|
|
Tags for This Article:
Congress (2851) Government (2714) Rights (1212) Power (1055) Privacy (417) Surveillance (368) FISA (83)
|
Add to My Group
"You imply that the emergency authorization process under FISA is an adequate substitute for the legislative authorities that have lapsed. This assertion reflects a basic misunderstanding about FISA's emergency provisions. Specifically, you assert that the National Security Agency (NSA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 'may begin surveillance immediately' in an emergency situation. FISA requires far more, and it would be illegal to proceed as you suggest. Before surveillance begins, the Attorney General must determine that there is probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power and that FISA's other requirements are met." This letter from two senior officials in the Bush Administtration unwittingly acknowledges that it is illegal to intercept electronic communications outside of the guidelines legislated under FISA. Therefore, as critics of the Terrorist Surveillance Program already knew, the President acted illegally for at least five years by circumventing FISA via the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and probably the President is currently engaging in illegal activity because it is unlikely that all of the current electronic surveillance is within the guidelines legislated under FISA (notwithstanding those authorizations which legally can extend for up to one year after the expiration of the PAA of 2007). *On May 12, 2007, after a coordinated attack on their position south of Baghdad, three U.S. soldiers were reported missing and believed to have been captured by Iraqi insurgents. Immediately upon learning of the attack, theater-based and national SIGINT assets responded by dedicating all available resources to obtaining intelligence concerning the attack. *On May 13 and 14, 2007, the Intelligence Community began to develop additional leads concerning the communications of insurgents claiming responsibility for the attack, including approaching the FISA Court on May 14 for an amendment to a then-current order with some bearing on the hostage situation. The amendment was granted that day. As soon as specific leads had been identified, analysts began to compile all the necessary information to establish the factual basis for issuance of a FISA court order as required by the emergency authorization provision of the statute. *On May 15, 2007: At 10:00 a.m., key U.S. agencies met to discuss and develop various options for collecting additional intelligence relating to the kidnapping by accessing certain communications At 10:52 a.m., the NSA notified the Department of Justice (DOJ) of its desire to collect some communications that require a FISA order. It was determined that some FISA coverage already existed. At 12:53 p.m., the NSA General Counsel agreed that all of the requirements for an emergency FISA authorization had been met for the remaining collection of the communications inside the U.S. From 12:53 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Administration lawyers and intelligence officials discussed various legal and operational issues associated with the surveillance. At 5:15 p.m., the DOJ's FISA office - the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) - received a call formally requesting emergency authority to conduct surveillance. At 5:30 p.m., the OIPR attorney on duty attempted to reach the Solicitor General who was the Acting Attorney General while Attorney General Gonzales was addressing a United States Attorney's Conference in Texas. However, the Solicitor General had left for the day and the decision was made to attempt to reach Attorney General in Texas. The AG was out of town. The Acting AG had left the building. The Deputy AG (Paul McNulty) had resigned the day before. As for the Assistant AG, Congress had authorized the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division to grant authorizations - but the Justice Department had not yet altered its own internal regulations to allow him to do so. DOJ did not alter its internal guidelines until June 12 - a month later. After striking out with all four DOJ officials, the decision was made to try to call AG Gonzales in Texas.) The OIPR attorney then contacted the Justice Department Command Center and requested that the Command Center locate the Attorney General in Texas. After several telephone calls with the staff accompanying the Attorney General, the OIPR lawyers were able to speak directly with the Attorney General and brief him on the facts of the emergency request. At 7:18 p.m., the Attorney General authorized the requested surveillance. The Justice Department attorneys immediately notified the FBI. At 7:28 p.m., the FBI noticed (sic) key intelligence agencies and personnel of the approval. At 7:38 p.m., surveillance began.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: I am retired after working 33 years as a claims representative for the Social Security Administration, and I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 |
|
