Today's Article
The brief had flatly
declared that the
FISA Amendments
Act violates the
Fourth Amendment,
and thus is
unconstitutional.
declared that the
FISA Amendments
Act violates the
Fourth Amendment,
and thus is
unconstitutional.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Government Spying
By Cliff Montgomery - Aug. 30th, 2009
A federal court on Aug. 20th threw out a lawsuit which challenged the legality of the FISA Amendments Act
(FAA)--a controversial law that allows the U.S. government to spy on the international phone calls and emails
of American citizens.
The challenge had its origins on December 19th, 2008, when the Brennan Center for Justice submitted a
supplemental amicus curiae brief in Amnesty v. Blair. The brief called on the court to find the FAA
unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was submitted on behalf of Amnesty International, the ACLU and a host of defense attorneys and
other human rights organizations. The brief stated that the FAA violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus is
unconstitutional. It also stated that the act fails to ensure adequate privacy protections.
"The implications of [the court's dismissal] are quite troubling," Emily Berman, one of the authors of the legal
challenge, declared in a statement on the Brennan Center's website.
"Because this surveillance is conducted in secret," Berman continued, "dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims means
that we might never know whose communications are collected nor what the government does with that
information."
The full sweep of this collection becomes apparent when one looks more deeply into this questionable law.
"The FAA dramatically expands governmental authority to seize communications of American citizens inside
the United States without a prior judicial warrant," stated a Brennan summary of the brief found on its website.
"Having swept up communications involving U.S. citizens, the government is permitted by the FAA to retain
and disseminate any 'foreign intelligence information,' " continued the summary.
But apparently the FAA so loosely defines the term, "foreign intelligence information," that the feds interpret
the phrase to include any communications that discuss the "conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States."
This is an immensely broad definition--one which practically begs for on overly expansive interpretation.
"Most or all of the professional communications of plaintiff journalists and human rights organizations, for
example, would fall squarely into this exception," stated the Brennan summary.
The FAA ensures that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approves all surveillance procedures,
but it fails to empower the court with the authority to oversee or modify those procedures.
The FISA drafters recognized that "ongoing judicial scrutiny is the best—perhaps only—way to ensure that
procedures developed in the abstract in fact play their intended privacy-protecting role," declared the Brennan
summary.
Such privacy concerns cut to the heart of the spying issue. And these matters deserve a more reasoned
consideration then what they're currently getting from America's judiciary.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Aug. 30th, 2009
A federal court on Aug. 20th threw out a lawsuit which challenged the legality of the FISA Amendments Act
(FAA)--a controversial law that allows the U.S. government to spy on the international phone calls and emails
of American citizens.
The challenge had its origins on December 19th, 2008, when the Brennan Center for Justice submitted a
supplemental amicus curiae brief in Amnesty v. Blair. The brief called on the court to find the FAA
unconstitutional.
The lawsuit was submitted on behalf of Amnesty International, the ACLU and a host of defense attorneys and
other human rights organizations. The brief stated that the FAA violates the Fourth Amendment, and thus is
unconstitutional. It also stated that the act fails to ensure adequate privacy protections.
"The implications of [the court's dismissal] are quite troubling," Emily Berman, one of the authors of the legal
challenge, declared in a statement on the Brennan Center's website.
"Because this surveillance is conducted in secret," Berman continued, "dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims means
that we might never know whose communications are collected nor what the government does with that
information."
The full sweep of this collection becomes apparent when one looks more deeply into this questionable law.
"The FAA dramatically expands governmental authority to seize communications of American citizens inside
the United States without a prior judicial warrant," stated a Brennan summary of the brief found on its website.
"Having swept up communications involving U.S. citizens, the government is permitted by the FAA to retain
and disseminate any 'foreign intelligence information,' " continued the summary.
But apparently the FAA so loosely defines the term, "foreign intelligence information," that the feds interpret
the phrase to include any communications that discuss the "conduct of the foreign affairs of the United
States."
This is an immensely broad definition--one which practically begs for on overly expansive interpretation.
"Most or all of the professional communications of plaintiff journalists and human rights organizations, for
example, would fall squarely into this exception," stated the Brennan summary.
The FAA ensures that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) approves all surveillance procedures,
but it fails to empower the court with the authority to oversee or modify those procedures.
The FISA drafters recognized that "ongoing judicial scrutiny is the best—perhaps only—way to ensure that
procedures developed in the abstract in fact play their intended privacy-protecting role," declared the Brennan
summary.
Such privacy concerns cut to the heart of the spying issue. And these matters deserve a more reasoned
consideration then what they're currently getting from America's judiciary.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!