By Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU at 1:15pm
In 2008, Congress enacted a statute that authorized the National Security Agency to carry out dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications. Almost four years later, the statute — called the FISA Amendments Act — has yet to be reviewed by the courts, and, if the Obama administration has its way, the courts are unlikely ever to review it. In February, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn a court of appeals decision that would allow an ACLU challenge to the statute to go forward. Today we filed our brief in opposition, which asks the Supreme Court to let the appeals court's decision stand.
By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 2:44pm
This past Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly released its report on S. 3276, a five year extension of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA). The Committee voted 13-2 to extend the FAA-the law that legalized President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and more --without amendment, and without conducting any public oversight. The Committee also rejected crucial amendments by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) that would have increased transparency and privacy protections for Americans.
In a very significant development, yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that our lawsuit challenging warrantless wiretapping can proceed. The law that we’re challenging, the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) of 2008, is the most far-reaching surveillance law ever enacted by Congress. It gives the National Security Agency (NSA) virtually limitless power to spy on Americans' international phone calls and emails. It allows the NSA to collect those communications en masse, without a warrant, without suspicion of any kind, and with only very limited judicial oversight. Needless to say, the law has dramatic implications for Americans' privacy rights.
Immediately after he signs, we're suing. Our argument is simple: This bill is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. You know, the one that says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 10:39am
As we've told you many times, we believe the FISA Amendments Act is unconstitutional and have taken it to the Supreme Court . There’s not a vote in sight in the Senate. Frankly, that’s not a bad thing. We won't be disappointed if it sunsets on Dec. 31, as scheduled.
However, it's likely the Senate will eventually vote to reauthorize FISA, and its extraordinary authority to collect international communications coming in and out of the U.S. without a warrant. But senators Wyden, Leahy, Merkley and Tester are working hard to offer amendments that would increase transparency about the use of this very powerful spying law and insert common- sense protections for Americans' information.
By Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU at 1:55pm
As I noted in a previous post, the two Bush administration surveillance memos we obtained last Friday are very heavily redacted. They’re interesting nonetheless.
The first memo, written by Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo in November 2001, contends that the president has authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a statute that “purports” (Yoo’s word) to regulate government surveillance. It also contends that Congress doesn’t have the power to regulate the president’s authority to gather intelligence for national security purposes. And it contends that intelligence gathering in support of military operations “does not trigger constitutional rights against illegal searches and seizures.” These are radical and insupportable claims, but they’re consistent with the claims that Yoo made in other OLC memos.
It’s been a long day so here’s a quick highlight reel from the last few hours:
Senator Specter introduced his immunity amendment.
Senator Whitehouse spoke against immunity and described the whole situation as the Bush Administration’s “self-inflicted wound.” Nice.
Senator Levin spoke in favor of the Bingaman amendment, too. Makes me proud to be from Michigan.
Senator Chambliss read his speech (for the bill, not shockingly) as quickly and as free from emotion as possible. It was like he was presenting a book report.
Seriously, if one more senator talks about the need for immunity for future cooperation, I’m going to throw my computer out the window. For the 582nd time, FISA requires that telecommunications be legally compelled to hand over information if the proper legal requirements are met. Remember Feingold’s speech this morning?
