SCOTUS-Backed Surveillance Law Built on a Bush-Era Lie

Army Spc. Alex Jimenez died without ever learning he would be used to advance the Bush agenda. Jimenez, a U.S. soldier originally from Queens, was abducted in Iraq alongwith two others in May 2007. But he quickly became more than another missing soldier. The Bush administration decided to spin his capture, plunging Americans into a civil-liberties head game, and leading to a Supreme Court ruling last week that activists fear will leave the Fourth Amendment permanently weakened. 

After he was captured, Jimenez became the focus of media attention not because there was anything exceptional about his mission or the attack on his unit, but because his case was used to highlight a law the Bush administration blamed for delaying the search for his captors. Bush officials said the hunt was hampered by the bureaucratic hurdle of what's known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which was enacted in 1978 to require the approval of a special court before wiretapping people inside the U.S. suspected of terrorism or espionage. That requirement cost Jimenez's would-be rescuers precious hours, the Bushies' narrative explained. The FISA requirement could lead to the loss of American lives.

 The supposed delay in wiretapping Jimenez's captors was reported by the Associated Press on August 3, 2007, just as the Protect America Act (PAA), the law President Bush had sought as a "fix" for FISA, was being voted on in Congress. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the delay was again discussed in September by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell as he urged Congress to pass a law making permanent the changes contained in the temporary PAA. (A few weeks later, in October, according to an Army statement, Jimenez's weapons, including an M-249 "squad automatic weapon," were recovered in an Iraqi village, but not his body.)

The Bush administration used the disappearance of Alex Jimenez to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.

The Bush administration used the disappearance of Alex Jimenez to loosen restrictions on wiretapping.

 And so a drama of violence and death in Iraq became part of a debate in Washington about wiretapping and the Fourth Amendment. It is part of a narrative that stretches back to The New York Times' 2005 revelation about warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency. It is a debate that takes place with almost no concrete evidence about how, exactly, the government has used those powers: No public record exists of the NSA program or FISA court orders. And it is a debate that was rekindled a week ago with the Supreme Court's dismissal of a lawsuit by a group of plaintiffs who had sued to block the expanded wiretapping powers of 2008's FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which also gave telecoms immunity against lawsuits brought by those who believed they had been illegally wiretapped. The FAA was renewed for five years in 2012.

 With the Supreme Court's dismissal of that case on February 26, we seem one step closer to permanently enshrining a legal regime that, as of today, allows the government to eavesdrop without warrants on foreigners believed to be outside the country in order to collect "foreign intelligence information," a term that is broadly defined. But that doesn't just affect non-Americans. In a brief filed last year with the court, the American Civil Liberties Union explained that "Under the FAA, the government can target anyone—human rights researchers, academics, attorneys, political activists, journalists—simply because they are foreigners outside the United States, and in the course of its surveillance it can collect Americans' communications with those individuals." Got a client in Bahrain? A source in Somalia? You are now fair game. "More than 40 million Americans travel overseas each year," Lisa Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy and a former deputy assistant attorney general, told the Voice. "Increased globalization should result in strengthened privacy protections for Americans, but changes to FISA pushed through by President Bush have weakened privacy protections for Americans at home and abroad."

 Graves's concern is easier to understand given that it seems the Bush administration resorted to outright deception to get the new rules approved. Much like aluminum tubes and purported yellowcake uranium were put forward as grounds for preemptive war in Iraq, the central premise advanced by the Bush administration as justification for wiretapping—and for stripping away the requirement of a warrant from the FISA court—was at best wrong, and very likely a lie. And this central "fact" was so banal and technocratic that it seems to have gone unnoticed all these years: Government officials claimed that phone calls made between two points within a distant country, or between two distant countries, routinely passed through telecommunications hubs or switches inside the U.S. The officials insisted that surveillance of these calls was not permitted without a warrant from the FISA court, leading to a dangerous, even lethal, backlog of warrant applications. While U.S. intelligence officials waited for the FISA court to issue their warrants, this storyline read, scads of terrorist communications went undetected, creating the risk of another 9/11. 

 The claim about foreign phone calls routinely passing through U.S. switches was widely reported, including by The New York Times and The New Yorker. For example, in a New Yorker profile of McConnell, published on January 21, 2008, Lawrence Wright reports that McConnell, in his office, explained the administration's FISA problem by walking over to a world map on his wall. " 'Terrorist on a cell phone, right here'—he pointed at Iraq—'talking to a tower, happens all the time, no warrant. Tower goes up to a microwave tower, no warrant. Goes up to a satellite, back to the ground station, no warrant. Now, let us suppose that it goes up to a satellite, and in the process it does this'—his finger darted to the U.S. before angling back to Pakistan. 'Gotta have a warrant! So it was crazy.' "

1
 
2
 
All
 
Next Page »
 
My Voice Nation Help
9 comments
howardhuges53
howardhuges53

Get off George Bush's ass. He was a better President and cared more for the people of this country than this current progressive socialist buffoon.

  How about an article about the "Traveler, Vacationer, and Partier-in Chief" and how much of our tax payers dollars he has pissed away?

RIPAndrewWordes
RIPAndrewWordes

Every ruling like this is just another message to us out here that we're suckers at the mercy of whatever the government thugs care to do with our private communications.

It is really not a pretty picture.

I can see it changing the lives of people around me.

Makes me sad.

jack259
jack259

I live in Ireland and as an Irish and European citizen, am entitled to privicy as a human right. If the U.S. have decided that they are entitled to listen in on every citizen of a "foreign" country that they are not "at war" with, then they are surely in breach of international law and of human rights.

This article, rightly, denounces the manner in which U.S law has been twisted but totally ignores the United State's responsibility to respect international law and human rights.

prusin
prusin

I'd really be more concerned about the current president, and his A.G's (Eric Holder) belief, that the president can use drone strikes on American citizens within our own country. At what cost? Why not simply arrest a person who is acting averse to the country, try, and incarcerate if found guilty? It seems to be working currently. Is this government expecting that there are going to be a whole cadre of people driven by a desire to undo our constitution, or is he worried that his undoing of our constitution may peek the interest of militia groups, or American citizens who wish restoration of our constitutional republic? We haven't been a constitutional republic since the 1860's, and we lost it permanently when the 16th amendment gave the future administrations carte blanche ability to tax income to as high as it wanted including confiscation of all income to redistribute as the government sees fit. Further, the 17th amendment disallowed the states the ability to stop proposals of the federal legislature to mandate to the states because the senators were no longer beholden to the state legislatures for their jobs.

Guanxi888
Guanxi888

@prusin Blah blah blah Rand Paul 2016 blah blah blah. Contrived hypothetical argument to advance Rand Paul blah blah blah blah blah blah. Drones. blah blah blah

palebunnyinfidel
palebunnyinfidel

 @Guanxi888 @prusin    Guanxi, I think you forgot to take your Meds.  You're the only person I see mentioning Rand Paul, so I guess you're the one giving him free advertising.

I guess as long as an alleged 'liberal' is in control then warrantless wiretapping & detention without right to trial is A-OKAY! 

Hey guess what?  I was against it when Bush enacted the Patriot Act, I was still against it when Obama signed it again (twice) and I'm even more against the NDAA, because its a thousand times more invasive and more civil rights violating.  But, just as long as its not some guy you hate, or a white guy - then you'll defend it.  You're gross.

 
Loading...