Frequently Asked Questions
This is a terrorist surveillance program. It's only going to go after terrorists
and people with ties to Al Qaeda. It's catching terrorists. Don't you want to catch the
terrorists?
According to the FBI, the NSA program wasn't helping them catch terrorists, but in fact was hindering
their search. From this
New York Times
article:
But the results of the program looked very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
The government can do this, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists of 2001 authorizes it.
The AUMF law was never meant to be used to allow this kind of a program. That law was meant to allow the president to find the people behind the 9/11 attacks, not this. How could one interpret "You're allowed to spy on tens of
millions of Americans without warrants" out of "go find the terrorists"? How can you interpret an ability to do something so specific out of wording so vague? One could use that kind of logic to justify doing almost anything.
Back when
George W. Bush said he signed the executive order allowing the NSA to
do this, one congressman even said:
After hearing Bush's response, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said there was no law allowing the president's actions and that "it's a sad day."
"He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps."
The President can authorize this, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution lets him.
This is ridiculous. People are trying to claim that because Article 2 says
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and
he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,
that the President can go around the FISA law, and that's just absurd.
That goes against basic checks and balances. Congress, under Article 1, has the power
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Legislative branch only makes the laws, the Executive branch only enforces the laws. Congress made the FISA law to regulate electronic surveillance, the President can't just go around it to spy on U.S. citizens, end of story.
This isn't just an amateur interpretation of the Constitution.
A group of law scholars sent a letter to Congress saying the same thing. From their letter:
To say that the President has inherent authority does not mean that his authority is exclusive, or that his conduct is not subject to statutory regulations enacted (as FISA was) pursuant to Congress's Article I powers. As Justice Jackson famously explained in his influential opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring), the Constitution "enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress." For example, the President in his role as Commander in Chief directs military operations. But the Framers gave Congress the power to prescribe rules for the regulation of the armed and naval forces, Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, and if a duly enacted statute prohibits the military from engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, the President must follow that dictate. As Justice Jackson wrote, when the President acts in defiance of "the expressed or implied will of Congress," his power is "at its lowest ebb." 343 U.S. at 637. In this setting, Jackson wrote, "Presidential power [is] most vulnerable to attack and in the least favorable of all constitutional postures." Id. at 640.
Congress plainly has authority to regulate domestic wiretapping by federal agencies under its Article I powers, and the DOJ does not suggest otherwise. Indeed, when FISA was enacted, the Justice Department agreed that Congress had power to regulate such conduct, and could require judicial approval of foreign intelligence surveillance.[7] FISA does not prohibit foreign intelligence surveillance, but merely imposes reasonable regulation to protect legitimate privacy rights. (For example, although FISA generally requires judicial approval for electronic surveillance of persons within the United States, it permits the executive branch to install a wiretap immediately so long as it obtains judicial approval within seventy-two hours. 50 U.S.C. § 1805(f).)
Oh, come on! You don't have anything to worry about! The government won't track you if you're not a terrorist!
There's no way to be sure of that. ABC News reporters have already had their calls tracked. According to ABC News's blog, The Blotter,
the government has been tracking Brian Ross and Richard Esposito's
phone calls to try to find their confidential sources:
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
Could this be a part of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program?
Who knows? All we know is that it's not just terrorists that the
government is targeting.
Who cares? Your phone companies sell your phone records to telemarketers as a matter of course. Your information is fair game nowadays.
Telemarketers and scammers can't use your info to label you a terrorist and throw you in jail.
I'm perfectly fine with having my phone calls tracked by the government. If you've done nothing wrong, what do you
have to hide?
Our lives.
You're a whiny liberal commie pinko douchebag! Only democrats and whiny liberals oppose the NSA spying program!
This issue affects everyone and goes way,
way beyond petty bipartisanism.
More Information
Bill of Rights Defense Committee - Responses to the Bush Administration's Defenses of National Security Agency Warrantless Wiretaps
ACLU - Top Ten Myths About the Illegal NSA Spying on Americans
ACLU - Fact Sheet: Why BellSouth Stockholders Should Be Cautious
News Articles
Baltimore Sun - Bush blocked probe of NSA spy program, Gonzales says - July 19, 2006
USA Today - Lawmakers: NSA database incomplete - June 30, 2006
Washington Post - Specter Offers Compromise On NSA Surveillance - June 9, 2006
ZDNet UK - Senate won't quiz telcos about NSA spying - June 07, 2006
USA Today - NSA secrecy makes investigation impossible, FCC says - May 23, 2006
USA Today - FCC official calls for probe of phone companies helping NSA - May 16, 2006
MSNBC.com - Security issue kills domestic spying inquiry - May 10, 2006
Technology News Daily - EFF Sues AT&T - February 4, 2006
CNN.com - Two groups sue over NSA wiretap program - January 17, 2006
Wired.com - Whistle-Blower's Evidence, Uncut - May 22, 2006
USA Today - NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls - May 11, 2006
Wired News - Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room - April 7, 2006
USA Today - Telecoms let NSA spy on calls - February 6, 2006
Washington Post - Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects - February 5, 2006
NY Times - Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends - January 17, 2006
CNN.com - Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order - Dec 17, 2005
CNN.com - Specter maintains threat of subpoenas - June 11, 2006
C-NET News - Telecoms deny illegally handing over call records - May 17, 2006
USA Today - In statement, BellSouth denies giving information to National Security Agency - May 16, 2006
C-Net News - Bush defends spy program after new disclosure - May 11, 2006
CNN.com - Bush defends NSA spying program - January 1, 2006
