Federal oversight board hears testimony on NSA spying on Americans

Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the National Security Agency, on Sunday, June 9, 2013, in Hong Kong. The Guardian identified Snowden as a source for its reports on intelligence programs after he asked the newspaper to do so on Sunday. (AP Photo/The Guardian)

Edward Snowden, who worked as a contract employee at the National Security Agency, on Sunday, June 9, 2013, in Hong Kong. The Guardian identified Snowden as a source for its reports on intelligence programs after he asked the newspaper to do so on Sunday. (AP Photo/The Guardian)

The federal oversight board directed by President Barack Obama to scrutinize the government’s secret surveillance system is hearing from civil liberties activists, a retired federal judge and a former Bush administration lawyer in the board’s first public event since the spying operations were revealed in news reports.

They were among 16 experts set to testify Tuesday before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board about the National Security Agency’s surveillance. The board’s five members include an Internet freedom advocate and two former Bush lawyers who helped expand the government’s national security authority.

After former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden began exposing the NSA’s operations in June, Obama instructed the board to lead a “national conversation” about the secret programs. The board has been given several secret briefings by national security officials and it plans a comprehensive inquiry and a public report on the matter.

“Our primary focus will be on the programs themselves,” the board’s chairman, David Medine, told the Associated Press last month. “Based on what we’ve learned so far, further questions are warranted.”

American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who is expected to testify, warned the oversight board that the government’s massive sweeps of cellphone and telephone call logs and other data on phone and Internet communications erode privacy protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Snowden’s disclosures revealed that the NSA collects phone “metadata” — records that omitted only the actual contents of conversations — from millions of Americans. A separate NSA surveillance program aimed solely at foreign terrorist suspects also sweeps up metadata about the Internet communications from smaller numbers of Americans, federal officials have acknowledged. Obama urged Americans not to worry about the secret programs because the contents of their communications are rarely targeted.

The president and the director of national intelligence “have been at pains to emphasize that the government is collecting metadata, not content,” Jaffer said in advance remarks obtained by the AP. “But the suggestion that metadata is somehow beyond the reach of the Constitution is wrong. For Fourth Amendment purposes, the crucial question is not whether the government is collecting content or metadata but whether it is invading the reasonable expectation of privacy. Here, it clearly is.”

Jaffer has urged stricter limits on government surveillance as well as new oversight mechanisms. One of the oversight board’s members, James Dempsey, is a top official with the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties advocacy group.

Much of the NSA’s surveillance is overseen by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose classified rulings also have been disclosed by several Snowden leaks. Testimony about the court was expected from former federal judge James Robertson, who served on the secret court. Robertson also ruled against the Bush administration in the landmark Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case, which granted inmates at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to challenge their detentions. That ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court.

Steven Bradbury, a former top Bush administration lawyer who played a central role in national security decisions, also was to testify. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, wrote several legal memos backing the CIA’s limited use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects, including simulated drowning. But he also signed other memos that placed legal brakes on some of the Bush administration’s expanded national security authority.

Two of the oversight board’s members also worked as Bush administration lawyers. Elisebeth Collins Cook is a former Justice Department lawyer who drafted revised guidelines in 2008 that expanded the FBI’s ability to conduct domestic intelligence investigations. The guidelines gave FBI agents involved in national security probes new authority to conduct physical surveillance without a court order and to interview people without identifying themselves as federal agents.

Oversight board member Rachel Brand is another former Bush Justice lawyer who urged Congress to give the FBI expanded authority to use what are called national security letters and administrative subpoenas to obtain information in terrorism investigations. The use of such tools is limited but can allow federal investigators to demand data without direct judicial approval.

The oversight board is appointed by the president but reports to Congress. David Cole, a professor of constitutional and national security law at Georgetown University, said the board faces high expectations.

“Their very existence may make government officials more careful about their surveillance programs because they will know that a board empowered and obligated to report on privacy and civil liberties abuses exists,” Cole said.
___

Copyright  © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright  © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

5 Responses to "Federal oversight board hears testimony on NSA spying on Americans"

  1. griff6r  July 9, 2013 at 8:14 am

    Thank goodness! The oversight board is all over this! Now I can rest easy.

  2. Keith  July 9, 2013 at 8:40 am

    “Obama urged Americans not to worry about the secret programs because the contents of their communications are rarely targeted.”

    Yeah, right.

    Does anyone remember when Ted Kennedy was put on the TSA’s “no fly” list?

    Or, more recently, how about the fact that our trillion-dollar-a-year, US national security bumbledom couldn’t even spell Mr. Snowden’s middle name correctly on a simple extradition request?

    Mr. Obama, I suggest you try telling your “not to worry” lie to the REST of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that have been wrongly targeted by your jack-booted NSA, CIA and DIA bureaucrats as “terrorists” who were later shown to be absolutely innocent.

    But what’s more infuriating is that those people were removed from suspicion only AFTER they were forced to PROVE their innocence (usually at their own expense) and, even then, there was absolutely NO apology forthcoming from your over-paid “goon squads”.

    Clearly, the innate concept of “innocent until proven guilty” that our Constitution provides has now been turned on its head by this crowd and their ever-more-pervasive snooping.

    “Not to worry”, indeed.

  3. Carl Nemo **==  July 9, 2013 at 10:45 am

    What’s ludicrous per the article is the oversight board members are former Bush era appointees, who drafted much of the draconian policies under which citizens must now suffer.

    Seemingly this administration as others in the recent past are all for letting the foxes set policies for the hen house. / : |

    Our entire government has become a hazard to our collective well-being, causing grievous harm to innocent civilians all in the name of their ‘war on terror’, simply a MIC friendly noun, so too a canard. Ouch!

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. Wayne K Dolik  July 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    So, let me get this right, after being silent during most of Pres. transparent’s administration, 10 republican judges out of 11 judges are going to sort these constitutional abuses out. Oh please, give me a break. This is simply nuts. To little to late.

    What is needed is a complete constitutional review of all our spying laws. Ie. are they legal? And, not by insiders. I addition, we need to look at the real excuse for cover-up, nation security claims by the U.S. Government.

  5. Wayne K Dolik  July 9, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Last sentence should read.

    “In addition, we need to look at the real excuse for the cover-up, national security claims by the U.S. Government.”

Comments are closed.