Posts

The Most Counterproductive Letter in Defense of Julian Assange

/20 Comments/in , /by

How seriously do you think the Joe Biden Administration is going to take a letter that,

  • Implicitly treats helping Edward Snowden flee Hong Kong to Russia (one of the overt acts Julian Assange is currently charged with) as a journalistic activity
  • Was written by an organization on the board of which Edward Snowden serves, without any disclosure of the relationship (or that another Freedom of the Press Foundation board member, Laura Poitras, decided in real time that such activities weren’t journalism, thereby eliminating the New York Times problem the letter claims still exists)
  • Treats the Julian Assange extradition request as a Trump Administration decision at a time when Biden is trying to emphasize that DOJ represents the country, not one president
  • Ties the Assange prosecution to Trump’s other politicization of DOJ when the evidence shows the opposite happened, that Trump abused power to attempt to protect Assange (in her ruling, Judge Baraitser also noted that Trump in no way treated WikiLeaks like he treated journalistic outlets)
  • Relies on dated 2013 reporting about the sum total of WikiLeaks’ actions targeting the US, ignoring much of the public record since, not to mention the grave damage incurred by a release — Vault 7 — that had almost no news value, which was allegedly leaked while Acting Deputy Attorney General John Carlin (who will probably field this letter) was in charge of DOJ’s National Security Division
  • Exhibits zero familiarity with the 54-page report — citing testimony from Biden Administration members Avril Haines, Lisa Monaco, Susan Rice, Tony Blinken, Samantha Power, Denis McDonough, and John Kerry — that concluded one reason the Obama Administration didn’t respond in more timely fashion to Russia’s attack on the 2016 election was because of a delayed understanding of how WikiLeaks had been “coopted” by Russia:

Despite Moscow’s history of leaking politically damaging information, and the increasingly significant publication of illicitly obtained information by coopted third parties, such as WikiLeaks, which historically had published information harmful to the United States, previous use of weaponized information alone was not sufficient for the administration to take immediate action on the DNC breach. The administration was not fully engaged until some key intelligence insights were provided by the IC, which shifted how the administration viewed the issue.

[snip]

The executive branch struggled to develop a complete understanding of WikiLeaks. Some officials viewed WikiLeaks as a legitimate news outlet, while others viewed WikiLeaks as a hostile organization acting intentionally and deliberately to undermine U.S. or allies’ interests.

The letter claims to want to protect a “robust” press. But this letter fails to meet journalistic standards of transparency or accuracy.

Nevertheless, the following organizations signed onto such a (in my opinion) counterproductive letter:

  • Access Now
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Amnesty International – USA
  • Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Committee to Protect Journalists
  • Defending Rights and Dissent
  • Demand Progress
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Fight for the Future
  • First Amendment Coalition Free Press
  • Freedom of the Press Foundation
  • Human Rights Watch
  • Index on Censorship
  • Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
  • National Coalition Against Censorship
  • Open The Government
  • Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
  • PEN America
  • Project on Government Oversight
  • Reporters Without Borders
  • Roots Action
  • The Press Freedom Defense Fund of First Look Institute
  • Whistleblower & Source ProtectionProgram (WHISPeR) at ExposeFacts

I have a great deal of respect for these organizations, have worked for several of them, and have received funding in the past from Freedom of the Press Foundation. I agree with the sentiment of the letter that some of the current charges against Assange pose a risk to journalism. I believe these organizations could have written an effective letter to Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson (or, more effectively and with better targeting, to Carlin).

Instead, they signed onto a letter that violates several of the principles of journalism they claim to want to defend.

The Latest State Secrets Claim

/56 Comments/in /by

Yes, I know, I’ve been so preoccupied trying to save my state from JP Morgan Chase that I have not yet commented on the Obama Administration’s latest Cheneyesque invocation of state secrets, in the EFF/Jewel case. Of course, that means some smart lawyers have already beat up the filing on legal grounds. So I thought I’d focus my attention on tactical issues.

Three Interlocking Cases

Before I do that though, let’s review what this suit is and what else is going on. As Glenn pointed out, EFF filed this suit after Jello Jay Rockefeller, the patron saint of the awful FISA Amendment Act last year (and a big Obama backer), claimed during deliberations on that bill that,

…lawsuits against the government can go forward. There is little doubt that the government was operating in, at best, a legal gray area. If administration officials abused their power or improperly violated the privacy of innocent people, they must be held accountable. That is exactly why we rejected the White House’s year-long push for blanket immunity covering government officials.

Now, I don’t believe for a millisecond that Jello Jay actually intended for lawsuits to go forward–he was, instead, trying to dismiss opposition to immunity–but nevertheless, the legislative record on FISA now reflects that the bill’s sponsor thinks citizens should be able to sue those who illegally wiretapped.

Meanwhile, of course, there are two decisions still pending (as far as we know) before the judge in this case, Vaughn Walker. The first is the al-Haramain suit, in which the 9th Circuit already decided the warrantless wiretap program was a properly invoked state secret, but in which al-Haramain’s suit will probably go forward because Walker ruled the charity had proved it was an aggrieved party without the materials over which Bush invoked state secrets. Now (again, as far as we know), Walker is looking at the wiretap log and the other classified briefs submitted in the case, and deciding whether al-Haramain has standing (and therefore, whether the Bush Administration violated FISA). If and when Walker rules that the Bush Administration did violate FISA, there will be a giant fight over whether he, or the Administration, gets to decide which documents in that case will be made public and/or available to al-Haramain’s lawyers. (Contrary to almost all the reporting in the case, Walker has not yet decided whether or not he would require the government to hand over the wiretap logs and other briefs decribing the warrantless wiretap program.)

Read more →

Obama’s Two “Ifs” on FISA: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

/30 Comments/in , , /by

Briefs on FISA are coming out in Northern California so fast and furious it’s hard to keep them straight. Just as a reminder there are two main cases:

  • al-Haramain, in which the Bush (and now Obama) Administration has invoked State Secrets to prevent lawyers for the defunct charity al-Haramain from using clear evidence that Bush wiretapped them illegally to prove that Bush wiretapped them illegally
  • Retroactive immunity (Jewel/EFF), in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the retroactive immunity statute Congress passed last year on Constitutional grounds

The Obama stance on these two cases is worth looking at in conjunction because the Obama position toward congressionally-passed law is perfectly crafted to gut civil liberties (and Article III authority), all based on Obama’s interpretation of "if."

Astoundingly, both al-Haramain and retroactive immunity are almost certainly headed for the Appeals Court to rule on the meaning of two "if’s" (and one "shall") appearing in FISA-related law.

"If" the Attorney General Wants the President to Avoid Penalty for Illegal Wiretapping

Here’s the language Judge Walker just reviewed in FISA 1806(f) in the al-Haramain case:

Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or whenever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security procedures and protective orders, portions of the application, order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance. [my emphasis]

The government (under both Bush and Obama) has argued that the "shall" in 1806(f)–requiring the District Court Judge to review in camera and ex parte the materials relating to the surveillance to see if was legal–only kicks in after the "if" tied to the Attorney General in it. That is, the District Court Judge only reviews the underlying materials if the Attorney General files an affidavit saying that an adversary hearing would harm national security.

Judge Walker thinks that’s bullshit. Read more →

That’s Why They Call It “Domestic” Surveillance

/20 Comments/in /by

One of my favorite parts in the EFF brief arguing that the retroactive immunity passed by Congress last year is unconstitutional is their response to the telecom brief’s claim that the President has inherent authority over foreign affairs, and so doesn’t need specific details regarding which telecoms should get immunity for having broken the law on President Bush’s orders.

EFF points out that, if this were just about foreign affairs, we wouldn’t be here.

Nor can the standardless delegation of section 802 be justified, as the carriers suggest (Carriers’ Br. at 3-6), by reference to cases involving the President’s exercise of inherent constitutional power over foreign relations with other nations or his inherent power to regulate and control the military forces. First, despite the efforts of the government and the carriers to blur the difference, the President’s inherent powers over foreign relations and the military do not extend to the warrantless dragnet electronic surveillance and interception within the United States of the domestic communications of millions of American citizens who have no connection to any foreign power. The President has no inherent constitutional authority to conduct such activities, as this Court has held, Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp.2d 974, 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also In re Nat’l Security Agency Telecom. Records Litig., 564 F. Supp.2d 1109, 1121 (N.D. Cal. 2008), nor to order the courts to terminate litigation challenging such activities.

This is about domestic surveillance, not foreign intelligence, dummies.

Now, we know that the Bush Administration did, at one point, claim its inherent authority tied to foreign affairs extends right into the apartment buildings of average Americans.

The memorandum, which was directed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes, addresses whether the president has constitutional or statutory authority to use military force inside the United States in terrorism-related situations and, if so, whether such domestic military operations would be barredby either the Fourth Amendment or the federal Posse Comitatus statute. Examples of the type of force considered for purposes of the analysis include, but are not limited to: (1) destroying civilian aircraft that are believed to have been hijacked; (2) deploying troops to control traffic in and out of a major American city; (3) seizing or attacking civilian property, such as apartment buildings, office complexes, or ships, believed to contain terrorism suspects; and, (4) using military-level eavesdropping and surveillance technology on domestic targets.

Read more →