DOCSLIB.ORG

American Civil Liberties Union, Et Al. V. National Security Agency, Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Civil Liberties Union, Et Al. V. National Security Agency, Et Al UC Berkeley School of Law Board of Advocates 2008-2009 James Patterson McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition Case Record: No. 07-468 American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al. Record page 1 The Record The Case Record you have should consist of the following documents, arranged in chronological order: A. Complaint (1/17/06) B. ACLU statement of Undisputed Facts (3/9/06) and accompanying documents: 1. Exhibits (3/9/06) 2. Declaration of Larry Diamond (3/9/06) 3. Declaration of Nancy Hollander (3/9/06) 4. Declaration of Tara McKelvey (3/9/06) 5. Declaration of William Swor (3/9/06) C. Declaration of John D. Negroponte, Dir. of National Intelligence (5/27/06) D. Declaration of Major General Richard J. Quirk, NSA Signals Intelligence Director (5/27/06) E. Declaration of Leonard M. Niehoff (6/5/06) F. Declaration of Barnett R. Rubin (6/5/06) G. Declaration of Nazih Hassan (6/5/06) H. Declaration of Joshua L. Dratel (6/5/06) I. Declaration of Mohammed Abdrabboh (6/5/06) J. Declaration of Nabid Ayad (6/5/06) K. Opinion from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (8/7/06) L. Opinion from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (7/6/07) Note that the record purposefully does not contain any of briefs or memoranda in support of motions on the case. You are not permitted to read those in your preparation of your brief. Please be sure to refer to the Official Competition Rules (available at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3010.htm), especially with respect to consulting outside sources. The pages of this document have all been numbered for your convenience. You may properly refer to the record as (R. at X) in your brief citations. If you have any questions, email [email protected]. Good luck!! Record page 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COMPLAINT FOR MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC DECLARATORY RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC AND INJUNCTIVE RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; RELIEF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA Case No. MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN, Hon. Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Defendants. ANN BEESON Attorney of Record JAMEEL JAFFER MELISSA GOODMAN (admission pending) CATHERINE CRUMP (admission pending) National Legal Department American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2400 (212) 549-2500 MICHAEL J. STEINBERG KARY L. MOSS American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 60 West Hancock Street Detroit, MI 48201-1343 (313) 578-6814 Record page 3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval (hereinafter “the Program”). The National Security Agency / Central Security Service (“NSA”) launched the Program in 2001 and the President of the United States ratified it in 2002. 2. Plaintiffs are a group of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys, and national nonprofit organizations who frequently communicate by telephone and email with people outside the United States, including in the Middle East and Asia. Because of the nature of their calls and emails, and the identities and locations of those with whom they communicate, plaintiffs have a well-founded belief that their communications are being intercepted under the Program. The Program is disrupting the ability of the plaintiffs to talk with sources, locate witnesses, conduct scholarship, and engage in advocacy. 3. By seriously compromising the free speech and privacy rights of the plaintiffs and others, the Program violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It also violates constitutional separation of powers principles, because it was authorized by President George W. Bush in excess of his Executive authority and contrary to limits imposed by Congress. In response to widespread domestic surveillance abuses committed by the Executive Branch and exposed in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted legislation that provides “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis 2 Record page 4 added). Plaintiffs respectfully seek a declaration that the Program is unlawful, and a permanent injunction against its use. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This case arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and presents a federal question within this Court’s jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court also has jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. The Court has authority to grant declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. The Court has authority to award costs and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). PARTIES 5. The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) is a 501(c)(4) non- profit, non-partisan organization that engages in public education and lobbying about the constitutional principles of liberty and equality. The ACLU has more than 500,000 members and has members in every state, including Michigan. The ACLU sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its staff and members. 6. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLUF”) is a 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public about civil liberties issues and employs lawyers who provide legal representation free of charge in cases involving civil liberties. The ACLUF sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its staff. 7. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (“ACLU of Michigan”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan organization that engages in public education and lobbying about civil rights and civil liberties in the state of Michigan. The 3 Record page 5 ACLU of Michigan has approximately 15,000 members. The ACLU of Michigan sues on its own behalf of on behalf of its members. 8. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. whose direct membership is comprised of more than 13,000 criminal defense lawyers. The NACDL has members in every state, including Michigan. The NACDL sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its members. 9. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. and is the largest Islamic civil liberties organization in the United States. CAIR has chapters and members nationwide and members in over 25 countries. CAIR sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its staff and members. 10. The Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan (“CAIR- Michigan”) is a 501(c)(3) organization and represents the interest of the American Muslim community living in the state of Michigan. CAIR-Michigan sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its members. 11. Greenpeace, Inc. (“Greenpeace”) is a non-profit advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. dedicated to combating the most serious threats to the planet’s biodiversity and environment. Greenpeace has approximately 250,000 members nationwide, including members in Michigan. Internationally, Greenpeace has a presence in 39 other countries and more than 2.5 million members. Greenpeace sues on its own behalf, and on behalf of its staff and members. 4 Record page 6 12. James Bamford is an award-winning author and journalist. He is one of the world’s leading experts on U.S. intelligence and the National Security Agency and he has published numerous books and articles on those topics. Mr. Bamford lives in Washington, D.C. 13. Larry Diamond is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is a leading expert on governance and development in Iraq, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Professor Diamond lives in Stanford, California. 14. Christopher Hitchens is a prominent reporter and bestselling author who has written numerous articles and books on topics including U.S policy in the Middle East and Islamic fundamentalism. Mr. Hitchens lives in Washington, D.C. 15. Tara McKelvey is a senior editor at The American Prospect, and has written numerous articles and books on topics including U.S. policy in the Middle East. Ms. McKelvey lives in Washington, D.C. 16. Barnett R. Rubin is Director of Studies and Senior Fellow at the New York University Center on International Cooperation. Professor Rubin is an internationally renowned scholar on conflict and peace, with a particular focus on Afghanistan, South Asia, and Central Asia, and has written numerous books and articles about Afghan history, politics, and development. Professor Rubin lives in New York. 17. Defendant National Security Agency / Central Security Service (“NSA”) is the agency of the United States government responsible for administering the warrantless surveillance program challenged in this case. 5 Record page 7 18. Defendant Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander is the Director of the NSA. Defendant Lieutenant General Alexander has ultimate authority for supervising and implementing all operations and functions of the NSA. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 19. The First Amendment provides in relevant part that “Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 20. The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 21.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Failure of Intelligence: the Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe
    Pace International Law Review Volume 14 Issue 2 Fall 2002 Article 7 September 2002 Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe Kevin J. Lawner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Kevin J. Lawner, Post-Sept. 11th International Surveillance Activity - A Failure of Intelligence: The Echelon Interception System & the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe, 14 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 435 (2002) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol14/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POST-SEPT. 11TH INTERNATIONAL SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY - A FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE: THE ECHELON INTERCEPTION SYSTEM & THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN EUROPE Kevin J. Lawner* I. Introduction ....................................... 436 II. Communications Intelligence & the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement ..... 443 A. September 11th - A Failure of Intelligence .... 446 B. The Three Warning Flags ..................... 449 III. The Echelon Interception System .................. 452 A. The Menwith Hill and Bad Aibling Interception Stations .......................... 452 B. Echelon: The Abuse of Power .................. 454 IV. Anti-Terror Measures in the Wake of September 11th ............................................... 456 V. Surveillance Activity and the Fundamental Right to Privacy in Europe .............................. 460 A. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union... 464 B.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with James Bamford
    Investigating the Puzzle Palace: An Interview with James Bamford BONNIE BRENNAN AND KATHERINE GILBERT QUESTION: Do you consider clandestine intelligence gathering a legitimate activity for a modern nation-state? BAMFORD: I think it is very legitimate; I ju.st think that it should be directed externally. It is unrealistic not to have clandestine activities, though to some extent NSA isn't even really engaged in clandestine collection. Thousands of signals are just falling down outside right now, and all they're doing is putting out a dish and collecting them. There's not really anything clandestine about it. A listening post is a large thing with big antennae that can be seen from the road. It's just technical collection gathering, and I don't think there's anything really wrong with that as long as they're concentrating on foreign countries. We assume foreign countries can do the same thing to the United States. The Soviet Union, I'm sure, has a big listening post in Cuba. I don't see anything wrong with that. QUESTION: In his book, The Codebreakers, David Kahn shows that intelligence gathering by nations is as old as civilization. In the nineteenth century, Clausewitz described "intelligence" as the "basis . of our own plans and operations" and posited that "unreliable and transient intelligence results in a flimsy structure that can easily collapse and bury us in its ruins." What, in your opinion, is the role of intelligence today? BAMFORD: The role of intelligence is to provide a government with a third eye to see what is going on in places where it can't otherwise see; it has expanded tremendously from thirty years ago when the concentration was on human intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • Enclosed Is the Header; the Next Three Posts Contain the 517K Flat-Text of the "1984" Polemic
    Enclosed is the header; the next three posts contain the 517K flat-text of the "1984" polemic. For hardcore details on ECHELON, see Part 1 from 'Wild Conspiracy Theory' through the end of Part 1. ---guy ****************************************************************************** An Indictment of the U.S. Government and U.S. Politics Cryptography Manifesto ---------------------- By [email protected] 7/4/97-M version "The law does not allow me to testify on any aspect of the National Security Agency, even to the Senate Intelligence Committee" ---General Allen, Director of the NSA, 1975 "You bastards!" ---guy ****************************************************************************** This is about much more than just cryptography. It is also about everyone in the U.S.A. being fingerprinted for a defacto national ID card, about massive illegal domestic spying by the NSA, about the Military being in control of key politicians, about always being in a state of war, and about cybernetic control of society. ****************************************************************************** Part 1: Massive Domestic Spying via NSA ECHELON ---- - ------- -------- ------ --- --- ------- o The NSA Admits o Secret Court o Wild Conspiracy Theory o Over the Top o BAM-BAM-BAM o Australian ECHELON Spotted o New Zealand: Unhappy Campers Part 2: On Monitoring and Being Monitored ---- - -- ---------- --- ----- --------- o On Monitoring - Driver's Seat - Five Months Statistics - The FBI Investigations - I Can See What You Are Thinking - Why I Monitor o On Being
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Case No. 2:06-cv-10204 UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL Hon. Anna Diggs Taylor ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INC.; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS; TARA MCKELVEY; and BARNETT R. RUBIN, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY / CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; and LIEUTENANT GENERAL KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service, Defendants. Larry J. Saylor (P28165) Peter T. Barbur (Admission Pending) MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, PLC CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 Worldwide Plaza Detroit, Michigan 48226 825 Eighth Avenue (313) 963-6420 New York, NY 10019 [email protected] (212) 474-1000 Sidney S. Rosdeitcher (Admission pending) Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Association Chair, Committee on Civil Rights of the Bar of the City of New York THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 (212) 373-3238 MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICUS CURIAE THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………... ii I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE. ....................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...........................................................................................2 III. THE RELEVANT BACKGROUND..................................................................................3 IV. THE NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM IMPERMISSIBLY IMPEDES ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS...........................................................................................4 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Agency Stops Public Access To
    ·.a:gF.· I··o·;A2919576 a : ,_______ ...,.,...._....__ ___________ _ THE SUN, Thursday, April 28, 1983 --------------------------~-------:---!"".A~7--. Security agency, stops public· access to letters ill private, lihrajfjr . secrecy stamp, in a ~ault the library agency's action, denounced it, in the officials told the librarians that visit .to 1969 by William F. Frieciman, a vlsit by two. NSA officials a~ n~~rt of New York Times News Service k · th · ,,.. uses to house secret data. words of one, as "a new form of cen- was part of a systematic effort to pioneer in cryptological wor ID e ·our continuing. review of research. / Washington ....:. The Natiqnal Secu· Ma,ny of the letters were cited by sorship." · track down and, if necessary, remove - United States and one of the security materials used by author· :Jam~ rity Agency (NSA), the nation's larg· · author James Bamford in his book · Mark H. Lynch, a lawyer for the from circulation research materials · agency's top code breakers. They Bamford." . · . • ' est and most secretive intelligence . "The Puzzle Palace," a critical report American Civil Liberties Union, ·said, · about sensitive matters that -were dealt primarily. with personal mat• '· The letter al.sO said. "It's obviolis organization, has directed a private about the agency that was published . "When the government starts barring used in Mr. Bamford's book, library ters, according to library officials. we share a 'common desire that col· library in Virginia to halt public ac­ last y~ar. The NSA. is responsible for· . the . public from seeing unclassified officials said. The letters contained _brief refer- lecUons of papers not be exploited un· cess to personal letters menti9ned in.
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning the National Security Agency's Metadata Program
    I/S: A JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY FOR THE INFORMATION SOCIETY Secret without Reason and Costly without Accomplishment: Questioning the National Security Agency’s Metadata Program JOHN MUELLER & MARK G. STEWART* I. INTRODUCTION When Edward Snowden’s revelations emerged in June 2013 about the extent to which the National Security Agency was secretly gathering communications data as part of the country’s massive 9/11- induced effort to catch terrorists, the administration of Barack Obama set in motion a program to pursue him to the ends of the earth in order to have him prosecuted to the full extent of the law for illegally exposing state secrets. However, the President also said that the discussions about the programs these revelations triggered have actually been a good thing: “I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy. I think it’s a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago, we might not have been having this debate.”1 There may be something a bit patronizing in the implication that the programs have been secret because we were not yet mature enough to debate them when they were put into place. Setting that aside, however, a debate is surely to be welcomed—indeed, much overdue. It should be conducted not only about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) amazingly extensive data-gathering programs to * John Mueller is a professor of political science at Ohio State University and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Insitute. Mark G. Stewart is a professor of engineering at the University of Newcastle, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of FISA-Related Material and To
    Case: 1:12-cr-00723 Document #: 51 Filed: 08/09/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:213 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12 CR 723 ) Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ADEL DAOUD, ) ) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF FISA-RELATED MATERIAL AND TO SUPPRESS THE FRUITS OR DERIVATIVES OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND ANY OTHER MEANS OF COLLECTION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO FISA OR OTHER FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING Defendant, ADEL DAOUD, by and through his attorneys, THOMAS ANTHONY DURKIN, JANIS D. ROBERTS, and JOSHUA G. HERMAN, pursuant to the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Search and Seizure, and Due Process clauses of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the relevant provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), specifically 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) and (g), hereby moves for disclosure of FISA-related materials, and to suppress any fruits or derivatives of electronic surveillance and any other means of collection conducted pursuant to FISA or any other foreign intelligence gathering or any intelligence agencies of the United States. In support of this motion, Defendant, through counsel, shows to the Court the following: 1. On September 18, 2012, the government filed its “Notice of Intent to Use Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Information” (“FISA Notice”) (Dkt. #9). 2. On May 22, 2013, counsel for Defendant moved for notice of disclosure of FISA Amendments Act (“FAA”)evidence pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881e(a) and 1806(c). Counsel specifically requested notice of: (1) whether the electronic surveillance described in its FISA Case: 1:12-cr-00723 Document #: 51 Filed: 08/09/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:214 Notice was conducted pursuant to the pre-2008 provisions of the FISA or, instead, the FAA; and, (2) whether the affidavit and other evidence offered in support of any FISA order relied on information obtained or derived from an FAA surveillance order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Puzzle Palace: Archives and National Security
    The Puzzle Palace: Archives and National Security In addition to the intelligence operations of the The Marshall Library has a long history of close better-known CIA and FBI, successive American cooperation with NSA. It exhibits museum items on presidents and their administrations have relied loan from the Agency. Fred C. Hadsel, director of on the National Security Agency, established by The George C. Marshall Research Foundation, told Harry Truman in 1952. NSA was created not by law the New York Times that the foundation's relation­ but by a top secret presidential memorandum ad­ ship with the government "is not and should not be dressed to the Secretary of State and Secretary (cont. on p. 2) of Defense. One of NSA's principal tasks is keeping secure codes for U.S. use and deciphering 1983 Election Results communications of foreign governments. Andrea Hinding, University of Minnesota, was The first book-length study of NSA, James Bamford's elected vice president of SAA in the 1983 elec­ The Puzzle Palace, was published in 1982. The tions. She will become president at the 1984 author, an investigative writer, cited research annual meeting in Washington, DC. Hinding is at the National Archives in accessioned records an SAA Fellow, a former Council member, and of the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, editor of Women's History Sources: A Guide to and in NSA records released by the Agency after Archives and Manuscripts Collections in the United Freedom of Information Act requests. Additionally, States. Bamford cited the papers of William F. Friedman and General Marshall S.
    [Show full text]
  • How Much Is Too Much?
    LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW __________________________________ VOLUME 3 FALL 2015 _____________________________________ THE NSA’S EAVESDROPPING OPERATIONS AFTER THE SNOWDEN REVELATIONS: HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH? JANUARY 2015 SYMPOSIUM TRANSCRIPT James Bamford MR. JACOB BAGGETT: I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. James Bamford as our first speaker. Mr. Bamford is an award-winning journalist in the field of national security. The New York Times calls him the nation's premier journalist on the subject of the NSA. And his most recent book, "The Shadow Factory", which is on sale outside by Union Avenue Books, was named by the Washington Post as one of the best books of the year. And he's here to discuss the transformation of the NSA since September 11th. Please welcome Mr. Bamford. (Applause) MR. JAMES BAMFORD: Thanks very much. It's really great being here. I want to thank Matt Lyon and Melanie Reid, Jacob Baggett, and Lauren Mullins for taking really great care of me. It's really great being here. The fact that this university is named after NSA AFTER SNOWDEN 116 President Lincoln is really quite an honor for me because I've always admired one of the things he's said. And that is the quote he has up here. I think if he had been President about a dozen years ago, we might not have gotten into the war in Iraq. If you read his quote there, "[k]ings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object."1 He was very much against attacking countries without getting congressional approval.
    [Show full text]
  • EPIC Brochure, 2012
    Case 1:12-cv-00327-ABJ Document 18-10 Filed 11/30/12 Page 1 of 2 TSA Aimed to Put Body Scanners in the neWS in Public Places MSNBC | 3.14.2011 Privacy Group Asks FTC New Facebook Feature: for Facebook Inquiry Cool or Creepy? Steer Clear of LOS ANGELes TImes | 9.29.2011 ABC NIGHTLINE | 6.10.2011 CArS That Spy USA TODAy | 8.18.2011 Report: Acquitted Stay Privacy Groups Gets One on FBI Watch list Up on google Homeland Security POLITICo | 9.28.2011 ReuteRS | 6.1.2011 Moves Forward with ‘pre-Crime’ Detection epic Court Tells TSA To Allow Apple to Alter iphone Data CNET | 10.7.2011 Public Comment On Collection body Scan Screening THE NEW YORK TImes | 4.27.2011 EPIC Uncovers: mobile LEGAL TImes | 7.15.2011 ScannerS Not ‘Certified Google Agrees to Audits Under People Scanners’ EPIC Continues TSA pressure FTC Settlement Over Buzz SLasHDOT | 9.1.2011 HUFFINGTON POst | 9.11.2011 THE NatIONAL JOURNAl | 3.30.2011 Senate Cyber-SeCuriTy Update Urged on EPIC says body ScannerS Hearing: Todays Laws Are Children’S online privacy an ‘Unreasonable Search’ ‘Not Adequate’ THE NEW YORK TImes | 9.15.2011 WasHINGTON POst | 3.10.2011 COnsumeR REPORts | 6.21.2011 FaciAl reCogniTion Software Libertarians, Privacy Advocates EPIC Challenges Putting Your ID at Risk? uniTe To FighT Body Scanners Verizon Wireless’s FOX NEWS | 8.3.2011 NatIONAL JOURNAl | 1.6.2011 New Privacy Policy MEDIAPOst | 11.2.2011 Airport body ScannerS EPIC, Coalition Urge Congress Were Improperly Adopted to Pursue FoiA overSighT Facebook Privacy: Groups by U.S., Appeals Court Rules JD SUPRA | 2.17.2011
    [Show full text]
  • ECHELON Interception System) (2001/2098(INI))
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ««« « « « « 1999 « « 2004 ««« Session document FINAL A5-0264/2001 PAR1 11 July 2001 REPORT on the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system) (2001/2098(INI)) Part 1: Motion for a resolution Explanatory statement Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System Rapporteur: Gerhard Schmid RR\445698EN.doc PE 305.391 EN EN PE 305.391 2/194 RR\445698EN.doc EN ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes.’ Juvenal (ca. 60 to 130 AD), Sat. 6, 347 RR\445698EN.doc 3/194 PE 305.391 EN CONTENTS Page PROCEDURAL PAGE .............................................................................................................. 9 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION ............................................................................................ 10 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ............................................................................................. 21 1. Introduction: .......................................................................................................21 1.1. The reasons for setting up the committee .................................................................21 1.2. The claims made in the two STOA studies on a global interception system codenamed ECHELON .............................................................................................21 1.2.1. The first STOA report of 1997 ..................................................................................21 1.2.2. The 1999 STOA reports.............................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Fecteau, Who Were Held Prisoner in China, at CIA Award Ceremony, November 2013
    Association of Former Intelligence Officers From AFIO's The Intelligencer 7700 Leesburg Pike, Suite 324 Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies Falls Church, Virginia 22043 Web: www.afio.com, E-mail: [email protected] Volume 23 • Number 3 • $15 single copy price BU PEOPLE Alumni III. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Many BU alumni have made and continue to make important contributions to the US Intelligence Com- munity. Their dedicated efforts and unique achieve- ments seldom receive public recognition because of the highly classified nature of their work. Since begin- ning my teaching at BU, I have been heartened to see several of my BU students, who will remain nameless, embark on intelligence-related careers. Several BU Terriers’ good names, honorable ser- vice, and brave deeds have been made public. These alumni deserve to have their stories told. Similarly, other BU alumni have been either accused of com- mitting espionage or have been the target of US Gov- A Spy’s Guide to Boston University ernment surveillance. Their experiences also deserve recounting. by John D. Woodward Jr JD INTRODUCTION came to Boston University as a professor in July 2015, after a long career with the Central Intelli- I gence Agency, most of it serving in the CIA’s clan- destine service. Among the classes I teach, my favorite is “The Evolution of Strategic Intelligence,” which is essentially about the history of espionage. My students especially enjoy our class field trip to see Boston’s John Downey (left) and Richard Fecteau, who were held prisoner in China, at CIA award ceremony, November 2013. intelligence-related sites.
    [Show full text]