Posts

The Uncounted Wiretaps

/100 Comments/in /by

McJoan has an important post on BushCo’s coordination with the telecoms to push Congress into passing an immunity bill. There’s a Guinness with my name on it in the pub downstairs, so I’ll just tell you go read McJoan (and, of course, bmaz’ earlier post from today). But I wanted to make one point about this paragraph from the Isikoff article she links:

The debate over a new surveillance authorization is likely to be complicated by figures showing sharp increases in the government’s electronic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. One report filed with the office of the administrator of the U.S. Courts shows that standard wiretaps approved by federal and state courts jumped 20 percent last year, from 1,839 in 2006 to 2,208 in 2007. Later this week another report is expected to also show increases in secret wiretaps and break-ins approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in terror and espionage cases. But even these secret wiretaps and break-ins—estimated to be about 2,300—tell only part of the story. They don’t include other secret methods the government uses to collect personal information on U.S. citizens.

Newsweek cites a big bump in numbers for 2007–a bump which, Hosenball and Isikoff claim–reflect a real increase in actual surveillance.

But we don’t know that.

After all, for 11 and a half months of 2007, the formerly illegal, uncounted warrantless wiretapping was put under review by the FISA Court. So we should expect the numbers to go up significantly, because they will reflect the Administration counting wiretaps that, because they had previously escaped all review, had previously not been counted. We may or may not be seeing an increase in wiretaps. Rather, we may simply be seeing an increase in the number of wiretaps that get counted.

One more point, and then it’s beer thirty.

Remember that part of the hysterics the Administration used to push through PAA in August was to claim that they had lost the ability to wiretap. McConnell told Congress they had lost significant capabilities because FISC was actually reviewing these wiretaps.

If that’s true, then why are the numbers so high? 

Article I v. State Secrets

/15 Comments/in , /by

Well, if nothing else, this al-Haramain case in CA looks like it’ll focus the issue of States Secrets just as the Senate attempts to curb it.

An Islamic charity group is challenging the Bush administration’s record use of the so-called state secrets privilege, dubbed a "killer bullet" to the group’s case over warrantless wiretapping.

Lawyers for the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation on Wednesday urged a federal judge to toss out the government’s use of the privilege and let their lawsuit proceed.

The SF Chronicle captures the government argument in all its Kafkaesque glory.

A Bush administration lawyer resisted a San Francisco federal judge’s attempts Wednesday to get him to say whether Congress can limit the president’s wiretap authority in terrorism and espionage cases, calling the question simplistic.

"You can’t possibly make that judgment on the public record" without knowing the still-secret details of the electronic surveillance program that President Bush approved in 2001, Justice Department attorney Anthony Coppolino said at a crucial hearing in a wiretapping lawsuit.

[snip]

But Walker, in an extensive exchange with Coppolino, said Congress had spoken clearly in a 1978 law that required the government to obtain a warrant from a secret court before it could conduct electronic surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists or spies.

"The president is obliged to follow what Congress has mandated," Walker said.

Coppolino replied that Congress has also authorized the president to protect the nation and its military secrets.

[snip]

Walker pressed him on a more basic issue: whether Congress acted constitutionally when it required court approval for such wiretaps in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"I think it’s a bit of a simplistic question," Coppolino said.

"One might call it a fundamental question," the judge replied.

The government lawyer said that Congress "sought to intrude on the president’s authority to authorize surveillance" when it enacted the law, and that Bush, acting under his constitutional powers, had determined that its provisions were not sufficient to allow law enforcement authorities to thwart terrorists’ attack plans.

But Coppolino said the constitutionality of the law, and the related question of whether it is binding on the president, can’t be resolved without delving into operational details whose exposure would damage national security.

It looks like Coppolino’s argument will be worth reviewing in detail–to either laugh … or cry. Read more →

Conyers to Mukasey: So You Did Spin Shamelessly, Didn’t You?

/27 Comments/in , /by

(Updated with selise’s YouTube showing Leahy confronting Mukasey on his misrepresentation.) 

I really really like this letter Conyers, Nadler, and Scott sent to Attorney General Mukasey on his claim that they could have prevented 9/11 if only FISA hadn’t been preventing them. In it, they basically nail DOJ on its non-responsive response to their earlier letter asking about Mukasey’s claim. If you recall, the prior letter basically gave Mukasey a few choices: either Mukasey completely misunderstands FISA, the Administration withheld information from the 9/11 Commission, or the Administration screwed up.

These include a public statement by you that appears to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal government’s existing surveillance authority to combat terrorism, as well as possible malfeasance by the government prior to 9/11,

The underlying truth that DOJ won’t admit, of course, is that Mukasey misrepresented the incident in an attempt to make a case for FISA that doesn’t actually hold up.

In an apparent attempt to avoid admitting Mukasey has been spinning wildly, DOJ wrote a non-responsive response back–it turned the question into a general question about FISA legislation, rather than specific question about whether Mukasey misrepresented the facts.

We are writing about the April 10, 2008, letter from Brian Benczkowski in response to our letter of April 3, 2008, concerning disturbing recent revelations about apparent pre-9/11 failures and subsequent abuses of civil liberties by the Administration. While we appreciate the promptness of the April 10 letter, we are extremely concerned about its failure to address several of our specific inquiries.

[snip]

In addition, however, the April 10 letter does not respond to several of our requests. Our letter did not, as you characterize it, generally inquire “why FISA’s emergency provisions were not an adequate substitute for the authorities the Government has obtained under the Protect America Act.” Rather, our inquiry concerned the specific phone call about which you spoke. We asked whether the then-existing emergency provisions would have allowed interception of the specific call at issue, if indeed the foreign portion of the call was a known terrorist location. To the extent that your response set forth an argument for the PAA or the Administration’s preferred version of FISA reform, it was non-responsive to our request for information. Read more →

Was the October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion the Basis for the Illegal Wiretap Program?

/59 Comments/in , , /by

By now, you’ve noted the footnote in the Torture Memo referencing a different OLC opinion declaring the 4th Amendment invalid.

[O]ur office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct. 23, 2001).

Scribe and I have been in a bit of a dispute whether or not that October 23, 2001 document was written to justify the illegal wiretapping program. I’m going to try to lay out what we know about it here.

The Case for Believing the 10/23/01 Memo Authorized the Warrantless Wiretap Program

The basis for arguing that the opinion is the rationale for the illegal wiretapping program is simple. First, the timing is right. As the AP notes, the opinion was written just two days before Dick briefed the Gang of Four on the program.

The October memo was written just days before Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, briefed four House and Senate leaders on the NSA’s secret wiretapping program for the first time.

Then there’s the argument that DOJ included the document in a list of materials withheld in response to an ACLU FOIA.

The government itself related the October memo to the TSP program when it included it on a list of documents that were responsive to the ACLU’s request for records from the program. It refused to hand them over.

The document they’re referring to is this Steven Bradbury declaration. In the declaration, Bradbury writes,

OLC 146, which is a 37-page memorandum, dated October 23, 2001, from a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in OLC, and a Special Counsel, OLC, to the Counsel to the President, prepared in response to a request from the White House for OLC’s views concerning the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity OLC 146 is withheld under FOIA Exemption Five.

I’m going to add an update below, showing the other OLC documents Bradbury withheld in this declaration. But note that this one does not specifically address communications (some of the others do).

The last reason it would make sense is the content. By all appearances, the warrantless wiretap program is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. Thus, it would be logical that the Administration simply invalidated the Fourth Amendment in an OLC opinion to make its illegeal wiretap program legal.

Update: Here’s part of scribe’s logic for arguing the opinion relates to domestic spying (click through to the comment for his complete argument).

The NSA is part of the military .

The title of Yoo’s 10/23/01 memo is, what: “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States”

But the proposition for which that memo is cited* in footnote 10 of the memo is:

Indeed, drawing in part on the reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez, as well as the Supreme Court’s treatment of the destruction of property for the purposes of military necessity, our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations.

So, what does this mean? Depends on how you define “domestic military operations”, don’t it?

I argue the 10/23/01 memo was the lawyerly justification for:

(a) NSA (military) wiretapping and surveillance operations inside the United States;
(b) domestic military operations of the intel-gathering sort – e.g., CIFA, physical surveillance, black-bag jobs, etc.;
(c) the incarceration of suspected terrists in military brigs, regardless of citizenship status (e.g., Jose Padilla, etc.), their removal from the civilian criminal justice system and their transportation from place to place;
(d) when done by the military, the odd kidnapping, interrogating, whacking of suspected terrists who happened to be within the United States (none of which we know about actually having occurred, but which could have been deemed “legitimate” under the analysis we know about so far).

All of those things are military operations. 

The Case against Believing the 10/23/01 Memo Authorized the Warrantless Wiretap Program

But there are several reasons to believe the opinion has nothing to do with the warrantless wiretap program. Least credibly, there’s Tony Fratto’s insistence that it doesn’t.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Wednesday that the Fourth Amendment finding in the October memo was not the legal underpinning for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Read more →

Jane Harman v. Jello Jay: Compare and Contrast

/19 Comments/in , /by

Jane Harman explained her response to the warrantless wiretap program over at TPMCafe. I’m interested in it not so much to determine whether Eric Licthblau or she is right about whether she "switched her view" on the program (I think Harman is actually too sensitive to the charge; as she tells it, she did drastically change her view, but not because of the publicity of Lichtblau’s reporting, but because of the new information she learned from it; though after writing this post, I’m a little sympathetic to Lichtblau’s claim). Rather, I’m interested in the contrast Harman’s narrative presents with what we know of Jello Jay’s evolving views toward the illgeal wiretapping program. After all, Harman and Jello Jay apparently learned of the program in the same briefing (Harman had just replaced Pelosi as Ranking Member on HPSCI; Jello Jay had replaced Graham as the top Democrat on SSCI). But the two have apparently taken dramatically different trajectories in their positions on the program, and the comparison offers an instructive view on oversight.

The First Harman/Jello Jay Briefing: January 29, 2003

Harman provides this description of the January 29, 2003 she and Jello Jay received (along with Pat Roberts, then SSCI Chair, and Porter Goss, then HPSCI Chair):

When I became Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee in 2003, I was included for the first time in highly classified briefings on the operational details of an NSA effort to track al Qaeda communications using unique access points inside the US telecommunications infrastructure. The so-called “Gang of Eight” (selected on the basis of our committee or leadership positions) was told that if the terrorists found out about our capability, they would stop using those communications channels and valuable intelligence would dry up (which had happened before).

This program was so highly classified that I could discuss it with no one, not even my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee or the committee’s professional staff. (See p. 169 of the Lichtblau book.) And I was assured that it complied with the law and that the senior-most officials in the Justice Department conducted a full legal review every 45-60 days.

At that point, then, she and Jello Jay appear to have learned that:

  • The US was tracking Al Qaeda communication via US-based access points
  • The program was legal and was reviewed regularly by top Justice Department officials

If Harman’s description is accurate, it suggests the Administration gave a very distorted view of the program. Read more →

It Turns Out There Was No Wolf

/45 Comments/in /by

Even as Mike McConnell is making ham-handed attempts to prove his good faith with Democrats, the White House is facing up to the fact that its fear-mongering no longer works.

The White House, seeking to break a months-long standoff, has signaled to Democratic lawmakers it is open to negotiation over a proposal to expand government spy powers, according to officials familiar with the conversations.

[snip]

Over the two-week spring recess, administration officials contacted Democratic leaders to suggest they were open to compromise on updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We definitely want to get it done," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "We’ve had some initial conversations with Congress about the need to get FISA reform done quickly." He added that Mr. Bush still prefers the Senate measure, which the White House negotiated with Senate Democrats.

[snip]

The White House’s more conciliatory posture reflects a recognition that the Bush administration’s leverage on national-security matters has slipped since this past summer, a top Republican congressional aide said. "There’s a recognition that if they’re actually going to get a product they can support, there’s going to have to be some new level of engagement," the aide said.

For months, the White House has tried to replicate its performance last August, when Republicans outmaneuvered Democrats and forced passage of a temporary expansion of domestic spy powers. Republicans then tried to use the temporary law’s expiration date to force Democrats to accept a permanent expansion. But since the law expired Feb. 16, House Democrats have stood firm.

Democrats see the White House’s new tack as acknowledgment that their strategy failed. "Once they saw we had the votes in the House for something other than the Senate bill, they saw the writing on the wall," said one Democratic aide. "They’re more willing to reach out and begin those conversations." [my emphasis]

We’re not there yet on a reasonable FISA bill. After all, Mukasey and McConnell are still plying dishonest claims. The Gorman article points to Steny Hoyer as the key player in the House, which seems logical–which means we’re still trying to persuade a moderate to stand firm.

But this is a good sign. If for no other thing, it suggests that Republicans are facing an election season, with a Presidential candidate who believes he should be elected solely because his Daddy was a big Admiral, finally recognizing the bankruptcy of its fear-mongering strategy.

FISA: FBI Overrides Constitutional Objections

/24 Comments/in /by

Democrats just defeated (with 217 votes) an effort by Republicans to consider the Senate FISA bill before the House considers the House bill today.

While we’re watching lots of bloviating on FISA in the House, I thought I’d call attention to something Mary found yesterday.

The FBI twice disregarded a secret court’s constitutional objections and obtained private records for national-security probes, a U.S. inspector reported on Thursday.

The Justice Department’s Inspector General made the disclosure in reviews of the FBI’s powers to obtain information such as phone records or credit-card data in terrorism probes or other security investigations.

[snip]

The report took particular note of two occasions in which a secret court that oversees electronic surveillance rejected FBI requests to obtain records.

The court was concerned that doing so could interfere with rights protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, religion and association and the right to petition the government.

After the rejections, the FBI used separate authority to get the information without the court’s approval, relying on so-called National Security Letters — even though that authority also had First Amendment guidelines.

Unfortunately, this is a detail I’ve only seen highlighted in Reuters’ coverage of the IG report on PATRIOT Act provisions. It’s an example that really proves the necessity of the additional protections included in the House bill–without FISC reviewing what DOJ is doing, we’re going to see DOJ override Constitutional concerns more and more often.

Update: nolo has the passage from the OIG report on this here.

Conyers introducing the bill: [PAA] transferred power of independent review from courts to AG.

The Administration tells us they have nothing to hide. If that’s true, they should have no problem with the enactment of this Blue Ribbon Commission. We learned yesterday that FBI continuing to misuse PATRIOT Act provisions. We learned four days ago NSA using massive net.

Lamar Smith starts off by lying through his teeth, again claiming that wiretapping on the kidnappers in Iraq was held up because of FISA–rather than because Paul Clement had left work early.

Feeney makes up stuff about the bill.

Jim Marshall engages in colloquy with Conyers and Reyes clarifying how the FISA suits would go forward.

Nadler we have heard false and misleading statements from our colleagues. By solving the State Secrets problem, if they need it and if they obeyed the law.

Read more →

Think Outside the Box

/63 Comments/in /by

The ACLU says this about the House’s proposed compromise on FISA.

While we still have concerns about aspects of the new House FISA bill, the American Civil Liberties Union is encouraged by the new draft – particularly the language on state secrets, which would allow the cases to go forward while allowing the telecommunications companies to assert any defenses. We commend House leadership for keeping the courthouse door open.

I think this is what they’re referring to:

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR COVERED CIVIL ACTIONS.
(a) INTERVENTION BY GOVERNMENT.— In any covered civil action, the court shall permit the Government to intervene. Whether or not the Government intervenes in the civil action, the Attorney General may submit any information in any form the Attorney General determines is appropriate and the court shall consider all such submissions.

(b) FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS.—In any covered civil action, the court shall review in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 106(f) any evidence or information with respect to which a privilege based on state secrets is asserted, whether that evidence or information is submitted by any party or the Government. The court may, on motion of the Attorney General, take any additional actions the court deems necessary to protect classified information. In order to ensure full argument of all legal issues, the court shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with national security, request that any party present briefs and arguments on any legal question the court determines is raised by such a submission even if that party does not have full access to such submission. The court shall consider whether the employment of a special master or an expert witness, or both, would facilitate proceedings under this section.

(c) LOCATION OF REVIEW.—The court may conduct the review in a location and facility specified by the Attorney General as necessary to ensure security.

(d) REMOVAL.—A covered civil action that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

Read more →

“Or His Designee”

/56 Comments/in /by

I noticed something really funny in the AT&T response to Dingell and friends that MadDog linked to. In a passage describing why the telecoms should be granted immunity for abetting the Administration in its illegal wiretap program, AT&T cites 18 USC 2411(2)(a)(ii) to argue that it is immune from prosecution.

The same principle–that a telecommunications carrier who cooperates in good faith with the authorized law enforcement or intelligence activities considered lawful by the executive–underlies numerous defenses and immunities reflected in existing statutory and case law. For example, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii) provides that "notwithstanding any other law," carriers are authorized to provide "assistance" and "information" to the government whenever the communications service provider receives a "certification" from the Attorney General or his designee "that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required. When the Attorney General furnishes an appropriate certification, Congress has decreed that "no cause of action shall lie in any court." It does not matter whether the Attorney General’s judgment reflected in the certification is ultimately determined to have been right or wrong: as long as the carrier acted pursuant to such a certification, national policy forbids a lawsuit. [emphasis AT&T’s]

Now compare their citation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii) with the actual statute.

(ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with—

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

Do you see the difference? AT&T has unilaterally rewritten "a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General" to say "Attorney General or his designee." (And if you’re wondering, 2518(7) doesn’t say anything about "designees" either. Update: yes it does–though it specifies that they have to be investigative officers.) Read more →

My Version of Pelosi’s Statement on Exclusivity

/59 Comments/in , , /by

TPMM wrote up a summary of a response Speaker Pelosi gave to a question I asked at a blogger conference call today that has caused a stir. While I don’t disagree with McJoan’s take–if the Speaker had really said immunity was the issue, it would reflect a short-sighted view of FISA (though I’d say the same about other topics, such as segregation; after all, once the government can legally use information that has been improperly collected, that’s toothpaste out of a tube, too)–I’d like to give my version of the conversation, because I don’t think that’s what Pelosi said or meant.

The call was originally supposed to be focused on contempt. So after the Speaker finished telling about the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity bill, someone (Mike Stark, I think) asked for reassurances that the Democrats would continue to pursue contempt after we win the White House and larger margins in both houses next year. Pelosi spoke at length about how important this contempt fight is because of the separation of powers issue–and stated that this is a better case than when GAO tried to get Cheney’s records on his Energy Task Force. Finally, in response to a follow-up, Pelosi stated that Democrats would continue to pursue the contempt issue after November.

Then, I piped in. I basically asked the idea laid out in this post.

Email providers argue that immunity will contribute to uncertainty. They speak of receiving "vague promises," they demand "clear rules" and "bright lines."

Given that complaints about uncertainty and unclear demands have led these email providers to strongly oppose retroactive immunity, it suggests the requests the email providers got were really murky–murky enough that the requests caused the email providers a good deal of trouble.

If the government was making such murky requests, don’t you think Congress ought to know what those requests were in more detail?

That is, since email providers just made a very strong statement against immunity, shouldn’t we be asking them why they’re opposed to it?

Pelosi, having just spoken at length about about separation of powers, then said that immunity wasn’t the only issue, exclusivity was important as well.

Note, I’m not sure I can dispute Paul Kiel’s description, though I don’t remember Pelosi emphasizing exclusivity in the way his post suggests at all. I certainly didn’t hear her say immunity is the issue, but then I was listening for my answer. Read more →