Posted on 02/28/2006 7:48:01 PM PST by RWR8189
In the aftermath of the New York Times's illegal disclosure of surveillance by the National Security Agency, the Senate now debates whether to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the law that formulates a procedure for the president to obtain warrants to wiretap foreign individuals and entities within the United States. The senators claim they are considering such legislation not to bury the NSA program, but to save it. It's time for a legal primer on the Constitution and national security law.
In Article II, the Constitution establishes the president as commander in chief. As such he has inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information. He does not have the authority to close banks, seize steel mills, or raise our taxes; he does have it to get battlefield information about an enemy who has killed thousands of us on our soil and threatens to do so again.
No court opinion denies this constitutional authority to the president. All federal appellate courts that have considered the issue, including the FISA appeals court, have recognized such authority. The Supreme Court, over three decades ago, emphatically specified in the Keith case that it would leave this issue to another day. In doing so, the Court provided a clear indication that foreign surveillance is not domestic surveillance.
The Keith Court held that the president does not have authority to conduct warrantless searches of entities that are "domestic," i.e., where "[t]here is no evidence of any involvement, directly or indirectly of a foreign power." This decision, the Court stressed, makes "no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." (Emphasis added.) Keith made clear that "domestic" wiretapping is a legal term of art that does not turn on whether the surveillance takes place in the United States. Media misuse of that term to characterize the NSA surveillance, where one party is foreign and linked to al Qaeda, indicates an absence of legal sophistication or an attempt to prejudice the issue, or both.
Post-Keith appellate decisions, before and after the 1978 FISA statute, uphold the president's inherent constitutional authority for warrantless acquisition of foreign intelligence information.
In 1973, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on one of its previous decisions in holding that it "reaffirms . . . the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence." The court cited a Federalist Papers theme as "buttress[ing]" its decision: "the President must take great care to safeguard the nation from possible foreign encroachment."
In 1974, the majority of the entire Third Circuit (sitting en banc) considered a challenge to an espionage conviction where warrantless surveillance had not only been carried out by the president but also used at trial. In affirming the conviction, the court stated, "The importance of the President's responsibilities in the foreign affairs field requires the judicial branch to act with the utmost care when asked to place limitations on the President's powers in that area. As Commander-in-Chief, the President must guard the country from foreign aggression, sabotage, and espionage."
Significantly in this case, there was a statute (not FISA) prohibiting anyone, including government personnel, from monitoring communications. The court noted that Congress had given "little or no discussion" of whether the statute had any bearing on the "President's constitutional duties as Commander-in-Chief and as administrator of the nation's foreign affairs." Had Congress done so, it "would have recognized," said the Court, "that any action by it that arguably would hamper . . . the President's effective performance of his duties in the foreign affairs field would have raised constitutional questions."
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit considered the issue of warrantless surveillance after FISA was passed. However, because the wiretapping had taken place prior to FISA's enactment, the government had to rely on the constitutional basis to uphold the warrantless surveillance. The Carter Justice Department argued that it did not seek a warrant in the spy investigation because there is a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. In fact, Carter's legal shop claimed this exception applied if the surveillance "is to any degree directed at gathering foreign intelligence." (Emphasis added.) Perhaps the former president forgot his prior legal position when he decried warrantless searches at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Although the Court rejected Carter's expansive definition of foreign intelligence, it upheld the national security exception to the warrant requirement.
The Fourth Circuit explained that a warrant in the area of foreign intelligence would "add a procedural hurdle" that could increase the "chance of leaks" and "delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats." Such threats "require the utmost stealth, speed, and secrecy."
Although it did not have to do so to reach its decision, the Fourth Circuit discussed FISA, stating it requires, "prior judicial approval for some foreign intelligence surveillance." The act, though, "does not . . . transport" the warrant requirement "unaltered into the foreign intelligence field." Thus, after passage of FISA, this court took great pains to stress that a FISA warrant is not the only legal method for the president to obtain foreign intelligence.
Most significantly, in 2002, the FISA appellate court cited the Fourth Circuit case saying, "The Truong court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
So there is the rub. Under established case law, parts of FISA are unconstitutional in so far as they prohibit or limit the president's constitutional authority to collect foreign intelligence information.
There is an important rule of judicial review. Courts do not like to declare laws unconstitutional and will attempt to find language that "saves" them. That rule brings us to the president's arguing that the congressional resolution giving the president the Authority to Use Military Force (AUMF) permits him to wiretap consistent with FISA. In an irony too scrumptious to resist pointing out to the critics, the president's argument is an attempt to save FISA from being declared unconstitutional.
A little statutory history is required to understand this legal argument. When Congress passed FISA it contained two contradictory statements: (1) FISA and the criminal wiretap statute were the "exclusive means" by which there could be interception of wire and oral communications, and (2) a person is guilty of a crime if he intentionally "under color of law" (which is how the president does it) obtains foreign intelligence information, unless he is "authorized by statute." Like it or not, that's how laws get passed. Each side gets something. Those against any wiretapping got the gift of limiting the conduct to those two laws; proponents got the gift of an exception to that limitation: some other law.
There has been ill-informed criticism of the president's use of the broad language of the Authorization to Use Military Force ("use all necessary and appropriate force against" those responsible for 9/11) to support the argument that Congress passed a law that fits that FISA exception. For example, George Will groused recently in the Washington Post that the administration "incoherently argue[s] that the AUMF . . . authorized the NSA surveillance." Yet in the 2004 Hamdi case, a majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the president's argument.
Hamdi was an American citizen captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and detained in the United States as an enemy combatant, meaning he was imprisoned but not charged with a crime. Hamdi argued he should be freed because there is a law mandating that "no citizen" shall be imprisoned unless there is an Act of Congress. There is no such act, claimed Hamdi. But five of the Supreme Court justices agreed that the AUMF could have such a broad reading. "[I]t is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war," the words "necessary and appropriate force" were a clear congressional authorization to detain Hamdi, according to Justice O'Connor's rather coherent opinion. No one can seriously argue that obtaining foreign intelligence information about the enemy is not a "fundamental incident of waging war."
An amendment to FISA would be nice as a political matter--the two branches in agreement and all those warm good feelings. But it is not necessary legally for the constitutional health of the NSA program.
Victoria Toensing, a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, is a former Justice Department official and chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee.
That is a very well-written rebuttal to the liars who claim the President has broken the law.
Hence why liberals are always trying to come up with ways to change the constitution.. These pesky rules bother them.
Its always good to have efficent secret police, just ask
the benevolent capitalists at Google and Yahoo, the wonderful Chinese Secret Police are cooperating with their
capitalist "partners" Google and Yahoo to identify malignant elements in China(now offically a quasi-capatilist entity).
It's not American Citizens. It's foreign powers. American citizens might happen to be on the other end. There is no judicial authority to issue a warrant to tap foreign powers phones; further even when you do have a warrant, you get it for the person being investigated...not for a full list of those they might call or might call them.
The simple way around this? Quit taking calls from Al Queda.
During the cold war, did anyone consider getting a warrant to tap the Russian Embassy? Such would be silly.
FISA was established to give the government the easiest possible way to get a rubber stamp warrant to tap phones. Even after the fact. Right now, the government can't even be be bothered to get an after the fact warrant. No thanks. That's too much power. I don't trust democrats or republicans not to abuse that.
Maybe the liberals are a little too uncomfortable with the line in the oath of office commiting the President to defend the nation against enemies...foreign and DOMESTIC.
This monitoring isn't new. It's gone on since FDR, with every President since defending the authority. You NEVER had an immunity to foreign intelligence collection. FISA was set up for criminal cases.
"FISA was established to give the government the easiest possible way to get a rubber stamp warrant to tap phones. Even after the fact. Right now, the government can't even be be bothered to get an after the fact warrant. No thanks. That's too much power. I don't trust democrats or republicans not to abuse that."
Well said BUMP.
FISA unconstitutionally restricts powers that are inherent to the presidency.
Neither an act of Congress nor a court can restrict the POTUS from collecting foreign intelligence, especially in time of war.
Unless those enemies are American Congressmen...
If you look back in history, FISA was established as a reaction to abuses by Nixon and Johnson in the area of domestic spying (remember Johnson spying on Martin Luther King?). The FISA law was not to make domestic spying "Easy" it was to make it difficult.
You can knee-jerk all you want about the pervasive lie that this is about 'domestic wiretapping', but if it connects with an Al-Queda suspect in a middle eastern country, it isn't 'domestic', its foreign surveillance of an enemy power just like we did to the Japanese and the Germans in WWII.
Then the President should work to get the law overturned in court. He does not get to decide for himself which laws are constitutional. Also, since we do not have a declaration of war, and an undefined enemy, you're asking me to just "trust" the executive to unilaterally decide who is "the enemy". I don't trust ANY President that much. That's why he should get a warrant - it's a simple, easy way to get some checks on his power. If the current system is too onerous, then he should work to change it, not just disobey it.
More difficult than previously, perhaps, but FISC warrants are and have been damn easy to get, however. It is not adversarial at all--so it's pretty laughable to characterize a FISC-issued wiretap as "difficult" to obtain. Especially since a wiretap of someone aiding or abetting someone who may be a criminal is as easy to obtain as proving they delivered a pizza. And the Patriot Act made it easier, since now all the FISC has to see for a wiretap is a significant purpose behind the warrant.
"You can knee-jerk all you want about the pervasive lie that this is about 'domestic wiretapping', but if it connects with an Al-Queda suspect in a middle eastern country, it isn't 'domestic', its foreign surveillance of an enemy power just like we did to the Japanese and the Germans in WWII."
"If it connects with an Al-Qaeda suspect in a middle eastern country," or it doesn't, how would you know? The courts are secret. They always have been. And I'm all for wiretapping the hell out of foreigners, and restricting visas even more heavily, and profiling `em, too. I just want to be sure pizzaboys aren't getting their phones tapped, because the feds aren't limited by a warrant requiring them to show at least a rational basis for the tap, instead of just proving the tapped kid delivered a pizza to a possible spy or possible terrorist.
While I acknowledge your technical correction, I do not believe the Constitution is a suicide pact. Furthermore, liberals have proven fond of the Constitution only to the extent it can be used to achieve their goals...they have perverted the founding ideals of individual liberty into a balkanized amalgam of 'group rights'. Therefore my point remains the same whether we speak of the Constitution or the Nation.
Interestng logical loop...considering he's not rejected FISA, and his claim for authority for his actions is based upon power directly granted from the Constitution itself.
Again, what court has been given jurisdiction to authorize intelligence collection outside of the United States? None...not even remotely. Not even FISA courts. That the enemy powers choose to call people in the United States does not give them protection from surveillance.
The ONLY gray area here is if there is an attempt to prosecute based upon the intelligence gathering (in which case the courts apply a "good faith" type test), otherwise the operation falls under duties of Commander in Chief.
This whole thing is nothing new. What is new is the political opportunism and attempt to confuse people into thinking this is a newly claimed executive power, that it is about criminal law, and that it is domestic.
This is the same type of thing as the people that think we should have trials to hold POWs, when POWs are not held because they are being punished for crimes, but rather to keep them out of combat (Which is why, with certain specific exceptions they are all released when the war is over). We've not had a war which involved combatants on our soil for so long that only people over 80, or those rare people who have studied it specifically even have the right context. It's not a civil issue. It's a military and foreign policy one, and the courts have little to no role in either. Never have...and even the courts recognize that.
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.