The FISA Court and the NSA Surveillance Program:
The Thursday Washington Post has a must-read story on how the FISA court has dealt with the NSA domestic surveillance program. The whole story is worth reading, but here are the key excerpts:
The tail end of the Post story suggests sourcing from judges on the FISA Court itself, and strongly hints that none of the FISA judges are likely to invite Alberto Gonzales to dinner any time soon. An excerpt:
Both [chief judges of the FISA Court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and her predecessor Royce C. Lamberth,] expressed concern to senior officials that the president's program, if ever made public and challenged in court, ran a significant risk of being declared unconstitutional, according to sources familiar with their actions. Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process.Very interesting stuff. Incidentally, the question of the FISA Court's authority under existing law to address the legality of the NSA program turns out to be a very interesting issue. I hope to blog more about it soon.
. . . Both presiding judges agreed not to disclose the secret program to the 10 other FISA judges, who routinely handled some of the government's most highly classified secrets.
So early in 2002, the wary court and government lawyers developed a compromise. Any case in which the government listened to someone's calls without a warrant, and later developed information to seek a FISA warrant for that same suspect, was to be carefully "tagged" as having involved some NSA information. Generally, there were fewer than 10 cases each year, the sources said.
According to government officials familiar with the program, the presiding FISA judges insisted that information obtained through NSA surveillance not form the basis for obtaining a warrant and that, instead, independently gathered information provide the justification for FISA monitoring in such cases. They also insisted that these cases be presented only to the presiding judge.
Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly derived significant comfort from the trust they had in Baker, the government's liaison to the FISA court. He was a stickler-for-rules career lawyer steeped in foreign intelligence law, and had served as deputy director of the office before becoming the chief in 2001.
Baker also had privately expressed hesitation to his bosses about whether the domestic spying program conflicted with the FISA law, a government official said. Justice higher-ups viewed him as suspect, but they also recognized that he had the judges' confidence and kept him in the pivotal position of obtaining warrants to spy on possible terrorists.
The tail end of the Post story suggests sourcing from judges on the FISA Court itself, and strongly hints that none of the FISA judges are likely to invite Alberto Gonzales to dinner any time soon. An excerpt:
Shortly after the warrantless eavesdropping program began, then-NSA Director Michael V. Hayden and Ashcroft made clear in private meetings that the president wanted to detect possible terrorist activity before another attack. They also made clear that, in such a broad hunt for suspicious patterns and activities, the government could never meet the FISA court's probable-cause requirement, government officials said.Ouch.
So it confused the FISA court judges when, in their recent public defense of the program, Hayden and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales insisted that NSA analysts do not listen to calls unless they have a reasonable belief that someone with a known link to terrorism is on one end of the call. At a hearing Monday, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the "reasonable belief" standard is merely the "probable cause" standard by another name.
Several FISA judges said they also remain puzzled by Bush's assertion that the court was not "agile" or "nimble" enough to help catch terrorists. The court had routinely approved emergency wiretaps 72 hours after they had begun, as FISA allows, and the court's actions in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks suggested that its judges were hardly unsympathetic to the needs of their nation at war.
If you believe what the Post prints because the Post printed it, I will take out an ad there telling you to give me all your money.
The FISA court was rebuked by its reviewing court on appeal by the government precisely because it put up unnecessary obstacles, in particular by being picky about its standards for issuing warrants.
The FISA court lost the confidence of the Executive.
The probable cause requirement simply cannot work when America is a combat zone. FISA is fatally flawed in concept as well as being obsoleted by technology.
Judicial persistence in infringing on the executive's core responsibilities will result in more than resistance - the judicial branch risks its independence. Which is a good thing IMO. If they want to be legislators and executives, they should run for election.
Anyway, I also remain puzzled about the probable cause issue, but there might be a simple explanation: if probable cause for "this program" is established using evidence derived from some other, unconfirmed program which would itself violate FISA, then the Administration would run into the problems getting FISC orders as discussed in the main part of this article.
Sheesh.
Brilliant parody of a right-wing nut who can't keep his arguments straight! Attack the press, attack the law, attack the judges, assume your conclusion -- genius, man, genius.
Sheesh.
You misread the article. It does not say the court approved wiretaps 72 hours after an application was made. It says, consistent with FISA, that the court approved wiretaps within 72 hours after the wiretaps began. In other words, FISA allows the government, in an emergency situation, to start wiretapping without a warrant and seek FISA review within 72 hours.
Especially classic is the part where he says that the court has better not exercise any judicial authority if it wants judicial independence in the future.
We have some good comedians writing for the VC comment forum.
(2) Who is leaking this stuff?
I think courts routinely have to trust prosecutors not to deceive them when seeking warrants. There is no judicial bureau of investigations to check out whether the specific facts articulated in the warrant application are truthful. It seems they tried to make the best of a bad situation, putting DoJ on honor not to corrupt its warrant applications with fruit from the poisoned tree.
I don't see what your objection to the compromise is. They told the administration that in their opinion it was unconstitutional, but they did have the power to do anything without a case being brought in front of them. Furthermore, they upheld the sanctity of their court, by saying that no warrant request brought before them could include this tainted evidence.
Medis,
I wholeheartingly agree. This would eliminate a whole lot of arguments that go on on this blog.
Noah
I'm not sure I understand your question, but the only general limit on granting jurisdiction to the federal courts is Article III of the Constitution.
It's a Liars Paradox question that I inadvertantly left half the post off of -
I don't understand how FISC could adjudicate the constitutionality of the statute that creates its authority in the first place.
Is there any precedent for that? If FISC can indeed adjudicate constitutional issues, and it adjudicates FISA to be unconstitutional, then it seems there has to be some alternate jurisdictional grant, no?
I have this vague recollection that some court--I want to say a colonial court in Virginia, but I could be completely off--once met for the express purpose of holding that they were not legally constituted, and they then disbanded themselves.
Anyway, I don't think the issue would arise, because I don't think the President would actually push a facial challenge to all of FISA (although who knows?). Rather, I think it would be an "as applied" challenge, in which case the portion of FISA creating the FISC would remain intact.
The idea of a secret court is troubling to me, even if Congress has deemed it an "Article III court." From what I read the FISA court was impotent, invested with minimal power and checked by minimal oversight. I have emphasized over and over again that did not function as we expect courts to function; it had no interaction at all with the public and was operated out of the executive branch. It did not try "cases and controversies," it merely checked whether the warrants were kosher and whether the President was complying with Congress's will. I can understand why the President thought it was so useless as to bypass it. Furthermore, there is no precedent in Anglo-American law that I am aware of for secret judges operating a secret court.
Frankly I think the FISA court is a constitutional monstrosity that threatens the reputation of the judiciary. These judges are tasked with the sole function of carrying out Congress's will, but they are given no oversight so their power is arbitrary. It is, as one other poster put it, a Potemkin court, a sham. It is an internal administrative branch dressed up as a court.
See how much more difficult things become when first you eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? For having improper knowledge, warrants are tainted and prosecutions become impossible.
Only the president of the FISA court had any idea what was going on, so to demand the entire FISA court resign is a little bit much to ask. I think however that the compromise they tried to make was for DOJ and NSA to establish a firewall that could salvage the warrant process. It may have been a fool's errand and impossible to achieve. But what alternative did they have? Disclosure was impossible, even to the rest of the FISA court. If the presiding judge had merely recused it would have let the administration work a fraud on the rest of their court. It was a classic catch-22.
Sure, in hindsight we might be able to think of something, but judges are human and they make mistakes, that's why we have appeals after all. Unfortunately the poison has worked its way into the system in ways we don't fully know yet, even if it was incidentally part of the Iyman Faris case he might get evidence suppressed leading to a reversal, and how many other prosecutions have been rendered impossible we don't know. So the net effect is that maybe we have a little bit more information about what some people might be up to, but can't do anything to them unless we lock them up in military custody as enemy combatants and deny them habeas corpus. Which, frighteningly enough, is precisely the alternative the administration has asserted in the Padilla case until recently.
It's a bad situation and it gets worse until it gets better. The poison can kill the body unless it gets sucked out in time or an antidote administered. FISC was trying to do the first, it didn't work, so now we have to figure out how to do the second.
I don't see what your objection to the court is. It's not part of the executive. Its members are judges appointed by the Chief Justice and are thus independent of the executive branch. Medis has pointed out numerous times that this court is not without precedent.
It is not completely impotent and useless. It approves the warrants the administration offers for foreign intelligence and it performs a very important role of check on the executive ability to surveil U.S. persons.
And finally, it performs the function that courts have performed in this country for centuries. This is very important function, because without such a check the government could go carte blanche. As to the Potemkin court reference, it was quoted from the judge who resigned from the court, because the administration ignored the law and the court. It would not be a Potemkin court, if the administration would follow the law.
Noah
You are confusing the concept of a secret court with the concept of a court whose proceedings are classified.
Everybody knows that FISC exists, so it's not an objection grounded in a "secret court" whose jurisdiction is unknown. But once you acknowledge that, what you're talking about is relatively mundane and hardly outrageous. Article III courts consider materials under seal all the time.
I think if you break down your objections one by one, they end up not being a significant problem.
First, you note the FISC has "minimal power". But it does have the power to enforce a federal law, and that is all it needs to have Article III jurisdiction (in addition to the fact that the United States was a party).
Second, you say the FISC is checked by "minimal oversight". That is actually somewhat false: the FISC could be reviewed by the FISCR, which in turn could be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Third, you note it does not interact with the public and was secret. First, it is not true that the existence of the court and its judges was secret. But it does have closed proceedings. However, Article III courts do the same thing in certain circumstances. The difference is therefore not that the FISC has closed proceedings, but rather that it doesn't do anything else. But that is really just an organizational chart issue, since the FISC judges also sit as normal District Court judges.
Fourth, you say the FISC is operated out of the executive branch. Actually, that is just false--again, these are Article III judges, and they don't take commands from the President.
Fifth, you say they do not try "cases and controversies", but just adjudicate warrants. But again, adjudicating warrants is part of the normal business of courts. And although such proceedings are ex parte, I believe the idea is that the target of the warrant is considered adverse to the government.
Finally, you say their sole function is "carrying out Congress's will." That is also false. Their function is to apply a federal law, but they don't take commands from Congress. And once again, this is just what District Courts do when applying federal law.
Generally, I think you are simply misstating the role of the FISC. They don't work for Congress and they don't work in the Executive Branch. Rather, the FISC is part of the judicial branch, and it carries out the sorts of tasks the federal courts have always carried out. Indeed, the only real distinction between the FISC and the District Courts is that the FISC doesn't do as much as the District Courts--and even that isn't true on a judge by judge basis.
I don't go so far as to agree with your characterization that the FISA courts are a "constitutional monstrosity with no precedent and should be afforded no legitimacy." The warrants they issue are valid.
But, as you know from our previous exchange, I do think it may be dangerously bad policy to configure the courts the way they are, because the judges are crippled. As the Post narrative shows, that is part of the reason we got into the current mess: "Yet the judges believed they did not have the authority to rule on the president's power to order the eavesdropping, government sources said, and focused instead on protecting the integrity of the FISA process."
I would be more comfortable if the same judges were assigned to sit in camera, and with clearance to read each other's secret cases, but in their full capacity as District Court judges.
One fact that comes through this Washington Post story is that Baker apparently knew all about the family jewels.
But, IMO, there are no solutions due to FISA's underlying assumptions being outright false. We're at war at home. The probable cause requirement for warrants CAN'T be made to work in this situation - the only threat the probable cause requirement can cope with is peacetime espionage.
Not to mention FISA being obsolete just due to technological changes. Its distinction between the locations of intercepts, and the distinction between domestic and foreign communications, are utterly inane given digital as opposed to analog communications. It is necessary to open a given digital message just to find out its points of origin and destination.
The only functions FISA serves today are to impede national security and provide partisan grandstanding opportunities. It does not protect the freedom of Americans because its probable cause procedures are so cumbersome that the Executive branch is driven to bypassing it in favor of its inherent constitutional authority.
FISA needs a complete rewrite. Anything less is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Then step two is, okay, some "suspects" hit the radar screen, but OUR GOVERNMENT cannot get a warrant from OUR GOVERNMENT because the fruit is poisoned, so additional nefarious, unauthorized either by law or the Constitution means have to be devised to get more information on these "suspects" (search their homes without warrants? Open up all their mail? What?)to get more information.
What if those means include merely snatching them and shipping them off to some secret detainee camp and torturing them? What if they are in fact innocent? What if they are guilty of nothing more than being someone young and non-dangerous with some time on his hands who has an active imagination and is looking for a cause?
If the people on this blog were spirited off never to be heard from again, someone would miss them, someone would call the police, the press would be notified, it wouldn't pass unnoticed. But a lonely immigrant who doesn't speak the language and has no circle of support wouldn't be missed, would he? And if he is Islamic, opinion in this country has been so poisoned against Islamics that few would care.
What if they torture an innocent person by mistake? And don't want to then let him go, because the last thing they want is for him to go blabbing to some sympathetic investigative reporter? What do they do then? Kill him?
I am shocked at the complacency of some of the posters on this site whom I really respect and whose posts I always read with interest.
PS. I made my $50 donation (the most permittable on Amazon) to this site today, and encourage every one to do the same. It really is invaluable. I intend to donate frequently.
Finally, are you the Tom Holsinger whose father was an assistant to someone in government on an intelligence committee? The one who wrote the article in 2002 "The War in Iraq has already begun"? Please respond to that question.
You have been told several time sthat FISA is an article III court and that, while it frequently deals with the administration, it does not "work for the executive granch."
Also, I don't think FISA's secrecy protocols are elective.
Golly, Minnie, if you're going to set your hair on fire, why stop with "millions"? How about billions? Not to mention how they could be intercepting all mail and reading it. Oh, and they could be making all the banks pay them their roundoff errors to finance the program off the books. In order to provide the information to the Bilderbergers, who in turn convey it to their alien overlords who live inside the hollow Earth?
Obvious hyperbole (God, I hope it's obvious hyperbole!) but once you start assuming things you don't know, why stop with one?
Oh, and it's standard practice that large numbers of top officials don't know about particular programs. It's called "special compartmented intelligence" (SCI) because there are "compartments" for people who know parts of the details. That makes it harder for whole programs to be blown.
That is a pretty pathetic reason to go around a court designed to check the executive, which in the past showed that it could not be trusted to conduct warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes. Congress already extended the time that the administration needed to get a retroactive warrant from 24 hours to 72 hours. I am sure that if the administration needed more time on top of that then Congress would gladly have extended the time. Gonzales answer to the Senators that the program followed a probable cause standard but avoided the FISA was not only pathetic, but also insulting. This is why we see in the Washington Post reporting that the presiding judges were informed that the administration was applying a lesser standard.
Noah
If "the probable cause requirement simply cannot work when America is a combat zone"
...and...
"We're at war at home. The probable cause requirement for warrants CAN'T be made to work in this situation."
...and...
Considering that Al Qaeda has metamorphosed and splintered into several other terrorist cells which couldn't really ever be completely extinguished, we can probably assume that we will always have SOME degree of terrorist threat on our own soil.
Then:
We're pretty much in an eternal war against the forces of darkness, justifying the Executive to perpetually ignore probable cause for issuance of warrants, aren't we? Isnt' that the obvious conclusion of apologists for Executive plenary powers during wartime?
On that note, I'm wondering why I'm not hearing the nine church burnings in Alabama being called "Terrorism", so much. Plenty of "arson" and "hate crime", though. Perhaps if the Feds called it terrorism, they could apply this NSA surveillance program to the citizens of Al Abama to track down those evildoers.
I'm sure those folks who have nothing to hide won't mind us bugging their homes and tapping their phone conversations without probable cause and without a warrant. After all, "the Constitution is only a piece of paper".
If this is true for probable cause to support a search, is it also true for probable cause to arrest?
Was the arrest of an American citizen of Japanese ancestry in Los Angeles or Seattle or San Francisco in March of 1942--without probable cause--justified?
With all due respect, you keep basing your argument on premises that we have already explained are false.
The bottomline is that the FISC doesn't really do anything that the District Courts don't already do. And, in fact, the FISC judges are also District Court judges. So, really, the FISC is actually just a different "hat" that these judges sometimes wear.
Of course, there may be problems with the substantive law in question--it may be too deferential to the government, or vice-versa. But objections to the law should be kept separate from objections to the existence of a court applying that law--and again, that court is really just a certain role being played by District Court judges.
davod,
Correct, but according to the Attorney General's testimony that should not be a problem, because they do in fact have probable cause before they start surveillance. So, the Attorney General can give the order, and then their application should be approved by the FISC.
The AG's explanation of this discrepancy--that we need to be more "agile"--is empty of actual content. I think a good bet is that the real explanation would involve other, unconfirmed, programs without probable cause that might occur prior to this program, but honestly we don't know. What we do know is that what we have been told does not add up.
The Democratic party and its minions have mistakenly aligned themselves with groups that want to lessen or destroy the influence of the US. By being unreasonable the Democrats and their supporters are marginalizing themselves.
2006 is going to be like 1994. The Democrats are going to lose big. They have forgotten the fundamentals of winning elections.
I assume you are including among the Democrat's "minions" at least four Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
"Mr. Simpson also had privately expressed hesitation to his friend Mr. Cowlings about whether his recent interactions with his ex-wife conflicted with certain provisions of the California penal code."
You say, "And, in fact, the FISC judges are also District Court judges. So, really, the FISC is actually just a different 'hat' that these judges sometimes wear." That much I certainly agree with.
Are you sure that when they put on the FISC hat they retain all the authority they have when wearing the District Court hat? My impression from reading the Post stories is that the chief judges have not construed it that way. I could be wrong.
Let me pose the question this way: The chief FISC judge was informed -- "briefed," we are told -- by the government that warrantless surveillance was going on by the President's order despite the "exclusive means" provision of the statute, and the judge reportedly thought that might be unlawful. Compare this to a hypothetical where a District Court chief judge is informed by the U.S. attorney that warrantless wiretapping in Title III cases is going on in terrorism cases by the President's order, and the attorney general had determined that such warrants were no longer required.
Are these two judges equally powerless to stop the practice or rule on its legality? My impression was that the FISC judges felt they were authorized to perform only the functions assigned to them by the FISA statute, which duties are narrowly circumscribed.
FISA might need amendment, but is this really the way to go about it? The administration would then be making a big gamble--betting that FISA is so antiquated as to not even apply meaningfully to their actions. Just seems like awfully risky behavior to me. Protests that amending FISA would reveal secrets to the enemy seem a bit empty--it just means that this is an argument they never wanted to have, because they didn't want to go head-to-head with Congress about constitutional jurisdiction.
a22--
I still tend to think that the FISA court is simply there in order to judge the constitutionality (it turns out) of the executive's actions. It's not about the constitutionality of FISA itself. The legislative requirement is that the administration needs to submit a case for review by the court whenever it's surveillance involving domestic persons and terrorist organizations. The court order is just the court's determination that the administration is acting correctly, i.e. within its powers. I think this might need some clarification, and it's admittedly a funny way of exercising oversight, but I think substantially it's in order.
I'm not sure why people can't understand this.
The procedure for obtaining a FISA warrant is the following:
1) Figure out that you want to surveil someone. (Note: the NSA CANNOT BEGIN SURVEILLANCE at this stage.)
2) Get all the paperwork together necessary for the Attorney General to make a decision that the FISA court would likely grant the warrant
3) The Attorney General reads that paperwork and makes his decision
4) THEN AND ONLY THEN does the surveillance begin.
5) The paperwork is presented to the FISA court
6) The FISA court reviews the paperwork and, within 72 hours of stage 5, grants the warrant.
It is stage 2 than causes the delay, not stage 6. And the problem is that stage 2 requires sufficient paperwork so that the Attorney General, at stage 3, believes that the FISA court will (in stage 6) grant the warrant.
Wow, that's some brilliant legal analysis by noted law professor Eric Muller.
Is it too much to ask from law profesors to avoid ad hominem attacks? Apparently not.
How pathetic.
I actually don't really know enough about how District Courts deal with warrants to answer your question. But offhand, I'm not sure what power a District Court would have in a similar case that the FISC does not. The District Court could exclude the evidence and deny the warrant application, which the FISC apparently has done. If an AUSA lied to the Court about the source of the evidence, I suppose they would be subject to contempt, but for all I know the FISC could do that too.
But I don't think the District Court would have, say, a sua sponte power to enjoin the program. For that sort of action, I would think they would need some party with standing to bring a facial challenge under some applicable law. And although the FISC probably doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear such a case, I don't see why the District Courts would not as it stands.
Of course, in practice, AUSAs make a point of not angering their local District Court judges, which is a good idea since those judges may end up trying their cases. That is indeed an informal difference between the District Courts and the FISC. Still, the FISC has a similar, if more limited, informal position insofar as it will also hear future FISA applications. And indeed, it seems to me part of the dynamic in this case involved the FISC reminding the Administration of this fact.
So, I'm not sure that within the limits of the subject matter, the FISC is really in a much worse position than a District Court would be. But perhaps someone with greater familiarity with this topic can correct my assumptions.
Why do you think steps (2) and (3) necessarily involve paperwork? I don't see anything in FISA which says an officer in the NSA can't get the AG on the phone, state his evidence verbally, and then get a verbal order from the AG. In fact, all FISA says is that the AG has to "reasonably determine[] that . . . the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." So, I don't see why a verbal exchange could not satisfy this condition.
Also interesting is Jim Baker's 2002 testimony that the emergency provision of FISA works just fine.
Can you please explain why your knowledge of the process is superior to that of the government's chief advocate before the FISA Court?
In the hypothetical, which I am trying to make as parallel as possible to the FISC scenario, there is no warrant application before the District Court. Rather, the chief judge is informed ex parte that the government is conducting warrantless Title III wiretapping agaistn suspected terrorists on an ongoing basis.
I honestly don't know enough to be sure, either, but it is hard to believe the District Court judge must suborn such practices, which on their face seem to violate criminal law, just because there is no case before him.
In some sense, actually, that already happened, since the FISC Chief Judges are also District Court judges. I strongly suspect the Article III standing requirements prevent a federal judge from doing anything in such a situation.
IMO we need a complete replacement for FISA because I don't trust the feds (executive branch overall, not merely whoever comprises the current administration) not to abuse the power provided by warrantless surveillance. I remain familiar with the abuses which brought on FISA, in particular the Nixonian abuses. The feds will always abuse their power if they can.
I am not saying that the Bush administration wants an amended FISA. I said earlier that the current lack of effective oversight created by FISA being unworkable is just fine with them - that maximizes their discretion in performing warrantless domestic surveillance under the President's inherent constitutional power.
Those who do not understand how the probable cause requirement is incompatible with the needs created by America being a zone of operations don't want to, and never will. It's a paradigm issue - they do not understand the concept of "war".
Well, I am no expert in the the process - I just know what I've read from the same sources available to everyone else. I read somewhere (don't recall where) that the info that goes to the AG for his decision must be all the information that would be required for the FISA court to make its decision. I would be quite surprised if that could all be done orally; I would likewsie be surprised if proper administrative procedures would allow a decision like that to be made on oral adivce.
I'm not sure what Baker's 2002 testimony said, can you link to it?
I am not sure the criminal sanctions are the only avenue of redress in the hypothetical, but I don't see how they pose an issue of standing.
It may be that the criminalization of unauthorized wiretapping in both FISA and Title III is quite hollow as applied to federal prosecutors, who quite obviously cannot be expected to prosecute themselves or their superiors voluntarily. If law-enforcement officials can order facially illegal acts and brazenly inform the court of such acts with impunity, the system seems broken.
Let's get this straight: for the rest of the life of this country we are to completely abandon our system of government.
And you say that it is others who don't understand what a war is.
George Orwell was more than prescient. Once the "War on Terrorism" was accepted as a "war", peace ceased to exist as a concept: we shall always be at war with someone if the measure of a war is absolute certainty of no terrorist acts.
If we survived the Cold War, where the U.S. was no less a "field of action" without the trashing of the Constitution's checks and balances, why now, when the enemy is so diffuse as to be impossible to plainly delineate in any quantifiably significant manner (wait a minute is the enemy a state, a tribe, a religion? . . . oh no, its a technique) and victory (do we even want to win this war) can never be obtained (there will always be someone who doesn't like us and if they are crazy enough might pose a security risk), must we abandon the very prinicple the Founders were willing to die for.
Perhaps they simply see more value in the ideal of liberty than you do?
It seems that there are some important question underlying your assumption that we are at "war," and that "war" trumps liberties. Where are we on that scale? Do we lose all our liberties, or only some? And when do we get them back? When terrorism is defeated? I haven't seen you attempt to answer those questions; do you know? Do you care? Are the questions themselves inappropriate in a time of war?
Assuming that people who disagree with you don't understand the issues is facile. It's more simple than that - many people simply don't take it on faith that the War on Terror requires the sacrifice of essential liberties. In fact, many people believe that the surest sign of defeat is to surrender those liberties. It's a different calculation of values, not a failure to understand the terms.
I asked you a question: "Was the arrest of an American citizen of Japanese ancestry in Los Angeles or Seattle or San Francisco in March of 1942--without probable cause--justified?"
You did not reply, but somewhat vaguely wrote this, which might be a kind of response: "Those who do not understand how the probable cause requirement is incompatible with the needs created by America being a zone of operations don't want to, and never will. It's a paradigm issue - they do not understand the concept of 'war'."
The West Coast was a zone of operations in March 1942. It was the Western Defense Command, led by Gen. John L. DeWitt.
So I ask you again: was General DeWitt's order requiring the arrest and deportation of 70,000 U.S. citizens without probable cause a justified order?
In what sense are you using the term "justified"?
And I second eddie's concern about the open-ended nature of this "war", a very serious concern which I've seen no conservative commentator address. People on both sides must recognize that this is neither a law enforcement matter nor a conventional war, it is something in between, and therefore we need a new approach which takes this reality into account.
Let's start with this: was it legal?
I think gravity is a pretty pathetic reason to keep me from leaving my place via the balcony, but I can't fly anyway.
General Dewitt imposed first a curfew affecting persons of Japanese ancestry, and then created an exclusion zone encompassing most of the west coast. I'm not sure which restriction was effective in March of 1942, but I suspect there was probable cause to believe that a Japanese person found in one of those cities was violating the restriction, a crime punishable pursuant to statute, simply by being there. So, justified? No. But probably on equal protection grounds rather than for lack of probable cause. FWIW.
But the court could not initiate a criminal case against an AUSA. It is, of course, a serious problem if the prosecutors themselves are breaking the law, but the courts don't have a general remedy for that problem. Of course, this is the opposite side of the coin when it comes to the separation of powers--initiating criminal prosecutions is an executive power, and giving the power to the courts to sua sponte bring criminal prosecutions may be a cure worse than the disease.
A.S.,
As an aside--why would you be surprised that an emergency provision actually made sense as an emergency provision?
Anyway, the law creates a pretty weak requirement: the AG just has to "reasonably determine" that the "factual basis" for an order exists. You are basically assuming an unreasonable requirement into the law (that all the paperwork must be prepared first). Indeed, on that reading, what is the point of giving them another 72 hours to file the paperwork? Lots of spell-checking?
Am I to take it that you think "legality" and "justification" are exactly the same thing?
No.
What makes you think that.
I see your point about a danger in sua sponte prosecutions. I guess the textbook remedy in that situation is a special counsel, just as the textbook remedy for the President might seem to be impeachment. In either case, the court does not initiate anything.
If there is really nothing a judge can do when informed in an ex parte briefing about potentially illegal acts, perhaps the judge should not be having the ex parte briefing in the first place. To an outside observer, this would appear to be a situation where the law and lawyers have failed.
Prof. Kerr indicated that he was researching the general issue of what authority FISC judges possess. I look forward to reading his conclusions, which I expect will be much more informed than my own speculation.
No.
Then I repeat my question: in what sense are you using the term "justifiable"?
That's a dodge. The military never maintained that it had probable cause to believe that any specific Japanese American posed a security risk.
So the question comes back to Tom Holsinger: was it legal for the military in the Western Defense Command to arrest a U.S. citizen without probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime or posed a risk to security?
(In fairness to Mr. Holsinger, I note that he's actually maintaining this proposition only as to probable cause to search; I am the one extending it to arrest.)
Which appeal, I would add, the DOJ desperately wanted to avoid and still does.
I'm not sure I understand your question. But if this helps: I think the Administration should be following the FISA procedures. And given what the AG has claimed about having probable cause, it is somewhat puzzling why they did not follow those procedures--although there are some obvious possibilities, including with respect to how they go about establishing probable cause for "this program" (the confirmed one) in the first place.
JaO,
It may be worth remebering that these FISC Chief Judges were selected by Chief Judge Rehnquist, and probably were not a series of anti-government firebrands. So, I suspect if they did err in this case, it was on the side of the government. That said, it is not outside of the normal practice of judges to craft evidentiary rules. And if the government was content to follow those rules and not challenge them on review, then it is not really the job of the court to force them into doing so.
FISA's problem here is, as Andrew McCarthy at National Review noted, warrant requirements envisage criminal prosecution as opposed to pubblic safety. He made a proper analogy to warrantless traffic stops for vehicle safety checks, where the police do not have to ignore any criminal violations in plain sight (open containers of alcoholic beverages, etc.).
Ultimate criminal prosecution is not the purpose of conducting electronic surveillance for national security purposes in this war. Public safety is the purpose. This makes the probable cause requirement for issuing warrants inane.
FISA's requirement that warrants be obtained for domestic surveillance is not merely irrelevant to public safety, but operates as a hindrance given the need for speed.
I will say this only once - the issue here is the time and effort required to prepare a warrant application, not the time for a FISA judge to review it. The FISA review court decision showed how the FISA judges were being so unlawfully picky in their demands for supporting information that they delayed and eterred warrant applications.
This reveiw court decision (the link was posted in another thread but I don't have it anymore - Medis correctly states that we need a FISA FAQ on this board, which IMO should include this link) shows what a ludicrous puff piece the Washington Post article above is, and how Professor Kerr erred in believing it.
The Executive branch genuinely needs the inherent constitutional power it has to conduct warrantless surveillance of domestic electronic communications for national security purposes given that America is a battlefield. I'd outright ditch FISA and its warrant requirement. But the Executive branch's use of this power should be subject to effective oversight.
That to me means that records of all its domestic surveillance should be created and held in repository beyond the Executive branch's control (so it can't disappear inconvenient records). I propose that this repository be under the Judicial branch's control, and that the Judicial branch be charged both with ensuring that it does receive those records, and also of ongoing analysis and organization of the records for use by Congress. This limited, albeit active, role would preserve the impartiality of the Judicial branch.
It would be up to Congress to periodically review the records of warrantless searches for abuses. IMO this is the real problem. Congress plain runs screaming from responsibility. That is a major reason why they want to shove all oversight responsibility onto the Judicial branch. And the Judicial branch simply can't do that without compromising its impartiality - the judicial system is fundamentally adversarial.
IMO we will be stuck for the forseeable future with the status quo, which is lots and lots of seeming compliance with FISA as it presently exists, while the Executive branch uses its inherent power to conduct secret warrantless domestic surveillance on anything it doesn't want the FISA judges, or anyone else, to know about.
This is a prescription for Nixonian abuse.
What am I dodging? Korematsu was arrested for violating a curfew that applied to all persons of Japanese ancestry within a specified military zone. The Court deferred to the military's judgment that all such persons should be presumed security risks since it was though too difficult to try to sort out the loyal from the disloyal (or so the government said). Anyway, elements of his "crime" were 1) being Japanese (or Japanese-American) and 2) being in an exclusion zone. I would suggest that the probable cause burden would not be too terribly difficult to meet. I suspect that's not your point, though. Sorry to be so obtuse.
Given the Rasul decision, the Bush administration's desire not to submit national security disputes to judicial review is understandable. Wrong, but understandable.
The Bush administration has a major tendency to shy away from avoidable confrontations even when a more aggressive attitude is appropriate, or even necessary. IMO this is due to President Bush being a big government conservative. He and his senior political types clearly feel that political power is something finite, as opposed to something which is renewed by use. They do not understand that presidential power is rooted in a president's relationship with the public, IMO because the concept of the American people as an entity is foreign to them. This is THE major weakness of the Bush administration.
Now, I'm not defending the internment --- I attend a Buddhist temple with those people, and was aware of the internment as a Bad Thing before, I suspect, you were born. (I certainly was hearing about it as a terible thing before 1960.) But you ask "is it legal?", and given the original Korematsu decision, and Hirabayashi, I don't think it's hard even for a nonlawyer to figure out that it apparently was.
Professor Kerr, please add this link to the site as the first of a FISA FAQ.
I see your point in defending the FISC judges against Hewitt's attack.
What interested me was the irony that Hewitt, in his zeal to skewer the judges, stumbled into the obvious fact that everybody -- neither the judges nor DOJ -- seemed to lack faith that the warrantless wiretaps were lawful.
Where can I find Hewitt's attack? I assume we mean Hugh Hewitt. But I don't see it on his website.
It's a two-parter.
Part One.
Part Two.
1. Operated without any appellate review.
2. Crafted ad hoc rules without conferring with the whole court.
3. And handed down opinions in other controversial gray areas of the law in sharp contrast to her colleagues' opinions on the judiciary.
In sum, we have a nut on FISC, and we need to get the nut off of FISC.
Didn't the court in In Re Sealed Case say that this was not really a problem, and that the FISA court (and the Clinton administration) were making a bid deal about very little?
If so, what was today's Washington Post article about?
In re Sealed Case had nothing to do with warrantless NSA surveillance. Presumably, the appelate judges in that case did not even know such surveillance was going on.
Rather, the case involved the question of how information derived from court-ordered FISA surveillance could also be used for criminal investigations.
My question is: Do those same powers allow him to circumvent the Second Amendment?
In other words, if Bush, as Commander-in-Chief and pursuant to the AUMF, ordered -- in the interests of national security -- the confiscation of all handguns in the United States, would you argue that he was legally and constitutionally on solid ground? (I understand you would object politically, but I'm asking about the constitutional issue).
FISCR decision one was an appeal by the government from a ruling imposing conditions on the issuance of a FISA warrant. The government contended the conditions were improper, and the FISCR agreed.
Setting aside the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment OR FISA was violated, circumvented, whatever -- the rationale for the Bush's actions is that he was justified either as a result of his inherent powers as C-in-C and/or by virtue of the AUMF. Have I stated that correctly?
If that is the position, then I ask again: Doesn't that rationale allow this President, or any other sitting President fighting this "war", to remove all the handguns from the face of America (which would obviously run up against the 2nd Amendment)?
No. You seem to be ignoring the facts of this case which distinguish it from the Steel Seizure Case. The program -- a foreign intelligence-gathering program -- applies not to all Americans, but to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers or persons designated by the President under authority granted by AUMF as affiliates of Al-Qaeda. Were we talking about domestic wiretapping of ordinary Americans or indiscriminate seizing of all handguns, then that would be equivalent to trying to seize a steel mill. But that isn't what we're talking about here. Again, we're talking about FISA and a specific data-collection program, not any and all possible programs under any and all possible constitutional provisions in any and all possible worlds.
I goofed. My memory was nagging at me so I reread the FISCR decision. The appeal was from the FISA court's ruling on a procedural rule the government wished to adopt, not a warrant.
The conditions Tom H alludes to - and which the FISCR found to be improper, concerned the so-called "wall" between intelligence officals and law enforcement.
The President is not arguing he can violate the 2nd, 4th or any other part of the Constitution. He is arguing that he 1) either has exclusive inherent C-I-C authority or Congressional authority through AUMF+1809 (AUMF meeting 1809's authorizing statute requirement) and 2) he is not violating any part of the Constitution.
"Those who do not understand how the probable cause requirement is incompatible with the needs created by America being a zone of operations don't want to, and never will. It's a paradigm issue - they do not understand the concept of 'war'."
Or maybe they understand it all too well. But havaing said that, in principle I'm happy to review and amend past legislation in order to provide for current needs and technologies. (Let's just agree that both the admin and Congress are behaving irresponsibly here, though in different ways)
"The Executive branch genuinely needs the inherent constitutional power it has to conduct warrantless surveillance of domestic electronic communications for national security purposes given that America is a battlefield."
Yes, but...
"I'd outright ditch FISA and its warrant requirement. But the Executive branch's use of this power should be subject to effective oversight."
Exactly. Oversight is needed. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with this post!
"That to me means that records of all its domestic surveillance should be created and held in repository beyond the Executive branch's control (so it can't disappear inconvenient records). I propose that this repository be under the Judicial branch's control, and that the Judicial branch be charged both with ensuring that it does receive those records, and also of ongoing analysis and organization of the records for use by Congress. This limited, albeit active, role would preserve the impartiality of the Judicial branch."
Sounds good to me! It seems like this must have been a part of the original intent of FISA, though it may have been carried out inappropriately (i.e. the warrant requirement). If so, maybe it's because Congress at the time didn't imagine terrorist organizations or plots on the scale of al Qaida and 9/11 (lack of imagination? Whatever.) It seems like FISA intended to treat terrorist organizations more like crimial organizations--however, I admit I could be reading that wrong.
"It would be up to Congress to periodically review the records of warrantless searches for abuses. IMO this is the real problem. Congress plain runs screaming from responsibility. That is a major reason why they want to shove all oversight responsibility onto the Judicial branch."
Yeah, so true--I definitely think you're dealing with the real issues here.
This mabye brings up an interesting question: let's say the executive applied for a warrant in a case like these, didn't get one, and went ahead and performed the surveillance. Then what?
And the real issue might be illustrated by this example: let's say FISA never existed. The executive performs a warrantless surveillance (again, in a case like these--claiming it's for foreign intelligence purposes). Congress gets wind of it and claims the executive overstepped its bounds. Then what? Should it go to the courts? Is impeachment the only option?
It is not an established fact that reality is not a figment of Zeus' imagination.
Congress has many ways to force its will on a President - it can slash budgets (and not just for the agencies in question), hold up appointments even more than it does now, drag Executive branch officials before interminable hearings to answer pointed questions by knowledgeable staffers and attended by only a few rotating Congressmen/Senators, subpena lots and lots of sensitive documents, hold officials in contempt, etc.
All this requires a reasonably cohesive majority in Congress in favor of such tactics, but not the 2/3 majority in the Senate required for impeachment.
If it were true that this program is limited to communications that involve foreign powers, agents of foreign powers or affiliates of al-Qaeda, then why doesn't Bush get a warrant from the FISC?
Slander is the "defamation of a person by unprivileged oral communication made to a third party" (findlaw dictionary). When the president provides so much evidence of wrongdoing and horrible policies it is not slander it is reality. I know it is a concept far from you're understanding, but the rest of us live in it. Also Medis and you are both wrong it would be libel.
Noah
It needed to be done.
Noah
1. Bush doesn't need a warrant. It only targets people we are in hot pursuit of who have evanescent evidence. That is an exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Noah:
2. "When the president provides so much evidence of wrongdoing and horrible policies it is not slander it is reality." Really? Horrible is an objective determination and not a normative one? Wrongdoing is an objective determination and not a normative one? While you might be able to say that it isn't slander or libel because the President is a public official and criticizing public officials is a core First Amendment right, the idea that horribleness and wrongness are facts is idiotic.
We have evidence in front of us that the president willfully violated the law. He may feel he has a good reason for it, but it is a violation of the law and most criminals feel that have a good reason for it. Please don't misunderstand me. I do not think that the president is a evil or a horrible person. I just think he is a horrible president. This is what I meant by horrible and the public appears to agree. Perhaps I could have stated it more calmly and with greater deference and for not doing that I am sorry. I was struck with emotion, because what people are trying to do to the presiding judge of the FISC is far from what people are doing to Bush. As Medis said, a campaign to malign a dedicated public is beginning. People's statements against GWB, while many times are ridiculous, does have some backing. This is a subject we will disagree on, but believe I have done a full 360 with this president. From being angry at how elected, to cautiously expecting a good president, to fully backing the man who I thought would lead the country through a difficult time, to once being angry at his disregard for the Congress and the judiciary and the people.
Noah
That is, however, the way it's been characterized by everyone who has actual knowledge of the program, including folks like Harman and Rockefeller, so assuming it's something else seems kind of counterfactual.
Yes, and that is not a fact. (Nor is it an argument.) Horrible is a normative conclusion. Plenty of people think he is a wonderful President.
There is no evidence that President Bush, or anyone in the Executive branch, have violated FISA. I certainly believe that some warrantless domestic surveillance has taken place which would constitute a FISA violation under the most common interpretations of FISA, but there isn't any evidence of this that I am aware of.
Now if you are aware of any, please let us know. Right now. Or admit that you are not aware of any and just made this up:
And, as I have said many times, the most common interpretations of FISA's domestic surveillance warrant requirement make it unconstitutional as applied.
No, Noah, you've got a bunch of arguments from a bunch of ill-informed people who think the President violated the law, if the facts are what they're assumed even when their assumptions contradict what's been reported, and their legal interpretations are what eventually are agreed on, even though at this point the very people most determined to push the "violated the law" interpretation in Congress are determinedly saying "if the law doesn't match what's needed, let's change the law."
So yeah, not only can the President order those people to turn over any arms they may have, he can order them to be killed by the military in the course of hostilities, without so much as a Miranda warning.
So can we dispose of that particular straw man now?
Yes, General Hayden (who run the program) explained that the program fit within the "hot pursuit/evanescent evidence" exception to the Fourth Amendment mutliple times on an appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. The appearance was on Superbowl Sunday. Check the transcript.
This is all so very short-sighted. Yes, we can all wave around the "nation at war" rhetoric but all this does is build the foundation for future administrations (some of which will probably not be conservative, republican ones) to justify THEIR trampling of our rights.
Okay - a number of people have brought up the "proof question." Fair enough. However, I think that Gonzanez tap dance makes it clear that improper searches have taken place. Gonzalez refused to answer yes or no whether 1) the mail of Americans had been searched without a warrant and 2) whether any telephone conversations between Americans entirely in America had taken place.
What happens in 2010 when a nutjob like Hillary gets in office and decides that the militia movement, or survivalists, or NRA members (take your pick) are operating as "domestic terrorists"?
These important issues are not some sort of debating game where you pick a side and do everything possible to justify that's side's actions. The stakes are too high for that.
Hayden said hot pursuit justified warrantless surveillance because the FISA process was too slow. He made no mention of an evanescent evidence problem. If the FISA process is too slow, why doesn't the President ask Congress to modify it?
The president, the AG, the DOJ, the people in Congress who were briefed on the program all say that it would be covered by FISA. When asked why they did not follow FISA, the AG said that it would be too cumbersome. He did not say that FISA would not apply to this program. Nor did he say that they need follow a standard that would be lower than probable cause. He said the paperwork was too much of a hassle. This is a violation of the law. Congress did not authorize and a majority on the Judiciary committee, a majority on the intelligence committee, a majority in Congress have consistently said that the AUMF did not mean what the administration has read into it. This is why it is a willful violation of the law.
Does that mean it is appropriate to prosecute the president? Probably not. It does mean it is a violation of the law. Just as much as LBJ's and Nixon's actions were violations of the law. I will my mind if you show me how FISA is different than the UCMJ or Posse Comitatus. I will change my mind if you show me where in the legislative history Congress gave Bush the authority he is claiming. I will bow down and call you all the masters of all these legal if you can show me where in the Constitution the president is give complete control of all things in the government during wartime.
Noah
??
United States v. Ramsey?
Are you a law student?
Have you ever been a law student?
Do you have a law degree?
Have you taken the bar?
Have you passed the bar?
Are you a working attorney?
Do you work for DOJ?
The Executive branch?
Have you read every provision of FISA?
What especial expertise or credentials do you have to make your argument, exactly, other than your admission that "I just think he is a horrible president"?
Yes, Yes, No, No, No, No, No, No and Yes. What makes me thinkg that I have credentials to make an argument? Aside from the fact that I am American, a law student have read and the history and am well acquainted with politics and government, nothing. What especia