Either The Solicitor General Lied To The Supreme Court, Or Senator Feinstein Lied To The Public About Warrantless Wiretapping

from the pick-one dept

While there's been plenty of attention over the last month or so concerning the revelations from Ed Snowden about NSA surveillance, there have been a series of important ongoing lawsuits that tried to challenge the various aspects of the surveillance efforts. Unfortunately, most of these have ended badly, leading some to wonder if there even is any way at all to legally challenge these programs. At the end of 2011, for example, in a case testing the legality of the telcos helping the government with warrantless surveillance, Hepting v. AT&T, one of the key reasons why the court rejected the challenge was because it basically said, "well, you can always sue the government, but the government has the right to absolve companies of such wrongdoing." Except that, as the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year, because the government keeps the program a complete secret, no one has standing to sue. That is, unless you can prove that you were spied on via this specific program, you can't sue because there's been no harm.

The Supreme Court Justices were clearly troubled by the idea that the government could implement a secret surveillance program that could never be challenged in court, and homed in on that key point in questioning the Solicitor General of the US (and former top RIAA litigator), Donald Verrilli. As the NY Times notes, Verrilli insisted that it simply was not true that no one would ever have standing, because if the government ever used information from such surveillance programs in a court case against someone, the government would have to reveal that the info came via that program.
“Is there anybody who has standing?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked.

Yes, said Mr. Verrilli, giving what he called a “clear example." If the government wants to use information gathered under the surveillance program in a criminal prosecution, he said, the source of the information would have to be disclosed. The subjects of such surveillance, he continued, would have standing to challenge the program.
Got that? Of course people would have standing, because the government has to tell them where the information came from. So those people could always challenge the program. When the eventual Supreme Court ruling came out, the majority decision relied very heavily on this particular claim:
...if the Government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from a §1881a acquisition in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.... Thus, if the Government were to prosecute one of respondent-attorney’s foreign clients using §1881a-authorized surveillance, the Government would be required to make a disclosure.... In such a situation, unlike in the present case, it would at least be clear that the Government had acquired the foreign client’s communications using §1881a-authorized surveillance.
Ok. Now, here's the important part. In defending the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which is what enabled these kinds of warrantless wiretaps, politicians have been pointing to all of those "examples" where this program was supposedly instrumental in "stopping terrorists." And this includes a few cases that involved federal prosecutions. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the staunchest defender of these programs, has called out two specific prosecutions as "specific cases where FISA Amendments Act authorities were used," saying that "these cases show the program has worked."

While it's arguable whether or not these cases actually showed whether or not the program worked, they do give us two cases where, according to the US Solicitor General and the Supreme Court, the feds were required to reveal to the defendants the source of the information. And take a wild guess whether or not the government actually informed the defendant how it obtained the info? You're psychic!
In a prosecution in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against two brothers accused of plotting to bomb targets in New York, the government has said it plans to use information gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which authorized individual warrants. But prosecutors have refused to say whether the government obtained those individual warrants based on information derived from the 2008 law, which allows programmatic surveillance.

Prosecutors in Chicago have taken the same approach in a prosecution of teenager accused of plotting to blow up a bar.
In fact, the magistrate judge in the Florida case has told the government it needs to disclose whether or not the surveillance was based on the FAA, but the government, so far, is refusing to say anything, and is asking the court to reconsider.

As far as I can tell, there are a few possibilities here, none of them good:
  1. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli lied to the Supreme Court about whether or not the federal government would need to reveal the source of surveillance info obtained under the FAA.
  2. Senator Dianne Feinstein lied to Congress about the FAA supposedly being instrumental in those cases.
  3. The US Attorneys are now withholding information they are, by law, required to reveal.
It's possible that the reality is a combination of all three. But I can't see how you can explain the present situation without at least one of the three statements above being true.

The ACLU has called this "a shell game" and it's that and more. No matter where you point for the legal authority to challenge these programs, the government insists you have to look elsewhere. Can't sue the companies, but can sue the government. Can't sue the government unless you can prove standing. Can't prove standing unless you're in a case which involves this surveillance, at which point we have to tell you. Of course, in cases where it's been revealed that this kind of surveillance is used, well, now the government insists it doesn't have to admit that. Basically, the feds are going to keep trying to avoid ever having to face an actual legal challenge on this, which suggests they know the reality: the program is illegal and unconstitutional. If they were sure that it was a legitimate, constitutional program, why not just stand up in court and say that?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 9:18am

    Solution

    Give them both a gold star and pay raise for a job well done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 9:21am

    So, the government is learning from IP trolls.

    Great.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 9:36am

    As long as they don't use it in court? Not good enough

    if the Government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from a 1881a acquisition in judicial or administrative proceedings, it must provide advance notice of its intent, and the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition

    What about other settings? Can they secretly use it to decide where to focus there more transparent info gathering activities? As long as they gather enough non-fisa info to prosecute, can they hide the fact that there was also nsa phone taps being looked at?
    Can they use it to counter political or protest movements as long as they don't use it in a trial?
    Can they use it to destroy the reputation of people they don't like through leaking skeletons in closets to the press?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 9:46am

    'the program is illegal and unconstitutional'

    i suggest the main reason for not wanting to give out the information is that the scheme actually failed, and that is what is wanted to be kept hidden. if it was the case, how could the millions that has been spent then be justified? basically, the whole issue is and has been nothing but a scam. some have gotten extremely well paid because of it, but the true benefit of it is almost negligible!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jul 16th, 2013 @ 10:43am

    Re:

    The problem with collecting all data on everyone is you end up with more false positives and false negatives. Making the system practically useless and a waste of time and money.

    Due to Statistics they would need to increase investigative their staff a couple hundred fold to handle all the leads. It is far better to do actual police work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 10:47am

    All Government-elected officials are well trained at lying, they practice it all the time on election year.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 11:19am

    Re: IP Trolls

    I had the exact same thought. It read like an article about Prenda as much as the governemnt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    pixelpusher220 (profile), Jul 16th, 2013 @ 11:24am

    Re: As long as they don't use it in court? Not good enough

    Yeah, the 'but if we use it court' is way passed the acceptable barrier. The 'collection' of the info is the actual problem, not whether they use it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 11:48am

    Everyone involved in this unconstitutional spying on America, is making a mockery of the themselves, and the institutions they serve under.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re: As long as they don't use it in court? Not good enough

    Agreed. The 4th amendment forbids the unwarranted seizure of papers and effects. Not just the improper use of that seized information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: As long as they don't use it in court? Not good enough

    The question I should have made is that since the government can victimize people in many ways outside the court room with this information - How do these other victims prove standing? They don't get to receive notification of the spying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Ed C., Jul 16th, 2013 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: As long as they don't use it in court? Not good enough

    The problem with that part of the 4th is that it's primarily restricted to things you possess. Other property you leave with a 3rd party, or information they have about you, may or may not be open to seizure. This includes things such as email or the information collected by sites like FaceBook. Personally, I think any loopholes or ambiguity needs to be dissolved. Either the property legally belongs to you or the 3rd party and is thus protected under the 4th. NO EXCEPTIONS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Jul 16th, 2013 @ 2:35pm

    C'mon, trolls!

    Tell us about the fourth option we're too stupid to see. Or accuse us of being unpatriotic. Or traitors. Or something.

    Entertain me!

    *cracks whip*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 5:29pm

    Someone should have stood up in the courtroom and asked the judges if they thought they had some special exemption to having their data scooped up along with everyone else's.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Edward Teach, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 7:19pm

    Feinstein

    Google "Jane Harman Alberto Gonzalez",matey. Do you seriously think that the NSA/CIA/DIA/FBI don't have some, ah, "leverage" with Senators on the Intelligence Oversight Committee?

    Votes for expanding surveillance and Sekrit Awesome Powers of Investigation come as no surprise. The real surprise is that Senators Wyden and Udall are still alive and in office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jul 16th, 2013 @ 11:05pm

    Senator Feinstein lied

    Greetings from Anonymous. This explains everything.

    http://youtu.be/sKq0U1_FlWY

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Jim Anderson, Jul 17th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Both Feinstein and Verrilli

    Both Feinstein and Verrilli lied each in their own special way to achieve their ends in the particular situation they were in. Feinstein aka The wicked witch of the west never met a constitutional or privacy right that couldn't be compromised or destroyed to help the security of OZ.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2013 @ 4:59am

    States Secrets Privilege. Need anyone say more?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This