Challenging the FAA" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jul 22nd, 2009 at 7:18pm
FUCK THE ACLU AND ALL THE BULLSHIT YOU CAUSE FOR HARD WORKING AMERICANS
Jul 23rd, 2009 at 7:42am
It's not just international telecommunications. The federal government is using the war on terror as a pretext to harass and censor U.S. citizens. Its regional "fusion centers," administered by the Department of Homeland Security, appear to be "ground zero" for these constitutional violations.
Is Secretary Napolitano unaware -- or are her charges INSUBORDINATE?
Please see this brief article and the link to an ACLU blog thread comments section that chronicles a daily litany of abuses suffered by this journalist under siege.
http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pre text-harass-and-censor
http://nowpublic.com/world/anti-stalking-journo-seeks-lawyer-fight- stalking-charge
http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-g overnment-mandate/#comments
Jul 28th, 2009 at 10:48am
From another comment: "The federal government is using the war on terror as a pretext to harass and censor U.S. citizens."
It would appear that this is true, but the canaries in the mines aren't able to get through to those in positions of power who could listen and do something.
I came across a comment this morning on AOL TV as I was reading about The View and reactions to Sarah Palin's exit speech. The writer's "name" is SOLDRNTX and the comment was as follows:
"Liberalism is a mental disorder. Period."
We're in big trouble in this country. There are many who wish to rather permanently, it would seem, silence those with whom they disagree. They will and are going to great lengths to do so.
Jul 29th, 2009 at 2:19pm
What about the debate regarding the federal government's use of "Cookies"? Doesn't this allow agencies to spy on Americans?
Aug 2nd, 2009 at 6:33pm
FISA IS LYING AGENCY HOW COEMS WE AT http://www.welfarestate.com/911 STILL ALIVE WITHIN ALL COMMUNITIES OF NYC THE MOST .EMAIL ME AT MARIO.PROFACA@GMAIL.COM
Aug 6th, 2009 at 11:54am
Are you looking at the executive branches decision to ask American citizens to report fishy material? What will the White House do with this fishy material? Where is it stored? Do we have access to the White Houses' databases?
Why is the government focusing on American citizen's reporting their neighbor's online postings?
Aug 7th, 2009 at 5:32am
I'm concerned about the White House asking Americans to spy on each other and report detractors of a national health care policy directly to them.
Will the ACLU fight against this truly unprecedented attack on the right of free speech? Will the ACLU demand that persons reported to the White House be informed of the "accusations" against them or "reports of their activities"?
Aug 12th, 2009 at 9:01am
Leaving a cell phone turned on allows
your location to be determined (GPS) for
human location. The cell phone is
being tracked between three towers at
all times.
FCC says if it is in the air ways it can
be monitored. Therefore they don't need
a court order to listen. Years ago that
was called a wire tap.
Aug 20th, 2009 at 12:46am
I support the ACLU and common sense. Anyone saying the ACLU is causing problems doesn't understand what controling fear means. I won't even explain it, figure it out yourselves.
Aug 30th, 2009 at 6:55pm
Wow that is a coward- to use such words and can't leave his or her name. I want and need to have an information sharing with 1. Jameel Jaffer or 2. Micheal Ratner at CCR Justice and fill in the missing pieces. My only voice to expose the damages of Texas White Male Republicans that have abused more power than a raving pedophile is.. http://www.peacepink.ning.com