Posted on 01/03/2006 1:45:06 AM PST by SBD1
Jabara v. Kelley June 13, 1979
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff citizen filed suit against defendants, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and their agents. Plaintiff raised several constitutional and statutory challenges to various practices employed by defendants in conducting an investigation of him. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff was an active member of various Arab organizations. Defendants maintained an ongoing investigation of plaintiff and employed a variety of tactics therein. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions by both parties and held that: 1) plaintiff's claims could not be rendered moot because of the likelihood of future investigation and unresolved legal issues; 2) plaintiff presented a justiciable First Amendment claim because the unlawful intrusions exceeded a subjective chill of plaintiff's right of free speech; 3) defendants' motion to dismiss all Fourth Amendment claims based on physical surveillance, use of informers, inspection of bank records, and the maintenance and dissemination of the obtained information was granted because plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy therein; 4) there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the legitimacy of the investigation and the alleged violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights; and 5) a warrant was not required for the incidental interception of plaintiff's conversations with the targets of wiretaps because the surveillance was for foreign intelligence purposes.
Clear language of Title III reveals that it did not legislate with respect to national security surveillances and that such surveillances therefore are not subject to the warrant requirements contained in 18 U.S.C.S. § 2518. While Title III does not legislate with respect to the necessity of obtaining a warrant for national security wiretaps, it does provide procedures and remedies applicable to any national security wiretap where a warrant is otherwise required by the constitution.
Because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
A warrant is not required for foreign intelligence electronic surveillances authorized by the President where the target of the surveillance is an agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power.
First, it is clear that the plaintiff's theory of recovery cannot be based on the provisions of Title III. Although Title III requires a warrant for certain types of electronic surveillance, it did not legislate with respect to the President's power to authorize electronic surveillance with respect to matters of national security. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3). In United States v. United States Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1972), the Supreme Court held that HN8clear language of [**42] Title III reveals that it did not legislate with respect to national security surveillances and that such surveillances therefore are not subject to the warrant requirements contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2518. Accord, Hallinan v. Mitchell, 418 F. Supp. 1056 (N.D.Cal.1976). However, in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594 (1975), (En banc ), a plurality of the Court held that Title III was applicable to any situation where a warrant was constitutionally required for electronic surveillance. In other words, the Court recognized that while Title III does not legislate with respect to the necessity of obtaining a warrant for national security wiretaps, it does provide procedures and remedies applicable to any national security wiretap where a warrant is otherwise required by the constitution.
[*576] Thus, even considering Zweibon, it is clear that Title III does not in and of itself require a warrant for national security investigations. As a result, the issue which must be resolved is whether there is a constitutional basis, aside from Title III, which requires a warrant for electronic surveillance such as that conducted in this case. In Keith, the Court held that [**43] a warrant was constitutionally required for domestic national security wiretaps. However, the Court specifically left open the issue of whether a warrant is required for a foreign national security wiretap:
Because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, (430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds 403 U.S. 698, 91 S. Ct. 2068, 29 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1970)), that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
the President's authority with respect to the conduct of foreign affairs does not excuse him from seeking judicial approval before instituting a surveillance, at least where the subject of the surveillance is a domestic organization that is not the agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power. Id. 170 U.S.App.D.C. at 62, 516 F.2d at 655.
In light of these decisions, the Court is of the opinion that HN10a warrant is not required [**45] for foreign intelligence electronic surveillances authorized by the President where the target of the surveillance is an agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power.
n14. From the In camera affidavits it appears that Title III would not provide a separate ground for requiring a warrant in this case in view of the Supreme Court's holding in Keith that national security surveillance conducted pursuant to executive order is not within the ambit of Title III.
SBD
Because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, (430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), rev'd on other grounds 403 U.S. 698, 91 S. Ct. 2068, 29 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1970)), that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
This is a great find but I'm wondering why this case hasn't been cited by anyone. The lack of comment regarding this decision makes me think there may be other court cases since that have muddied the waters.
This is great background info. The way I see it, though, the POTUS doesn't even need a court's "permission" to fight a war. Fighting a war is part of his Constitutional obligation and authority.
I'm sure the NYT will pick this up and leap to the defense of Bush,,,hic
Yoohoo! Do me up baby! Tap my phone! Who needs privacy anyway! As long as it's a Republican doing it why do I care! Happy New Year!
Are you talking to Al Quaeda? If not, nobody's interested.
Hmmmm. So, what's the difference between the Stasi in East Germany saying it was for 'National Security' and a democratic White House under Hillary Clinton saying it's for 'National Security'? And when it's no longer Al Qaeda they're worried about? When they begin to consider political action groups to be a threat to 'National Security'? What then?
The rest of you can lap this up if you want- that's you're choice of course- but nothing on this Earth can make me like this. If that makes me a 'bad conservative'- I don't care.
I'm glad someone else is thinking of the future and not just the here and now. Most of the hard core Bushbots simply don't realise that GW will not be in office forever, and if , God forbid, a Democrat like Hillary takes office, the same people that were all for Big Brother having his way with the common folk will be screaming of the injustice.
I say we have a 3 branch system that's worked for over 200 years, why tamper with success?
This is not the first time this has been done. It has been ruled on by the courts before.
However, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, in which you can call Bush a dictator.
Well, Miss Marple, apparently I have offended you because you are putting words in my mouth. I have never called Bush a dictator nor would I. If you want to see that go over to DemUnderground.
I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I am not just concerned with this President or this enemy that we currently face. I am concerned with the Hillary Clintons, the Howard Deans the Nancy Pelosis and Cynthia McKinneys and other nutjobs we have yet to be introduced to who might use this in the future.
I guarantee that if this were Al Gore doing this right now, you would find narry a Freeper to go along with it and that they do it now just to support this President is a bit sickening in my opinion.
My country comes before my party in my heart. My country comes before the occupant of the White House. Presidents come and go but the nation must endure so that freedom will endure. And if freedom has not survived then neither has a nation that has been founded upon it. Freedom must be zealousy defended. Zealousy.
This is where my allegiances lie. Everything else is secondary. Better to have al Qaeda cut my head off than to give up everything that makes life worth living.
But you can do what you want of course.
Well said, I concur.
My take is that there are legitimate uses and illigimate uses of this power.
I don't like it much, either. But I am not ready to impeach the President over it. It looks like what was done was legal, because it was done for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence. So the legal issue is settled, IMHO.
However, as a political issue, I would favor a politician who supported clear limitations in this regard. If a Presidential candidate were to come out foursquare for an executive order stating clearly what the government may and may not do in this area that would be more protective of individual privacy, I would be more inclined to support that candidate.
To me, ultimately, it is a political question.
Congress was trying to fool with the Powers of the President but I did find a statement that says the President has separate Powers in regard to surveillance on the FISA site. I will go back.
Executive Orders by the President is an issue in which Congress does not and cannot interfere. If they could, you can be darn sure they would want to review each case themselves.
Congress is a "messy place". It is why we wound up with a President with special Powers. We expect all our Presidents to be "moral" and protect our Nation and the danger (I believe according to John Adams) is not a King but a Congress who effectively shuts down the government because of their individual interests.
People now have to be getting sick and tired of their lies and deceptions, but there is no way we can put up with these irresponsible tactics any longer...
Shun this POS rag until it prints responsibly, or until hell freezes over!
This whole thing makes the ultra-cons and the ultra-libs feel very insecure but, for entirely different reasons. Personally, I don't feel the Gov. is interested in what I'm saying or doing.
Frankly, whether President Bush does this or not doesn't really matter if someone like Hillary Clinton is elected. Do you think she would obey a court ruling? Do you think the press would castigate her for violating citizen rights? Nope. Whether President Bush does this or not, if elected, she will do what she damn well pleases, and ignore the niceties of the Constitution, just like her husband did.
So, since it doesn't matter what precedents President Bush sets, I favor giving him the right to listen in on these calls. In fact, he can listen in on my calls to my daughter, in which we discuss whether or not we will meet for lunch tomorrow. I don't care.
Granting Bush this right does not affect what will happen in the future, except for protecting the nation while he is in office.
Now I must go watch my grandchildren. Any replies from me will be after 6PM Eastern.
You're a libertarian whack job too, I see. Pleased to meet you! Would you like to team up, so we can be beaten up in shifts?
I don't think anyone would be defending it if it were Jimmy Carter or Clinton. I don't trust demorats to have power to do warrantless wiretaps or searches. I don't trust Republicans to have power to do warrantless wiretaps or searches, either.
Is this the Jabara case? If so, it's been cited and dissected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.