Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ACLU Asks FISA Court to Release Orders That Led to "Emergency" Wiretapping Legislation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 04:40 PM
Original message
ACLU Asks FISA Court to Release Orders That Led to "Emergency" Wiretapping Legislation
ACLU Asks Secret Intelligence Court to Release Orders That Led to "Emergency" Wiretapping Legislation (8/8/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [email protected]

Group Says Public Debate About Government Surveillance Should Be Fully Informed


WASHINGTON - In the first effort of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans.

The ACLU initiated this action following Congress' passage this past weekend of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"Over the next six months, the public and Congress will be debating one of the most important matters of our time: under what circumstances the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of people inside the United States," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unless the FISA court discloses the documents leading up to the recent law and shedding light on the government's claimed surveillance authority, an informed and meaningful debate - the cornerstone of our democracy - cannot occur. A conversation about a threat to our most precious constitutional rights and liberties should not occur in a factual vacuum."

The FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative."

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. Only last weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass new legislation last week. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

"Publication of these secret court orders is vitally important to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Virtually everything we know about these orders we've had to learn from executive branch officials, but executive branch officials are plainly not disinterested parties in a debate about the appropriate reach of executive branch surveillance. The public has a right to first-hand information about what the court permitted and what it disallowed."

The ACLU's legal papers acknowledge that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority. The FISC has released such orders and opinions before. In the early 1980s, the court published an opinion relating to its authority to issue warrants for physical searches. In 2002, the court published an opinion addressing procedures that the Justice Department proposed after the passage of the USA Patriot Act. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

"The views of the judiciary on legal questions of national importance, like the scope of the government's surveillance power under FISA, or whether the executive branch has overreached in violation of constitutional limits, should be as open and accessible to the public as possible," said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project. "Even if public disclosure of the court records requires redaction of properly classified information, the release of even limited information pertaining to the court's legal analysis, conclusions, or the government's arguments will go a long way towards ensuring the public can participate meaningfully in the surveillance debate."

A copy of the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer and Goodman, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/31227prs20070808.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. To the men and women of the American Civil Liberties Union
THANK YOU!

It is very refreshing to see someone actually fighting back against President Bush's grab at fascism. If only Congress could be so conscientious about our rights.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Exactly....We've got to rely on organizations like the ACLU and ourselves....
to do what the people we elected won't. This is representative democracy? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, it is representative democracy, the best that corporate money can buy.
And therein lies the problem. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is very interesting...
Edited on Wed Aug-08-07 05:02 PM by MrCoffee
not because the FISC will release the records (I don't think there's much chance of that happening), but because they will have to respond to the ACLU motion. That response will be very telling.

Thanks for posting this, marmar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lifelong Protester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-08-07 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks for the information
I received a mailing from the ACLU today about this, and usually I don't have time to read all the solicitations I get from organizations, but this time they are getting a donation from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC