By Michael German, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 2:05pm
What's worse than waterboarding and letting the government wiretap Americans without warrants? It's not a riddle; it is a question we need James Comey to answer, particularly if President Obama nominates him to lead the FBI for the next 10 years.
You see, while serving as acting attorney general in March 2004, Comey took a courageous and defiant stand against the Bush administration's secret [REDACTED] surveillance program, refusing to sign a certification saying the program was legal. When White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales authorized the program to go forward without a Justice Department certification, Comey threatened to resign, along with his staff and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 4:46pm
Secret law exists inside the United States.
As we wrote a few weeks ago, one of the main issues discussed on the Senate floor during the FISA debate was secret law. Under the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court makes secret interpretations and secret rulings about something that should never be secret: our constitutional rights. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) fought for an amendment that would have required the administration to release the court’s opinions, to provide unclassified summaries of them, or to certify how many there are and why they can’t be released.
By Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 12:23pm
It’s official. The Senate voted 72-23 last week to extend the FISA Amendments Act another five years, which President Obama signed Sunday. Unfortunately, the public discussion of George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program may soon fade back into the shadows.
The heartbreak of another Senate vote in favor of dragnet collection of Americans’ communications, however, pales in comparison to the rejection of modest amendments in favor of more FISA transparency and accountability. These amendments would not have limited the government’s spying program in any way; they would have only compelled the government to tell the public what the law says and whether it protects us from government prying.
By Robyn Greene, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 5:29pm
Last month I wrote about how Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has been rebuffed in his multi-year effort to get answers to very basic questions about how the government uses the sweeping authorities granted under the FISA Amendments Act (FISA).
Wyden spearheaded two more letters to the National Security Agency (NSA) Director and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Again, he was denied answers.
By Michael German, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 11:10am
The Bipartisan Policy Center published a report last week called, “Countering Online Radicalization in America,” which strongly endorsed First Amendment principles in rejecting censorship as an appropriate tactic for addressing violent extremist content on the Internet. The report evaluated the many methods governments around the world use to censor the Internet – including filtering or blacklisting online content, taking down websites (either through legal means, cyber attacks or appealing to private sector providers), and prosecuting Internet content producers – and rejected them all as both ineffective in stopping the spread of undesirable ideas, and an affront to American values: “For the United States, the cost-benefit analysis would be even clearer: with its long and cherished tradition of free speech, the creation of a nationwide system of censorship is virtually inconceivable.” But the BPC’s positive recommendations are potentially undermined by its continuing embrace of a radicalization theory that draws too close a causal connection between “radical” ideas and violent action.
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 Robyn Greene, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 5:35pm
How many different ways does Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) have to ask the government the number of Americans it has spied on under its warrantless wiretapping program before he can get a straight answer? So far, it’s at least three and counting.
