Tag Archives: FISA

Judge Napolitano: March Madness, Washington-Style

For the past few days, the nation’s media and political class have been fixated on the firing of the No. 2 person in the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe became embroiled in the investigation of President Donald Trump because of his alleged approval of the use of a political dossier, written about Trump and paid for by the Democrats and not entirely substantiated, as a basis to secure a search warrant for surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser who once boasted that he worked for the Kremlin at the same time that he was advising candidate Trump.

The dossier itself and whatever was learned from the surveillance formed the basis for commencing the investigation of the Trump campaign’s alleged ties to Russia by the Obama Department of Justice, which is now being run by special counsel Robert Mueller and has been expanded into other areas. The surveillance of the Trump campaign based on arguably flimsy evidence put McCabe into President Trump’s crosshairs. Indeed, Trump attacked McCabe many times on social media and even rejoiced when Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired him at 10 p.m. last Friday, just 26 hours before his retirement was to have begun.

Why the fixation on this? Here is the back story.

After the unlawful use of the FBI and CIA by the Nixon administration to spy on President Nixon’s domestic political opponents, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. This statute outlawed all domestic surveillance except that which is authorized by the Constitution or by the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

That court, the statute declared, could authorize surveillance of foreigners physically located in the United States on a legal standard lesser than that which the Constitution requires. Even though this meant Congress could avoid the Constitution — an event that every high school social studies student knows is unconstitutional — the FISC enthusiastically embraced its protocol.

That protocol was a recipe for the constitutional crisis that is now approaching. The recipe consists of a secret court whose records and rulings are not available to the public. It’s a court where only the government’s lawyers appear; hence there is no challenge to the government’s submissions. And it’s a court that applies a legal standard profoundly at odds with the Constitution. The Constitution requires the presentation of evidence of probable cause of a crime as the trigger for a search warrant, yet FISA requires only probable cause of a relationship to a foreign power.

In the years in which the FISC authorized spying only on foreigners, few Americans complained. Some of us warned at FISA’s inception that this system violates the Constitution and is ripe for abuse, yet we did not know then how corrupt the system would become. The corruption was subtle, as it consisted of government lawyers, in secret and without opposition, persuading the FISC to permit spying on Americans.

The logic was laughable, but it went like this: We need to spy on all foreigners, whether they’re working for a foreign government or not; we need to spy on anyone who communicates with a foreigner; and we need to spy on anyone who has communicated with anyone else who has ever communicated with a foreigner.

These absurd extrapolations, pressed on the FISC and accepted by it in secret, turned FISA — a statute written to prevent spying on Americans — into a tool that facilitates it. Now, back to McCabe.

Though the use of FISA for domestic spying on ordinary Americans came about gradually and was generally known only to those in the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities and to members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, by the time McCabe became deputy director of the FBI, this spying was commonplace. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (is it really a court, given that its rulings are secret and it hears only the government and it rejects the constraints of the Constitution?) has granted 99.9 percent of government surveillance requests.

So when McCabe and his colleagues went to the FISC in October 2016 looking for a search warrant to conduct surveillance of officials in the Trump campaign, they knew that their request would be granted, but they never expected that their application, their work and the purpose of their request — as far removed as it was from the original purpose of FISA — would come under public scrutiny.

Indeed, it was not until the surveillance of Trump and his colleagues in the campaign and the transition came to light — with McCabe as the poster boy for it — that most Americans even knew how insidiously governmental powers are being abused.

The stated reason for McCabe’s firing was not his abuse of FISA but his absence of candor to FBI investigators about his use of FISA. I don’t know whether those allegations are the true reasons for his firing or McCabe was sacrificed at the altar of government abuse — because those who fired him also have abused FISA.

But I do know that there are lessons to learn in all this. Courts are bound by the Constitution, just as are Congress and the president. Just because Congress says something is lawful does not mean it is constitutional. Secret courts are the tools of tyrants and lead to the corruption of the judicial process and the erosion of freedom.

And courts that hear no challenge to the government and grant whatever it wants are not courts as we understand them; they are government hacks. They and the folks who have facilitated all this have undermined personal liberty in our once free society.

The whole purpose of the Constitution is to restrain the government and to protect personal liberty. FISA and its enablers in both major political parties have done the opposite. They have infused government with corruption and have assaulted the privacy of us all.

Reality Check: GOP Memo and FISA Problems

Should the FISA court be more transparent? Vote in our poll.

Friday, the White House released a controversial memo meant to provide some context to the whole Trump/Russia investigation.

The Nunes memo is four pages long, and it explains many of what seem to be very questionable actions by the Department of Justice and the FBI in how they got their hands on FISA warrants on Trump campaign officials.

But more than just this case, this memo backs up what civil libertarians have been screaming about for years. And begs the question—can the FISA court system actually be trusted?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

First, let’s start with the Nunes memo. It was long anticipated. So what did it show?

The memo focuses in part on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants that authorized the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

First, The memo claims that, “On Oct. 21, 2016 the DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order authorizing electronic surveillance on Page.”

According to the memo, “The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant tareting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC.”

“…Then-FBI Director James Comey signed three FISA applications on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one.”

The memo also says, “Then-DAG [Deputy Attorney General] Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of the DOJ.”

Now, where things get interesting is when you bring in that infamous Trump dossier.

It was created by former British Spy Christopher Steele on behalf of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

The memo states that, “Neither the initial application for the warrant in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding of Steele’s efforts.”

That’s despite the fact that we know Steele was paid more than $160,000, and even though the memo states that both the DOJ and the FBI were aware of the Democratic Party funding of the dossier.

The memo claims that in the Carter Page FISA application a Yahoo News article was cited extensively. But the memo states that the article did not corroborate the Steele dossier because “it was derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.

In fact, the memo says that the FISA application “incorrectly asses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News and several other outlets in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS.”

The memo also claims that, “before and after Steele was terminated as a source,” which by the way was, according to the memo, because of unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI, Steele “maintained contact” with the DOJ through then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr.

Ohr, who worked closely with Yates then Rosenstein, eventually spoke with the FBI about his communications with Steele.

In September 2016, Steele apparently told Ohr he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” according to the memo.

And the memo also notes Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS to help with the opposition research against Trump, something the memo claims was—once again—not disclosed.

The memo also claims that McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017 “that no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the Steele dossier information. But there is no direct quote from McCabe’s (behind-closed-doors) testimony.

Finally, the memo ends with information about George Papadopoulos—who has since pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI—and claims the FISA application mentions information about Papadopoulos “triggered the opening of a counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Peter Strzok.”

(Strzok was removed from Mueller’s probe after anti-Trump texts between him and his mistress, former FBI agent Lisa Page, were discovered.)

For her part, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNN that this memo is all a lie.

On Monday, the Washington Post reported, “FISA court was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, but that the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.”

But there is actually a larger question here. Larger than this memo, larger than the Trump/Russia question. It is a question civil libertarians have been asking for years.

How does anyone in America trust the FISA court system?

What you need to know is that this story is much bigger than just President Trump. If the Nunes memo holds up as true, what does that mean for those who have been charged or arrested under the other 38,000 plus FISA warrants?

The President shouldn’t be above anyone else and if transparency is deserved in his case, shouldn’t transparency be deserved in all FISA cases?

Lets talk about that tonight on Twitter and Facebook.

Poll: Should the FISA Court Be More Transparent?

  • By voting in this poll you will be added to the Ben Swann mailing list. We will never spam and you can unsubscribe anytime.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Why is the House Judiciary Committee Meeting in Private to Discuss the FISA Act?

On January 27, 26 civil liberties, human rights, and transparency organizations sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee demanding that an upcoming “members only” meeting on surveillance be made public.

The hearing is scheduled for February 2, and is currently classified and for members only.  The committee will be discussing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, the law that the NSA uses for its PRISM surveillance program and to tap into the so-called backbone of the Internet. Both programs were revealed to the public by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Judiciary Committee member and “original author of the USA Patriot Act” Jim Sensenbrenner, (R-Wisc.) said in a statement to The Intercept that “Closed briefings are necessary for members of Congress to ask questions about classified information.”

“However, I would support a subsequent open hearing on Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because transparency and public discussion are critical to the reform and reauthorization of Section 702,” Sensenbrenner also said in his statement.

The letter calls on House Judiciary Committee to open the hearing on Section 702 up to the public. The organizations write:

“We believe that robust congressional oversight of the implementation of this statute, which is used to acquire the communications of Americans and people around the world alike without a warrant, is critical. We were surprised when we recently learned that you may soon hold a hearing in a classified format, outside of public view.”

The groups say that holding a closed hearing “continues the excessive secrecy” that has become the norm during the Obama administration and “contributed to the surveillance abuses we have seen in recent years.”

The letter also notes that the Intelligence, Armed Services, and the Judiciary Committees have previously held public sessions on matters of national security. The Senate Judiciary Committee has itself held several public hearings on NSA surveillance programs following the release of documents by Snowden.

The organizations also note that the way in which Section 702 is applied “also affects journalists who interact with confidential sources to report on issues in the public interest, and criminal defendants whose prosecutions may involve the use of evidence derived from intelligence surveillance.”

The full list of the participating organizations appears below.

Access Now

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Amnesty International USA

Brennan Center for Justice

Californians Aware

Center for Democracy &Technology

Constitutional Alliance

The Constitution Project

Cyber Privacy Project

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

Essential Information

Free Press Action Fund

Government Accountability Project

Human Rights Watch

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Security Archive

New America’s Open Technology Institute

Niskanen Center

OpenTheGovernment.org

Project On Government Oversight

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Restore The Fourth

R Street Institute

New Documents Reveal the NSA is Still Collecting Americans’ Emails

New records obtained by the New York Times via Freedom of Information Act requests reveal that the National Security Agency’s mass collection of email communications likely continues using different methods which are not restricted by the law.

The new details, part of a report from the NSA’s inspector general, reveal at least four reasons why the NSA ended the email program. Three of these reasons are redacted but the fourth states “other authorities can satisfy certain foreign intelligence requirements” that the bulk email records program “had been designed to meet.”

The report also details two other legal ways the government may acquire the data. First, the NSA may gather Americans’ data that has been gathered in other countries by examining the fiber optic cables which power the internet. As the New York Times writes, these activities “are largely not subject to regulation by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.” The NSA was previously not allowed to gather domestic data using this procedure, but that rule was changed in November 2010.

The other method for spying on Americans which the NSA may legally employ involves the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008, which allows for warrantless domestic surveillance.

These revelations come on the eve of the end of another program which allows the collection of Americans’ phone records. Under the recently passed USA Freedom Act the NSA can still access the records in the pursuit of terrorists, but the records remain with the telecommunications companies.

Timothy Edgar, a privacy official in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence with both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations who is now a teacher at Brown University, told the New York Times that “The document makes it clear that NSA is able to get all the Internet metadata it needs through foreign collection.”

If Americans were hopeful that the USA Freedom Act was going to stop the bulk collection of data, they are in for disappointment. As long as the state has the technology and the resources (funded via tax dollars), they will use whatever tools they have at their disposal to monitor innocent individuals as the march towards complete loss of civil liberties continues.

Federal Court Rules To Uphold Bulk Spying

Three judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to uphold the NSA’s bulk spying program, rebuking a 2013 ruling that disputed the program’s legality and called the technology “almost Orwellian.”

In the December 2013 ruling, Judge Richard Leon of District of Columbia’s Federal District Court wrote that the program was likely in violation of the 4th Amendment. The 2013 ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by several plaintiffs and led by Larry Klayman, challenging the spying program. It was the first time that a public court had acknowledged a problem with the program’s constitutionality.

According to National Journal, the Republican-nominated judges ruled Friday that the plaintiffs challenging the program’s constitutionality do not have the “standing” to do so, and the ruling “reaffirmed Friday that the plaintiff did not demonstrate the ‘concrete and particularized’ injury required to be able to sue because he could not prove that his own metadata was caught up in the NSA’s dragnet.”

A separate ruling in May from the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals had deemed the NSA’s data collection program illegal, but the FISA court was later authorized to continue the collection.

Due to the passage of the USA Freedom Act, the program is scheduled to end on November 29, 2015.

 

FISA Court Renews NSA Collection Of Phone Records

The NSA has been authorized to resume bulk collection of American phone records while expired Patriot Act provisions give way to modified data collection practices under the USA Freedom Act.

According to an order on Monday by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the federal government’s request to renew dragnet data collection of U.S. phone metadata until November 29, 2015 was approved. As the Freedom Act reportedly prepares to implement limitations regarding some aspects of NSA surveillance, the legislation provides a “transition period” in which the NSA will be allowed to temporarily continue its controversial data collection practices that a federal appeals court had declared illegal in May.

[RELATED: Federal Appeals Court Ruling: NSA Data Collection Is Illegal]

“This application presents the question whether the recently-enacted USA FREEDOM Act, in amending Title V of FISA, ended the bulk collection of telephone metadata. The short answer is yes. But in doing so, Congress deliberately carved out a 180-day period following the date of enactment in which such collection was specifically authorized. For this reason, the Court approves the application in this case,” stated the order.

The Department of Justice had filed a request in June seeking to continue bulk data collection. The request, written by Justice Department national security chief John Carlin, cited the Freedom Act’s “orderly transition” clause and appeared to be asking FISA to ignore the May appeals court ruling.

[RELATED: DoJ Asks Surveillance Court To Ignore Federal Court’s Ruling On Illegal NSA Spying]

“The Second Circuit’s recent panel opinion in ACLU v. Clapper, No. 14-42 (2d Cir. May 7, 2015) does not bar this Court from authorizing the production in bulk of call 6 detail records, notwithstanding its holding that Section 1861 does not authorize the bulk production of call detail records,” Carlin wrote in the June 2 request.

 

 

NSA Used “Loophole” to Search Americans’ Electronic Communications

In a letter to Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR),  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been exploiting a “loophole” to search through the electronic communications of Americans without a warrant. “These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the Fisa court and consistent with the statute and the fourth amendment,” Clapper wrote in the letter.

The so-called loophole, in Section 702 of FISA, allows thorough searches of communications of suspected foreign terrorists outside of the United States without a warrant which includes reading emails and listening to phone conversations. But monitoring of communications between suspected terrorists and Americans is what has come under criticism- monitoring Americans in addition to non-American suspects falls into a vague area of what is allowed under Section 702.

Senator Wyden and Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), both critics of government spying, have voiced concern that such searches are “unacceptable”. “It raises serious constitutional questions, and poses a real threat to the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans. If a government agency thinks that a particular American is engaged in terrorism or espionage, the Fourth Amendment requires that the government secure a warrant or emergency authorization before monitoring his or her communications. This fact should be beyond dispute,” read the Wyden-Udall statement.

This admission from Clapper directly contradicts a statement President Obama made last June when he said, “Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That’s not what this program is about. As was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at the numbers and durations of calls. They’re not looking at names and they’re not looking at content.”

As it turns out Americans are indeed having their phone calls and emails sifted through, and in the statement from Wyden and Udall they responded to Obama’s past statement by saying, Senior officials have sometimes suggested that government agencies do not deliberately read Americans’ emails, monitor their online activity or listen to their phone calls without a warrant. However, the facts show that those suggestions were misleading, and that intelligence agencies have indeed conducted warrantless searches for Americans’ communications using the ‘back-door search’ loophole in section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”

Wyden and Udall are both calling for a closure to this loophole, but the Obama administration has said that obtaining warrants is “burdensome” and time consuming.

 

Follow Annabelle Bamforth on Twitter.