Meanwhile, attorneys who specialize in class action lawsuits are preparing to file a blizzard of suits against the phone companies purportedly involved with the NSA program. The ACLU of Illinois has already filed suit against one of the suspect phone companies, AT&T, charging that its actions in the NSA program violated customer privacy.
But it remains unclear which phone firms handed over what records to whom. Some companies have denied involvement - but the ACLU notes that those denials have carefully worded and some have referred to the national security interests involved.
All the companies named by USA Today have disputed the newspaper's account. AT&T has neither confirmed nor denied it, but has said that no information was released illegally.
Verizon has flatly denied involvement in the NSA program. But it has left open the issue of whether MCI, the long-distance subsidiary it acquired in January, has turned over records to the government.
BellSouth issued a statement earlier this month that said, "Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA." Civil rights groups are saying that the use of the word "contract" in this denial appears to be a hedge.
If legal claims against the phone companies continue to gain momentum, their costs could be enormous - reminiscent of such past actions as litigation against the major tobacco companies.
In response to an ACLU letter, the FCC -- the agency charged with overseeing the entire U.S. telecommunications industry - said it does not have the authority to look into the phone records program because its members lack the necessary security clearances.
The ACLU believes the phone program is the latest example of "a longer-term abuse of power by the executive branch," said executive director Anthony D. Romero.
In response to a question during a telephone press conference, an ACLU spokesman accused the federal government and the named phone companies of "hiding behind the 'state secrets privilege' " to keep critical information about citizens' privacy from being made public.
Civil liberties lawyers have questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has used to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program.
Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added.
But other legal experts disagree. For example, G. Jack King Jr. of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers noted that Congress in 1986 passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act requiring court orders before turning over call records to the government. He said Gonzales is correct in saying "the administration isn't violating the Fourth Amendment" (which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause). But he added that Gonzales is "failing to acknowledge that it is breaking" the 1986 law, which requires a court order "with a few very narrow exceptions."
The phone records at issue do not contain the names or contents of calls, but do list which numbers called which other numbers, both internationally and domestically, and how those calls were routed.
According to USA Today, this information was then sifted by powerful computers in an attempt to discover a pattern that might reveal the presence of terrorists in the US. The newspaper reported that the NSA had used the phone records of the known 9/11 conspirators to try to establish a model of how terrorists communicate.
In April, the ACLU and other civil rights, journalism and business advocacy groups who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East, filed suit against another NSA program, the so-called Domestic Surveillance Program, through which the NSA eavesdrops on international telephone calls and emails, one end of which is in the U.S.
Oral arguments are currently scheduled for June 12, and it is widely expected that the government will invoke its "state secrets privilege" to keep the case out of court.
But it remains unclear which phone firms handed over what records to whom. Some companies have denied involvement - but the ACLU notes that those denials have carefully worded and some have referred to the national security interests involved.
All the companies named by USA Today have disputed the newspaper's account. AT&T has neither confirmed nor denied it, but has said that no information was released illegally.
Verizon has flatly denied involvement in the NSA program. But it has left open the issue of whether MCI, the long-distance subsidiary it acquired in January, has turned over records to the government.
BellSouth issued a statement earlier this month that said, "Based on our review to date, we have confirmed no such contract exists and we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA." Civil rights groups are saying that the use of the word "contract" in this denial appears to be a hedge.
If legal claims against the phone companies continue to gain momentum, their costs could be enormous - reminiscent of such past actions as litigation against the major tobacco companies.
In response to an ACLU letter, the FCC -- the agency charged with overseeing the entire U.S. telecommunications industry - said it does not have the authority to look into the phone records program because its members lack the necessary security clearances.
The ACLU believes the phone program is the latest example of "a longer-term abuse of power by the executive branch," said executive director Anthony D. Romero.
In response to a question during a telephone press conference, an ACLU spokesman accused the federal government and the named phone companies of "hiding behind the 'state secrets privilege' " to keep critical information about citizens' privacy from being made public.
Civil liberties lawyers have questioned the legal basis that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has used to justify the constitutionality of collecting domestic telephone records as part of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism program.
Gonzales said such an activity would not require a court warrant under a 1979 Supreme Court ruling because it involved obtaining "business records." Under the 27-year-old court ruling in Smith v. Maryland, "those kinds of records do not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection," Gonzales said. "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those kinds of records," he added.
But other legal experts disagree. For example, G. Jack King Jr. of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers noted that Congress in 1986 passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act requiring court orders before turning over call records to the government. He said Gonzales is correct in saying "the administration isn't violating the Fourth Amendment" (which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant based on probable cause). But he added that Gonzales is "failing to acknowledge that it is breaking" the 1986 law, which requires a court order "with a few very narrow exceptions."
The phone records at issue do not contain the names or contents of calls, but do list which numbers called which other numbers, both internationally and domestically, and how those calls were routed.
According to USA Today, this information was then sifted by powerful computers in an attempt to discover a pattern that might reveal the presence of terrorists in the US. The newspaper reported that the NSA had used the phone records of the known 9/11 conspirators to try to establish a model of how terrorists communicate.
In April, the ACLU and other civil rights, journalism and business advocacy groups who frequently communicate by phone and e-mail with people in the Middle East, filed suit against another NSA program, the so-called Domestic Surveillance Program, through which the NSA eavesdrops on international telephone calls and emails, one end of which is in the U.S.
Oral arguments are currently scheduled for June 12, and it is widely expected that the government will invoke its "state secrets privilege" to keep the case out of court.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
