Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

More on Bush’s Surveillance Flip-Flop

Based on the DOJ briefing regarding the NSA surveillance about-face, it appears that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is not approving surveillance on a program-wide basis.  Instead, it is issuing individualized surveillance orders against particularized targets.  It remains unclear, though, how exactly the FISA orders have changed to permit more “speed and agility” and, because so much is taking place within the dark, all suggestions are pure, unadulterated guess-work.

One compelling theory is Orin Kerr’s:  namely, that the FISA court is issuing anticipatory warrants (warrants based on a finding that there is probable cause to search when a future triggering condition appears.)  As Kerr notes, that’s consistent the one bit of evidence we can glean:  that the FISA court is limiting the approval orders to a 90 day period, rather than the full statutory one year period permitted under FISA.  Shorter review is consistent with ensuring that the triggering condition for the search and the probable cause requirement mesh.  It also helps explain the timing, since the Supreme Court approved anticipatory warrants in United States v. Grubbs last term.  (For more on Grubbs, read Professor David Moran’s article on last term’s Fourth Amendment cases, The End of the Exclusionary Rule, Among Other Things, in the latest Cato Supreme Court Review.)

Kerr’s theory, however, doesn’t explain one part of the puzzle:  multiple sources’ statements to the Washington Post that the orders touch on ”programmatic” issues.  What might this mean, if FISC is approving orders on a case-by-case, rather than program-level, basis?

One possibility is that DOJ has adopted a streamlined internal approval process for emergency FISA applications within the executive branch, and that FISC has approved it.  FISA imposes some internal pre-approval requirements for emergency applications–including review by the AG and a cabinet level official with foreign affairs responsibility.  In February testimony last year, Gonzales complained at length that this statutory approval process had become overly cumbersome:

To be sure, FISA allows the government to begin electronic surveillance without a court order for up to 72 hours in emergency situations or circumstances. 

But before that emergency provision can be used, the attorney general must make a determination that all of the requirements of the FISA statute are met in advance. 

This requirement can be cumbersome and burdensome.  Intelligence officials at NSA first have to assess that they have identified a legitimate target. After that, lawyers at NSA have to review the request to make sure it meets all the requirements of the statute. And then lawyers at the Justice Department must also review the request and reach the same judgment or insist on additional information before processing the emergency application.  Finally I, as attorney general, must review the request and make the determination that all of the requirements of FISA are met.  

But even this is not the end of the story. 

Each emergency authorization must be followed by a detailed formal application to the FISA courts within three days. The government must prepare legal documents laying out all of the relevant facts and law and obtain the approval of a Cabinet-level officer as well as a certification from a senior official with mass security responsibility, such as the director of the FBI. 

Finally, a judge must review, consider and approve the application.  All of these steps take time. Al Qaida, however, does not wait.  … Just as we can’t demand that our soldiers bring lawyers onto the battlefield, let alone get the permission of the attorney general or a court before taking action, we can’t afford to impose layers of lawyers on top of career intelligence officers who are striving valiantly to provide a first line of defense by tracking secretive Al Qaida operatives in real time.  

In the briefing on the new FISA process, however, the administration noted that one change that made compliance with FISA possible was a change in executive branch “infrastructure”:

[O]ne thing that did change was – authorization earlier this year, last year, the National Security Division, which is a new agency in the Department of Justice, which will – be coordinating with the FISA Court on all kinds of matters including this one. So we’re now equipped in a way we weren’t before to handle this work.

One way to read this is that the new FISC order finds that new streamlined executive branch procedures for internal review of emergency applications accords with FISA.  Its hard, unfortunately, to guess exactly what such procedures might be, but it almost certainly includes eliminating duplicative layers of legal oversight within the executive.

Goodbye Warrantless NSA Surveillance?

The DOJ announced today it has reached a double super-secret deal with the FISA court which allows it to bring the administration’s NSA surveillance program within the statutory FISA framework governing surveillance warrants. What deal, you ask? The DOJ’s letter to Senators Leahy and Specter provides few details, except to say that it is based on a FISA court order that establishes “innovative” and “complex” warrant procedures that allow the administration to act with “speed and agility.”

Absent further information, its hard to tell whether this is a good development, although as Marty Lederman notes, it is “difficult to imagine that the FISA court would roll over and approve an ‘innovative’ legal theory if it were dubious – especially not in this context, where DOJ has many incentives to get the FISA court on-board and where the congressional and public spotlight is shining so brightly.”

The administration’s about face underscores what I argued in this piece: that the administration’s claims that it was simply too cumbersome to comply with FISA held absolutely no water.

Lederman also notes that the threat of losses in ongoing multi-district litigation involving the state secrets privilege as well as the threat of congressional subpoenas, and possible litigation over executive privilege, may well have prompted the administration to give up its go it alone stance. I’ve previously argued that such threats had the potential to rein in the administration, without involving a winner-takes-all show down with the Supreme Court, here.

Less Redress, More Grievances

The first bill proposed in the U.S. Senate in the new session of Congress attacks freedom of speech.

Some organizations use direct mail and other means to urge the public to contact members of Congress on a variety of issues. Currently some of those groups do not have to disclose those efforts to prompt public input.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is not happy with such freedom from regulation. He has proposed that such organizations should be forced to disclose these efforts if they spend more than $25,000 a quarter and do not have a dues-paying membership (see S1, Sec. 220).

According to CQ Today, Lieberman’s spokeswomen said, “There’s nothing in this measure that will stop, deter or inhibit anyone from petitioning the government.” If that were true, no one in Congress would support Lieberman’s proposal. Congress passes restrictions on First Amendment rights primarily to discourage political activity, thereby increasing the discretion of a member while decreasing their accountability.

This particular measure imposes new costs on the groups who exercise their First Amendment rights. It will also expose the groups and their supporters to abuse and attacks in the political arena. Both costs increase the price of petitioning the government for redress of grievances and thereby reduce its likelihood.

Is Lieberman’s bill constitutional? The U.S. Supreme Court has said that mandatory disclosure of activities tied to First Amendment rights (like say, “the right to petition the government for redress of grievances”) may be justified to prevent corruption (or its appearance) and to inform the public better about candidates or legislation. The groups give money to the U.S. Post Office or other direct mailers, not to members of Congress or other policymakers. Hence, quid-pro-quo corruption is not at issue here. The groups are also informing the public about issues and urging them to contact Congress. How any of this constitutes the “appearance of corruption” is anyone’s guess.

I suspect the traditional justifications for mandatory disclosure do not matter much here. No one seriously believes these direct mail campaigns corrupt politics. Members of Congress no doubt believe that these direct mail groups have more influence than they should have. In particular, members of the new majority running the Senate may believe the direct mail efforts to foster contacts with Congress give “undue influence” to their conservative opponents. Hence, Sen. Lieberman comes up with a bill to throw some sand in the gears of the conservative political machine.

If you ever doubt why the First Amendment exists, consider this: the first thing mild-mannered Joe Lieberman did when a new majority took control of the Senate was to attack the constitutional rights of those who disagree with him.

It’s Not Just About Nifong, Part II

Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong is now off the case, but his departure provides me with another opportunity to argue that the Duke University case is not just about Nifong.  (Dorothy Rabinowitz and Randy Barnett have made interesting and related points in recent days, for those interested in reading more).

Let’s assume that the North Carolina Attorney General’s office reviews the entire matter and then dismisses all of the charges against the Duke students.  Some will say that the system “worked!”  That is, prosecutorial overreaching was exposed and an injustice was averted … so let’s punish Nifong, close this case file, and … move on.  I disagree with that.  And, in defense of my view, I will introduce you to another prosecutor by the name of Tom Lock, district attorney in Johnston County, North Carolina.

Lock is responsible for jailing an innocent man for four years.  It is a long and twisted story, but I’ll give you the highlights.

Three men get together to rob a small business in Johnston County.

Keith Riddick planned the job and was the getaway driver.  Kendrick Henderson and Terrance Deloach went inside and brandished handguns.  Deloach then shot a woman twice at point blank range (she miraculously survived).  The men make their escape with petty cash.

Henderson left a fingerprint behind and was quickly apprehended. He tells the police that his accomplices were Keith Riddick and Riddick’s cousin from New York … first name “Terrance” … last name unknown. 

The police pick up a young man by the name of Terrance Garner, not Terrance Deloach. 

Garner declares his innocence, but the authorities believe they have their man.  From this point forward, the authorities seem utterly impervious to reason.

For example, when Henderson learns the police have the wrong man, he speaks up and tells them so.  His conscience bothers him so much that he disregards his attorney’s advice and testifies on Garner’s behalf–“He had nothing to do with the crime!”  DA Tom Lock calls Henderson a liar in front of the jury. 

To nail Garner, Lock made a deal with Riddick.  The deal is simple: If Riddick provides testimony against Garner (“cooperation”) he will get less jail time.  Riddick fails a polygraph shortly before the trial, but Lock uses him anyway.  From Riddick’s point of view, he gets leniency and does not have to “snitch” on his relative, Terrance Deloach.

Garner is convicted and is sentenced to 30-40 years in prison.

But wait.  Police in a nearby county go out of their way to follow up on the old “Terrance from NY” lead.  They arrest Terrance Deloach and get a confession to the robbery and the shooting.  Deloach is Riddick’s cousin and he has spent time in NY.  In fact, he spent time in a NY prison for shooting a person there.  Garner, in contrast, has no history of violence–just a drug possession arrest.

At first, DA Lock holds a press conference in which he confesses his mistake.  After all, why would this guy Deloach confess if he was not involved? 

Now things get mysterious.  After one night in the Johnston County jail, Deloach recants his confession.  DA Lock reverses course the next day and says his original case against Garner was solid after all. 

Garner’s attorneys move for a new trial.  A new jury ought to hear about Deloach and his written confession to the crime.  A new jury ought to know that Riddick gave perjured testimony where he denied having a cousin from NY named “Terrance.”  DA Lock fights this legal motion and prevails. Garner’s appeals go nowhere in the N.C. court system.  He starts serving his long jail sentence.

Summary of the case:

  • Riddick, the planner and perjurer, gets four years.
  • Henderson, who told the truth about Deloach, gets 11 years.
  • Garner, a totally innocent man, gets 30-40 years.
  • Deloach, the attempted murderer, goes free.

However, a terrific Frontline documentary brings new scrutiny to the forgotten case.  The film is so powerful that the system just cannot withstand the spotlight.  About one month after the documentary airs, a court sets aside Garner’s conviction and he is freed.

Frontline really helped Terrance Garner.  And the national media attention has really helped the accused Duke University students.  Without such intense scrutiny, Nifong would still be on the case, and it is doubtful that the North Carolina Bar Association would have launched an ethics investigation.  But what about all the other cases that do not get such intense scrutiny?  Something to think about.

Identity Crisis Book Forum Thursday at Cato

On Thursday, the Cato Institute is having a book forum on my book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood.

Commenting on my presentation of the book will be James Lewis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Jay Stanley from the ACLU.

The REAL ID Act is under siege from state leaders who are bridling at this unfunded surveillance mandate, and legislation was introduced at the end of the 109th Congress to repeal REAL ID. But the immigration debate this year will surely fuel the push for a national ID with the demand for “internal enforcement” of immigration law. Identity Crisis lays the groundwork for all these discussions.

The event is streamed for those not in the area. To register, go here.

Civil Liberty (Paid for by Philip Morris USA Inc.)

In a recent radio interview, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson threatened top American law firms that have done pro bono work for Guantanamo detainees.  And, he suggested, Vito Corleone-style, that the corporations that bankroll these firms should think twice, if they know, eh-hem, what’s good for them: 

“I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

A chorus of criticism has followed, which President Reagan’s Solicitor General, Charles Fried, has now joined in today’s Wall Street Journal (available here).  The money quote:

“It may just be that Mr. Stimson is annoyed that his overstretched staff lawyers are opposed by highly trained and motivated elite lawyers working in fancy offices with art work in the corridors and free lunch laid on in sumptuous cafeterias. But it has ever been so; it is the American way. The right to representation does not usually mean representation by the best, brightest and sleekest. That in this case it does is just an irony – one to savor, not deplore.

It is no surprise that firms like Wilmer Hale (which represents both Big Pharma and Tobacco Free Kids), Covington and Burling (which represents both Big Tobacco and Guantanamo detainees), and the other firms on Mr. Stimson’s hit list, are among the most sought-after by law school graduates, and retain the loyalty and enthusiasm of their partners. They offer their lawyers the profession at its best, and help assure that the rule of law is not just a slogan but a satisfying way of life.”

As a big-firm alumnus, I might quibble a bit with Fried’s claim that big firm practice offers a “satisfying way of life”–but he’s absolutely right that the participation of corporate-funded defense firms on detainees’ behalf is something that’s particularly praiseworthy about the American legal system.
 

The National ID Debate, Part II

“It is the policy of the United States that the Social Security card shall not be used as a national identification card.”

So reads the last line of the Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act of 2007. The bill would put an encrypted machine-readable electronic identification strip on each Social Security card, which would enable employers to access an “Employment Eligibility Database” at the Department of Homeland Security. The database would include the citizenship status of every Social Security card holder.

Employers who hired someone without checking this … national Social Security identification card … against the Department of Homeland Security’s database would be punished. (Must remember: “It is the policy of the United States that the Social Security card shall not be used as a national identification card.”) 

So goes the push for “internal enforcement” of immigration law — sure to be an important topic in the immigration debate this year. 

The national ID law that is now in place, the REAL ID Act, is a reaction to the terror attacks of 9/11, and the assumption that knowing who someone is tells us what that person plans to do. 

But the REAL ID Act is in retreat. With states bridling at the burden they’ve been asked to bear in order to implement the act, legislation to repeal REAL ID was introduced late last year, and it is likely to be re-introduced soon.

The next wave of the ID debate will be about immigration.

On Thursday, January 18th, we’ll be having a lunch-time book forum here at Cato on my book, Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood. I will present the book, and I have invited two interesting commentators — skeptics of different parts of my theses — to weigh in. 

Please join us for what I hope will be an interesting discussion of identity issues, and a preview of an important part of the coming immigration debate. 

Register for the book forum here.