By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 10:21am
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing on the government’s warrantless wiretapping program (watch here). The law authorizing the program, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, expires at the end of this year.
The Senate is taking up the FISA Amendments Act once again. Today they'll be debating it on the floor and then they'll vote tomorrow morning. Listen. It doesn't look good. Here's a quick rundown of the first bit of debate.
Senator Cardin spoke first then Senator Feingold came to the floor giving Senator Dodd props on his immunity work. He called the immunity provision a "rigged process" thereby cementing his place in my heart. Feingold also notes that at least 70 senators have not seen the documents outlining the legal underpinnings of the program that the Intelligence and Judiciary committees have had access to.
The Supreme Court has just agreed to consider whether plaintiffs represented by the ACLU have the right to challenge the constitutionality of a controversial law that authorizes the National Security Agency to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international emails and phone calls.
At issue is an appeals court ruling that allowed the ACLU’s challenge to the law – called the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 – to move forward. Responding to today’s news, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:
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.
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.
Okay so you may know that we sued the government last week (you know it never really gets old, suing the government) when President Bush signed the FISA Amendments Act into law. This was not a "compromise bill" or a "modernization" bill, which is how they tried to sell it. Instead Congress basically handed the President even more power to spy on Americans than he was using under the illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Super, right?
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?
Debate begins again. Senator Bond is on the floor once again saying plainly and, frankly a little smugly, that the FISA Amendments Act is the Senate bill with "cosmetic" fixes for the Democrats. Boasting is unattractive, Senator Bond. (BTW, why can no one in Congress pronounce "exigent" properly? Does that make you feel confident about their ability to discuss and legislate on these intricate matters? Me, neither.)
