The Protect America Act: One Nation Under Surveillance
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 29 Number 1 Symposium: Soft Money 4 Article 5 9-1-2008 The Protect America Act: One Nation under Surveillance Shahab Mossavar-Rahmani Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shahab Mossavar-Rahmani, The Protect America Act: One Nation under Surveillance, 29 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 133 (2008). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol29/iss1/5 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT: ONE NATION UNDER GOD SURVEILLANCE I. INTRODUCTION Early in the morning on December 16, 2005, people across the United States awoke to the smell of freshly brewed coffee and learned that their own government had been spying on them for over three years.1 A New York Times (Times) article revealed that President George W. Bush authorized a secret wiretapping program for the National Security Agency (NSA) in the months following the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks.2 Current and former officials from the Bush Administration discussed the story with journalists from the Times because these officials had legitimate concerns about the legality and oversight of the operation. According to the Times article, "the intelligence agency ha[d] monitored the international telephone calls... of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants" and eavesdropped "on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time."4 In the weeks and months following the publication of the Times article, the Bush Administration conducted damage control, often appearing in the media to assert the program's legality.5 The Bush Administration even claimed that domestic surveillance was necessary to combat terrorism 6 (although this argument has not been frequently 1. James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 16, 2005, at Al. 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. See, e.g., Eric Lichtblau & Adam Liptak, Bush and His Senior Aides Press On in Legal Defense for Wiretapping Program,N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 28, 2006, at A13; Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, Press Briefing by Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales and Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Dir. for Nat'l Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1 .html [hereinafter Gonzales & Hayden]; Eric Lichtblau & David E. Sanger, Administration Cites War Vote in Spying Case, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 20, 2005, at Al; Eric Lichtblau & James Risen, Top Aide Defends Domestic Spying, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 7, 2006, at Al. 6. Michele Norris, Gonzales: Spying Covered by Force Authorization, NPR, Jan. 24, 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=5170875. 134 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:133 asserted). The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted two legal foundations to support the President's authorization of the NSA program: (1) an inherent constitutional power and (2) an express power granted by Congress when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to combat terrorism.7 A mere eight days after it first exposed the NSA program, the Times published another article revealing that the NSA was able to monitor and gather information on millions of people because it gained the cooperation of major American telecommunications companies.8 The Times reported that these companies allowed the NSA "to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications. ...9 Soon after the Times published the article, civil liberties groups flooded companies like AT&T and Verizon with lawsuits. One such group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), alleged that AT&T had "opened its key telecommunications facilities and databases to direct access by the NSA and/or other government agencies, intercepting and disclosing to the government the contents of its customers' communications as well as detailed communications records about millions of its customers ....10 Based on the value of the claims asserted, these companies faced potential bankruptcy if left to fend for themselves."1 Initially, the Bush Administration intervened in these suits by asserting the state secrets' 3 privilege.' 2 Sometimes referred to as the "nuclear bomb of legal tactics,"' the state secrets privilege effectively prevents any disclosure of evidence that the government deems a threat to national security. 14 However, the 7. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NAT'L SEC. AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT, 1, 6-7, (2006), http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonnsalegalauthorities.pdf [hereinafter DOJ WHITEPAPER]. 8. Eric Lichtblau & James Risen, Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 24, 2005, at Al [hereinafter Lichtblau & Risen, Spy Agency]. 9. Id. 10. See Amended Complaint for Damages at 6, Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (No. C-06-0672-JCS). 11. Chris Roberts, Transcript:Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, EL PASO TIMES, Aug. 22, 2007, available at http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_6685679; James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Ex- Worker atAT&TFights Immunity Bill, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 7, 2007, at A22. 12. John Markoff, U.S. Steps Into Wiretap Suit Against A T&T, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 29, 2006, at A9. 13. Steven Aftergood, State Secrets Privilege Gets a Workout, FED'N AM. SCIENTISTS, Apr. 23, 2002, available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/04/042302.html. 14. See Terkel v. AT&T Corp., 441 F. Supp. 2d 899, 917 (N.D. Il1. 2006); Carrie Newton Lyons, The State Secrets Privilege: Expanding its Scope Through Government Misuse, 11 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 99, 104, 109 (2007); Bernard Hibbitts, DOJ Wants NSA WiretappingSuits Dismissed on State Secrets Basis, JURIST, May 28, 2006, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/05/doj-wants-nsa-wiretapping-suits.php. 2008] ONE NATION UNDER GOD SURVEILLANCE Bush Administration sought a more permanent solution15 after one federal 16 court declined to apply the privilege,17 and another federal court held that the NSA violated the Constitution. The ironically titled Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA) 18 is the focus of the ongoing debate on whether the Bush Administration sacrificed individuals' fundamental liberties in exchange for domestic security. 19 The PAA amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA),2 ° and effectively removed the system of checks and balances on the Executive Branch's authority to wiretap international phone calls.2 1 Conveniently, the PAA also included an immunity provision that shielded telecommunications companies from any future lawsuits.22 Because the provision only granted immunity from future suits, the Bush Administration continued to publicly condemn Congress' resistance to a retroactive application of the immunity provision.23 Congress eventually passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), which includes a retroactive immunity clause.24 On one hand, proponents such as Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, argue that the PAA is vital to early detection of terrorist plots, and that "our intelligence professionals [are] 'missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence"' without the legislation.25 On the other hand, critics, such as the American Civil Liberties Union 15. Press Release, Office of the Press Sec'y, Fact Sheet: Congress Must Act Now to Keep a Critical Intelligence Gap Closed (Jan. 22, 2008), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080122-2.html. 16. John Markoff, Judge Declines to Dismiss Privacy Suit Against AT&T, N.Y. TIMES, July 21, 2006, at A13. 17. ACLU v. NSA, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754, 782 (E.D. Mich. 2006). 18. Protect America Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-55, §105(b), 121 Stat. 552 (2007). 19. See Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 1. 20. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811 (2008). 21. American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Fact Sheet on the "Police America Act", http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31203res20070807.html (last visited Sept. 14, 2007) [hereinafter FactSheet]. 22. Protect America Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552 (2007). 23. Press Release, Office of the Press Sec'y, President Bush Discusses Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Legislation (Oct. 10, 2007), http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/; Roberts, supra note 11; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ProtectAmerica Act: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 9 (2007) (statement of J. Michael McConnell, Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence). 24. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436 (2008). 25. Press Release, Office of the Press Sec'y, Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007 (Aug. 6, 2007), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html [hereinafter Press Release]. 136 LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:133 (ACLU), argue that the legislation allows for a massive collection of data without any oversight by the courts or Congress.26 Some Democrats, like Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, claimed that the passage of the PAA was politically motivated 27 because Democrats faced their first election year in 2008 after they gained control of Congress in 2006. One political commentator seemed to agree with Feingold's assessment when he claimed that Democrats feared "appearing weak on national security issues" and wanted to avoid spending the August recess defending themselves from Republican accusations that they "left Americans exposed to threats., 28 As one Internet blogger wrote, "the Democrats can rest easily over the August recess, knowing that they haven't left themselves vulnerable to political attacks.