Judiciary Committee "Alarmed" At Systematic Spying

The hasty decision of the Obama administration to organize high-profile release of memos on the use of torture diverted the attention of most of official Washington and the chattering class from the story that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on Americans in what the New York Times describes as a "significant and systemic" manner -- and that intercepting of emails and phone calls continues despite the change of administrations.

From a public-relations standpoint, a day that could have been a tough one for the president and his aides turned out better than could have been expected.

Attention is focused on the wrongs of the Bush administration -- and the question of whether something should be done to address them -- rather than the fact that the Constitutionally-defined privacy rights of Americans have been and continue to be abused.

But, thankfully, key players on the House Judiciary Committee actually recognize that a serious threat to civil liberties has been revealed and now must be addressed.

"We are alarmed to learn, once again, of serious allegations of misconduct concerning the federal government's warrantless surveillance programs. Today's New York Times identified three separate allegations of possible misconduct: first, that the NSA improperly intercepted the phone calls and emails of American citizens in the U.S. under the new legal authority granted by Congress last year; second, that the NSA sought to intercept communications involving a Member of Congress on an overseas trip without a warrant; and third, that Americans may have been improperly targeted for eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence," declared Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr., D-Michigan, in a statement released with along with Constitution Subcommittee chair Jerry Nadler, D-New York, and Crime Subcommittee chair Bobby Scott, D-Virginia.

"While Judiciary Committee staff has been briefed on the first of these matters, we expect a full and prompt briefing of our Members on the same matters," the congressmen continued. "We also look forward to receiving the full DOJ Inspector General report on the warrantless surveillance program as soon as possible. While we appreciate that the processes set forth in last year's FISA Improvements Act permit these potential abuses to be identified and disclosed, the program's potential impingement of the rights of U.S. citizens remains a concern. We commend the Obama Administration for acting promptly, and hope we can work together to redouble efforts to protect these rights."

The final bow to the Obama administration is appropriately polite.

But it should be well understood that, while the Bush administration spied illegally, abusively and unapologetically on the American people, it is now the Obama administration that is doing so.

And this Democratic Congress has a responsibility to check and balance the executive branch -- even if the White House happens to be in Democratic hands.

Comments (23)

1. Amazing isn't it! The congress passed a porkulus spending spree to reward Demoncrat supporters and leftwing extremist groups only-----but they did not read it, and would not let any Republican participate in drafting it or even let any U.S.A. citizen read it as PROMISED!

   Now we find that the Judiciary Committee of 23 Demoncrats and 16 Repubs. must NOT have read or even been conizant of the Patriot Act or its implications for warrentless eavesdropping and seem to have never read it! Are our duly elected representative reall THAT stupid????

   Oh, its another diversion the Demoncrats and the Obmanation that makes desolation have devised to keep the focus off their FAILURES!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 6:30pm

2. I think that Nichols and others at the Nation rely upon the left being so anti-Bush and anti-American that they will not bother to actually know the facts such as this ruling in January, Most on the left were probably too caught up in Obama worship to notice.

   <Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

   By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: January 15, 2009

   WASHINGTON -- In a rare public ruling, a secret federal appeals court has said telecommunications companies must cooperate with the government to intercept international phone calls and e-mail of American citizens suspected of being spies or terrorists.

   But the ruling is still the first by an appeals court that says the Fourth Amendment's requirement for warrants does not apply to the foreign collection of intelligence involving Americans. That finding could have broad implications for United States national security law.

   The court ruled that eavesdropping on Americans believed to be agents of a foreign power "possesses characteristics that qualify it for such an exception." Bruce M. Selya, the chief judge of the review court, wrote in the opinion that "our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

   William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University who has criticized the administration's legal position on eavesdropping, said that while the ruling did not address Mr. Bush's surveillance without warrants directly, "it does bolster his case" by recognizing that eavesdropping for national security purposes did not always require warrants.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 9:23pm

3. continued

   The company argued that "by placing discretion entirely in the hands of the executive branch without prior judicial involvement, the procedures cede to that branch overly broad power that invites abuse," the court wrote.

   But, the court ruled, "this is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith.'

   "That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required," it said.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 9:26pm

4. I really don't see what Nichols is upset about. The Obama spy program is merely using the Bush spy apparatus to monitor the threat from the right wing tea baggers, which as we know is way more serious than any possible foreign threat.

   Posted by sntauri at 04/17/2009 @ 9:27pm

5. Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 9:26pm

   So does that mean you will back off on abortion since the court confirmed it as a Constitutional Right?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2009 @ 10:07pm

6. Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 9:26pm

   This is my problem LVL. You constantly talk about activist courts and how their actions are unjust and should be undone. You now say that this court was right and that is the end all be all. It obviously isn't. Anyone can contend that a courts decision is wrong or political.

   The 4th Amendment clearly states that there is no right to search and seizure without a warrant granted upon presentation of evidence.

   Now if you are saying that the founding father couldn't have foreseen this because they didn't know about telephones then you render the Consitution moot on a lot of issues because they couldn't have foreseen a lot of things.

   The issue here is that American CITIZENS, people who are entitled to their rights under the Constitution, are being submitted to warrant less searches. That's the plain and simple matter. Which in most American's minds searches of any kind are covered by the 4th Amendment. What's next, the government is allowed to break into your house and open your mail if it's not from the US?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2009 @ 10:24pm

7. Those Americans whose lines were tapped...

   are terrorists!

   If you think your neighbor is a terrorist, please report them to the Ministry of Information ASAP!

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:38am

8. I assume then, that ANTI would have no issue with Gen Holder wiretapping Right to Life offices, the homes of those that belong to Right to Life, anybody that knew or knows Eric Rudolph, anybody that opposes abortion, all members of the Alaska Independence Party, all persons that have spoken before AIP gatherings, any member of a "militia", multiple fringe Christian groups that may have been influenced by David Koresh, organizers of rallies where people cried "Kill Obama", teabaggers, and anybody opposed to the current administration?

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:51am

9. Posted by sntauri at 04/17/2009 @ 9:27pm

   Again, like Sarah Palin, you assume we are taking teabagger seriously.

   We are not.

   You confuse mockery and ridicule with concern.

   Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:57am

10. I assume then, that ANTI would have no issue with Gen Holder wiretapping Right to Life offices, the homes of those that belong to Right to Life, anybody that knew or knows Eric Rudolph, anybody that opposes abortion, all members of the Alaska Independence Party, all persons that have spoken before AIP gatherings, any member of a "militia", multiple fringe Christian groups that may have been influenced by David Koresh, organizers of rallies where people cried "Kill Obama", teabaggers, and anybody opposed to the current administration?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    As I recall, he had absolutely no problem with Bush's spying on and surveillance of "anti-war" groups, including implant of FBI agents at meetings of such groups here at home.

    Posted by OneVote at 04/18/2009 @ 09:55am

11. I assume then, that ANTI would have no issue with Gen Holder wiretapping Right to Life offices, the homes of those that belong to Right to Life, anybody that knew or knows Eric Rudolph, anybody that opposes abortion, all members of the Alaska Independence Party, all persons that have spoken before AIP gatherings, any member of a "militia", multiple fringe Christian groups that may have been influenced by David Koresh, organizers of rallies where people cried "Kill Obama", teabaggers, and anybody opposed to the current administration?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:51am

    I have no problem with it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 10:56am

12. "The 4th Amendment clearly states that there is no right to search and seizure without a warrant granted upon presentation of evidence."

    "The issue here is that American CITIZENS, people who are entitled to their rights under the Constitution, are being submitted to warrant less searches. That's the plain and simple matter."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2009 @ 10:24pm

    No, it's not. Since when did Ma Bell's data trunk lines become your physical property? "Physical" searches of your person and property are illegal without a warrant. That's what the 4th amendment protects.

    My dear, please understand, the electronic communications given to you by AT&T is a privilege, not a right.

    Uncle Sam neither owns or controls ANY communication companies period.

    Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 2:53pm

13. The problem with antisocialist's cite is his standard misapplication of it. The Bush administration's spying was illegal because it violated the FISA warrant requirement. The facts in the case covered by the Times article deal with Congressional legislation enacted in 2007 that permitted the activities in question. Interestingly, a line in the article, that, of course, antisocialist didn't think was worth mentioning, read "Several legal experts cautioned that the ruling had limited application, since it dealt narrowly with the carrying out of a law that had been superseded by new legislation. But the ruling is still the first by an appeals court that says the Fourth Amendment's requirement for warrants does not apply to the foreign collection of intelligence involving Americans."

    The issue of whether communications crossing the national boundary came under the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement is all that controversial. SCOTUS has held in analogous cases that the interest of the government in controlling the border constituted an exception to the 4th. For example, US v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) held that "searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."

    Here, however, we are dealing not with a putative 4th Amendment violation but with an accusation of a violation of the Congressional legislation, not the 4th Amendment. Consequently, the FISA court's ruling, paraded with fanfare by antisocialist, if off-point.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/18/2009 @ 6:33pm

14. No, it's not. Since when did Ma Bell's data trunk lines become your physical property? "Physical" searches of your person and property are illegal without a warrant. That's what the 4th amendment protects.

    My dear, please understand, the electronic communications given to you by AT&T is a privilege, not a right.

    Uncle Sam neither owns or controls ANY communication companies period.

    Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 2:53pm

    It's not a privilege I PAY for it. Which means I DO own it or at least rent it. I don't own the building my apartment is in, does that mean the government can come search my apartment because I don't technically own the building so it is not my property?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 8:58pm

15. No, it's not. Since when did Ma Bell's data trunk lines become your physical property? "Physical" searches of your person and property are illegal without a warrant. That's what the 4th amendment protects.

    My dear, please understand, the electronic communications given to you by AT&T is a privilege, not a right.

    Uncle Sam neither owns or controls ANY communication companies period.

    Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 2:53pm

    Does that mean if I have a Public Storage since it isn't my property the FBI can go in there?

    Can the FBI search through my computer remotely since they aren't technically searching my "physical" property. The line becomes very blurry when you start trying to define what is physical property versus not. I like to define it as things I own or rent. Which means my phone line, internet, data on my computer so on and so forth.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:20pm

16. When did we become this: crude, cruel, coarse country that our parents worked so hard to change? Is this the results of fear and cowardice? Have we sown the seeds of our own destruction?

    Posted by julien38 at 04/19/2009 @ 09:26am

17. "It's not a privilege I PAY for it. Which means I DO own it or at least rent it. I don't own the building my apartment is in, does that mean the government can come search my apartment because I don't technically own the building so it is not my property?"

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 8:58pm

    And what happends when you don't pay the bill on that service or"rental"? Do you still think you own it then? NO, your service get disconnected. By definition, that is not ownership.

    Listen, when you get much older, you'll come to understand that everything you think you own, isn't truly yours.

    So, technically yeah the government can come on that property. The police (and sometimes the FBI) do it all of the time, most notiably citing imminent threats, which is legal in a court of law. They don't necessarily have to seek a warrant in that regard.

    My oldest brother was a police detective for the Detroit PD - they did it a lot.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

18. "Can the FBI search through my computer remotely since they aren't technically searching my "physical" property. The line becomes very blurry when you start trying to define what is physical property versus not. I like to define it as things I own or rent. Which means my phone line, internet, data on my computer so on and so forth."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:20pm

    You're young, you don't know the government very well. But you will.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 3:14pm

19. The core of conservative philosophy revealed ...we feel the same way about you guys and your taxes.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 3:50pm

    This isn't about conservative philosophy. It's about what the government has always done since it's inception.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 4:04pm

20. And what happends when you don't pay the bill on that service or"rental"? Do you still think you own it then? NO, your service get disconnected. By definition, that is not ownership.

    Listen, when you get much older, you'll come to understand that everything you think you own, isn't truly yours.

    So, technically yeah the government can come on that property. The police (and sometimes the FBI) do it all of the time, most notiably citing imminent threats, which is legal in a court of law. They don't necessarily have to seek a warrant in that regard.

    My oldest brother was a police detective for the Detroit PD - they did it a lot.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 3:11pm

    Oh God. Don't pull that BS, you're young argument. That's so you don't actually have to make a real argument. No the government can't come in my apartment just because I don't own it. By law they still have to get a warrant. Yes they can come and arrest me but they have to then have to show proof that caused them to believe there was an imminent threat or else it get's thrown out of court. I already KNOW that most people don't own anything, considering the average American is 15,000 dollars in debt. It has nothing to do with age and it sounds pretentious for you to turn the argument toward that instead of actually trying to make a point.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 4:40pm

21. You're young, you don't know the government very well. But you will.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 3:14pm

    This isn't an argument about what the government CAN do it's what the government SHOULD do. You are changing the subject because you don't have anything intelligent to add.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 4:41pm

22. "It has nothing to do with age and it sounds pretentious for you to turn the argument toward that instead of actually trying to make a point."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 4:40pm

    No, I'm still responding to the issue of the govenment's use or misuse of the 4th amendment.

    What I presented to you was based in metaphore. I used Ma Bell because its analgous to the government with respect to how we pay for services (taxes) and how those same services can be taken away. Do we own the services we pay for?

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 4:58pm

23. What I presented to you was based in metaphore. I used Ma Bell because its analgous to the government with respect to how we pay for services (taxes) and how those same services can be taken away. Do we own the services we pay for?

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 4:58pm

    No but like I said, we rent. It's like saying because your house is owned by the bank that give the government the right to search it. Technically your house is a service that you pay for. So they don't have a right to search it. Same with an apartment. A car that is not paid off. Most people don't own anything does that mean the government has the right to search everything? No, that's why the founding fathers made it so.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 7:56pm