“Civil Libertarian” Obama’s Options on Surveillance

Reading Time: 8 minutes

bush-obama2Editor’s Note: Readers of this site will have seen discussion here about the extent to which Obama—or any president—is free to significantly deviate from a consensus on most “security policy.” For a recent example, see “Why Obama Cannot Undo the Surveillance Society—But We Can.” Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask:  if Obama is the top decision-maker in this country and a purported civil libertarian, why does he not try to make meaningful changes in the law to protect privacy and other rights? And what changes could he make? Cynthia Cooper addresses these possibilities below.

Despite the damage already done in secrecy to American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights—as revealed by Glenn Greenwald in his explosive article in The Guardian on June 5, 2013, and by others (see below)—President Obama could still do plenty to respond to Americans’ legitimate concerns about  overreaching electronic surveillance.

Nothing is stopping him from creating a civilian oversight board, for example. This would offer Americans the right to see and challenge information wrongly collected about them, and could compensate them for any harm done.  He could demand that Congress return to the tougher scheme of checks and balances contained in the original FISA law of 1978 before the Bush-Cheney administration cut it to shreds.  He could favor some or all of the many other approaches to fixing FISA proposed by senators and others in various platforms and books (like the one I co-authored with Elizabeth Holtzman, http://amzn.to/16Gcq2F

  • Minimization.  Discard information collected on innocent Americans, as suggested by former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.  This would bolster “minimization,” a form of legal harm reduction, according to the senator.
  • Anonymization. As suggested in 2010 by Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington D.C.  The spooks could only access identity if a connection to foreign intelligence were discovered.
  • Transparency. Make available to the public secret court rulings or unclassified summaries, as suggested by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
  • Disclosure. Support a report on the impact of the law on American’s privacy, or one with basic information on the NSA’s vacuuming up of wholly domestic communications, both proposed by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).


Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) law following disclosures of President Nixon’s secret wiretapping of journalists and political adversaries, and the FBI’s use of COINTELPRO to monitor American activists. (See Cheating Justice for details.)   

The 1978 FISA law established a framework for collecting intelligence, while protecting Americans from unwarranted surveillance. The law was designed to prevent abuses by the executive branch, and provide safeguards to balance the Fourth Amendment with security needs by setting up a process of confidential applications for surveillance through the FISA court (FISC).

President Bush circumvented the process altogether and began signing executive orders authorizing surveillance on his own, illegally, starting in 2001.  And his administration completely dismantled and rewrote the architecture of the law with the intent of extending executive powers, eventually embedding them in a new law, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA).

The 2008 law allows the executive branch, on its own, to order secret electronic surveillance of foreigners for foreign intelligence needs. And it weakened the old law’s prohibitions on the collection of information on Americans.

“It’s now embodied in the FISA statute that we passed last year,” Richard Cheney later crowed to ABC News about the Bush illegal surveillance activities.

President Obama inherited this law when he took office in 2009, and has done nothing since to correct, or shine light on the scheme. And so the same assaults on Fourth Amendment rights go on, but with a legal patina.

Horror stories about the government’s mass surveillance of the private communications of Americans flooded the news after Glenn Greenwald reported, in The Guardian on June 5, 2013, that the National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had been granted carte blanche, under FISA, to collect information on phone calls and emails of Americans.

Within days, The Guardian and the Washington Post released more stories about an international mega-data collection project called PRISM, which apparently drew information directly from the servers of Internet companies and social networks.  An employee of a NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, claimed responsibility for releasing the information.

But the element that most shook up civil libertarians was the inside view, offered for the first time, of the expansive powers the executive branch is claiming.

A Double Whammy

In order to magnify the powers of spy agencies to search and seize information on U.S. citizens, the government piggybacked two separate laws: the FAA—and the USA Patriot Act.  This strategy became apparent when on June 5, 2013, The Guardian published an actual court order from the FISA Court (FISC). The order required Verizon Business Network Services to turn over records on all domestic telephone calls for a three-month period.

How does this work?  The law (FAA) allows the executive branch to order secret electronic surveillance of foreigners for intelligence or counter intelligence needs.  But targeted surveillance of Americans in the U.S. —as opposed to foreigners—requires an application to the secret court, although approval can be procured by merely showing relevance to foreign intelligence needs.

But what if no relevance to foreign intelligence needs can be found?

Enter the Patriot Act.  Under the court order, the government combined FISA powers with the USA Patriot Act. Section 215, which allows the FBI to collect any “tangible thing” from third parties if it is relevant to an investigation of terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.  This provision can be employed “even if there is no showing that the ‘thing’ pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Combining authority from the Patriot Act and FAA,The Verizon order sweeps in “all call detail records of ‘telephone metadata’ created by Verizon for communications … wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.” In the Verizon order, the “thing” is delivered to the NSA, not the FBI.

Previously, observers assumed that Section 215 was being used to obtain singular business records of a named person.  But Sen. Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), who were party to the classified briefings on the matter, tried to signal otherwise in a  publicly-released letter they wrote to the Attorney General on March 15, 2012: “There is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows,” They added: “Most Americans would be stunned.”

After The Guardian published the Verizon order, observers began to understand what alarmed the two senators. “It is simply different and grander in scope and scale from anything we had thought the law meant,” wrote University of Texas law school professor Robert Chesney and Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Rotten Fruit of the Poisoned Tree

How long has this surveillance been going on?  When The Guardian published the previously secret information, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, defended  the order, saying it was necessary to “keep the homeland safe.” And she said, “[T]this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the [FISA] court under the business records section of the Patriot Act.”   According to Feinstein’s timetable, President Bush was signing illegal orders from 2001 to 2007 (unclassified report of five Inspectors General).

The press had occasionally raised questions about mass surveillance of Americans’ communications.  USA Today exposed in 2006 that the NSA was secretly collecting phone call records of billions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, dating back to 2001.  This  operation included all domestic phone calls, from across the street or across the countryThe published Verizon order is likely another instance of the same operation.

In response to the new revelations, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a research and advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., sent a letter on June 7, 2013, to eight Congressional leaders, demanding oversight hearings:

“There is simply no precedent for the FISC to authorize domestic surveillance. … With the Verizon Order, the FISC went beyond its legal authority when it sanctioned a program of domestic surveillance unrelated to the collection of foreign intelligence.”

Obama Grows Into a Bush

What is the difference between Obama’s views on intrusive surveillance, and Bush’s?  Here’s an early indication: as a senator, Obama voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA).  At the time, he explained,

“I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.”

He expressed concern about provisions extending blanket immunity to telecommunications companies for misuse of customers’ data.

Four months after Obama took office, Risen and Lichtblau reported in the Times that “the NSA had been engaged in ‘over collection’ of domestic communications of Americans” and that the violations of the 2008 law were “significant and systemic.”

What did Obama do about that? On May 26, 2011, Obama signed a four-year extension of Section 215 of the USA Patriot—without addressing the many questions surrounding its use.

When the FISA law came up for review in 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper urged “reauthorization of these authorities in their current form.”  And Obama complied.  He didn’t lift a finger to support even modest protections for Americans from overreaching by the government, or at least some public accountability about what is going on. On December 30, 2012, he signed a  five-year extension of the FISA law.

“Citizens generally assume our government is not spying on them,” Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), told US News during the December debate. “If they had any inkling of how this system really works, the details of which I cannot discuss, they would be profoundly appalled.”

After The Guardian let loose those scandalous reports of massive abuse of executive power, President Obama said, lamely: “We have a system of checks and balances to make sure it’s not abused.”

Hear No Evil

All kinds of people—senators, reporters, pundits, citizens, barking dogs—warned Obama that the FAA was riddled with flaws and that the executive branch agencies were out of compliance with it.

The ACLU obtained reports to Congress on compliance with targeting and minimization procedures in November 2010, and found the same problems Risen and Lichtblau described in 2009:  The law was not followed when it came to grabbing information from Americans and retaining it. According to the ACLU “every internal semiannual assessment … finds violations of the FAA’s targeting and minimizations procedures.”

None of the documents showed how many Americans had their communications intercepted, how much of the intercepted information was unrelated to terrorism or how much is covertly used for criminal investigations, said Spencer Ackerman in the Washington Independent. 

In 2011, Kathleen Turner, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, wrote in a letter to Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO) that “it is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the FAA.”  (Whistleblower Snowden disputed this claim.)

Turner said that a joint oversight team didn’t see this as a problem because the actions to “violate or circumvent the requirements of the law” weren’t “intentional or willful,” the agency representative said.  The letter also said that problems, when discovered, are remedied.

She admitted in a 2012 letter to Sen. Wyden that “on at least one occasion” the FISA court had found that minimization procedures were “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” But she granted Sen. Wyden the right to say that “the government’s implementation” of the FISA law “has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law.”

Wyden released this information, but his fellow Democrat in the White House refused to hear it.

Former President Bush was never held accountable for his serial violations of the FISA law. The statute of limitations runs until at least 2014, possibly longer under some interpretations of the law.

By September 2013, the NSA will reportedly finish construction of a one million-square-foot eavesdropping complex in the mountains of Utah that sounds like something out of a James Bond movie.  National security expert James Bamford broke the news about this trillion-dollar electronic-data archive, innocently called the “Utah Data Center.” Its purpose, as Bamford put it:

“ . . . to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks.”

There are so many ways for would-be terrorists to communicate, it’s not clear how all this is supposed to keep us safe.  It’s more likely to keep us broke.

Americans deserve an accounting that explains how these massive, relentless invasions of privacy are balanced by incremental advances in security. Swathed in layers of secrecy, the unchecked metastasis of the American Surveillance State seems to reflect Bush’s legacy more than his Presidential Library in Dallas.  And it may reflect Obama’s legacy as well.

[box]WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on it. But can we count on you? We cannot do our work without your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Graphics:  http://www.menendez.com/site_media/images/blog/bush-obama2.jpg

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


12 responses to ““Civil Libertarian” Obama’s Options on Surveillance”

  1. ICFubar says:

    Good article with lots of info. However the corporatocracy which has bought controlling share of the brand U.S.of A. in a merger now controls the board room and is not about to start listening, let alone taking suggestions, from the non voting classes of shareholders.The non voting shareholders are now just along for the ride since their stake in the company has been further watered down by the marketing of more non voting shares as profit sharing incentives to contracted employees of other subbrands abroad. So non voting shareholders domestic or foreign of the corporatocracy and brand U.S.of A. are screwed, scorned, and laughed at by the voting shareholders and so are of no account. The board of directors will proceed with their planned expansion by mergers and hostile takeovers in a drive to eliminate all competition as planned. Having one part of their secret planning on their agenda revealed to the non voting shareholders while extremely annoying does not alter the sequential development of tactics and strategies in any meaningful way. This is due to the care so far, of the managers of brand U.S.of A. to keep the non voting shareholders divided, anethetized and distracted or under surveillance for infractions
    of the new board’s laws of compliance for non voting shareholders.

  2. Robert Miller says:

    “What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto–fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity.

    “But in the final analysis, it’s based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we’ve built since 1945, the “military–industrial complex” that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we’ve seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society.” -Jim Garrison, 1967.

    • ICFubar says:

      Yes the form has been called inverted totalitarianism as Sheldon Wollin describes in his book “Democracy Incorporated”. The facade of the state remains in place but all the levers of power of the state have been captured
      by the uber wealthy and not a political entity as in 1930’s Germany, which controlled the wealthy. Only if necessary the facade of the old state may be dispensed with revealing a true totalitarian oligarchy. This has also been called climax capitalism.

  3. Robert Miller says:

    If you step back and look over the last fifty years of American history you find that the President has less and less say in national security issues. When in the summer of 2008 Congress reauthorized FISA Senate Republicans voted unanimously for it. It was a good bet that a Democrat was going to be elected President. So did those Republicans decide to give Obama or Clinton all these surveillance powers? Of course not, because the power of the national security state doesn’t accrue to the Presidency. It accrues to the national security state.

  4. habu says:

    A number of times the author has mentioned “FAA” when it should be “FCC.” The FAA covers aviation while the FCC covers telecommunications.

    • Cyn says:

      FAA is abbreviation for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (now of 2012). In its even longer form, it is called the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.” Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor the Federal Aviation Administration is involved in the administration of foreign intelligence surveillance or FISA or the FAA. I agree that it’s thoroughly confusing!

  5. WarDepartment says:

    Purported surveillance “whistleblower” Ed Snowden may not be what he appears to be. Researcher Webster Tarpley, whose pioneering writings on the Bush crime family preceded Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets,” makes a convincing case that Snowden, Julian “Wikileaks” Assange, and Daniel “Pentagon Papers” Ellsberg are all U.S. intelligence operatives in a covert game aimed at manipulating public opinion to the detriment of domestic politicians and foreign regimes that aren’t towing the line.

    On close examination, these “leaks” turn out to be relatively tame in terms of U.S. security interests and hardly revelatory.

    Tarpley notes that these manufactured, anti-establishment rebels become instant darlings of the mainstream media and heroes to the gullible public. Meanwhile, those attempting to shed light on the JFK assassination and 9-11 are slandered, ridiculed, or ignored. “In extreme cases, they can be kidnapped, renditioned or liquidated.”

    This is essential reading, folks: http://tinyurl.com/m9g3nnw

  6. Bruce Nevin says:

    The nicely photoshopped image also suggests that we elected a black W.

  7. chrispope281 says:

    Well, this is a deep subject. I understand technology has overwhelmed us and it is necessary to keep tabs on people but to what extent? Because anyone wanting to truly do us harm can use this technology to do so. And now it is way out of hand and as I demanded from John Kerry, (Secretary of State) The patriot act be abolished in it’s entirety. Because the law was written by the same spirit and in that spirit to do us harm. Now you are going to waist more tax payers money to spy on tax payers. Some things were not meant to be heard. Evesdropping is rude and against the law. Unless you have a warrant from a judge. And tangible evidence of some sort. It will be our downfall or it could be the people’s listening’s downfall. Because I know where true power comes from and that is God. Information, and intelligence are good for me because now I know the people who are breaking the law. So in saying that what do they know about me? Probably more than I know about myself. And I can’t spell worth a hoot. But of course if you have nothing to hide why worry. I don’t and I know they know everything about me. Even my taste of women. Hope they like it. What can I say I’ve been separated for nine years. I have been under survelliance for a very long time. I know this for a fact. It’s been so much lately I think I have become a celebrity in the intelligence community.

  8. Mr. P says:

    “Drones Are Used For Domestic Surveillance, FBI Director Admits”

    The FBI, led by Director Robert (Truesdale) Mueller III, first appointed chief of the DOJ’s criminal division, to interdict the investigation into BCCI, which was coming to close to President Geo. H.W. Bush’s White House, and later appointed director of the FBI just days prior to the events of 9/11?

    The very same fellow who is the grandnewphew of Richard Bissell, one of the three top CIA doods fired by President Kennedy prior to his assassination, and another one being Gen. Cabell, who just so happends to be the grandfather of Mueller’s wife (which makes her also the grandniece of Gen. Cabell’s brother, the then mayor of Dallas, Earl Cabell, who made that last minute change to the route of the President’s entourage that horrible day in November of 1963.

    Small world, huh?

    Just like it’s a small world, when the Pentagon’s comptroller, on the day of 9/10/01, announces that their auditing team has uncovered the unaccounted for sum of $2.3 trillion in DoD funds, and the very next morning an airliner crashes dead center into the Pentagon’s west wall, killing most of that auditing team (the DIA’s Financial Management group) and severely injuring the rest.

  9. WarDepartment says:

    Just as the “threat” of “international communism” was wildly exaggerated and used to justify domestic police-state tactics and obscene military budgets, so is the propagandistic use of “terrorism.” The military-industrial-Zionist complex conveniently retrofitted its Cold War rhetoric and scare tactics for the so-called “War on Terror.” The danger that we would ever enjoy the “peace dividend” promised by the collapse of the Soviet Union vaporized on 9-11.

  10. Rob says:

    I’ve heard James Bamford talk about this massive collection of data before. From what I understand, the focus so far has been primarily on collection and storage where it then just essentially collects dust. There has been very little focus that we know so far on organizing and interpreting all of this data to supposedly catch the bad guys. At some point in the future this may change, but as it stands right now, finding incriminating information on someone, legitimate or not, is like finding a needle in a haystack.

    At some point in the future, work could be done to enable the data minders to sort this information so that the needles can be found more quickly. Then we are only one more crisis away from a law being passed that will allow the holders of power from using these pieces of information against us in any way they see fit. Bamford has been talking about this for the better part of a decade but it seems that most people only pay attention only for brief moments before moving on to much more important topics, such as what’s happening on TV.

  11. Westcoastdeplorable says:

    Thanks for a well thought out article Cynthia, but it seems to me if Obama had any concerns regarding any of this, then he would have already taken these actions. The fact he hasn’t and instead keeps vigorously following the neo-con playbook tells me he’s either sold out, been forced to go along to get along, or that he was never serious about anything he said prior to his first election.
    Current reality forces us to choose one of the three. Add Syria and the flagrant use of drones to the picture and what you get is an evolving fascist state.

    • RobertA says:

      So true. People need to focus on the real policy we’re following, and who’s behind it, more than the motivations of various occupants of the rotating figurehead presidency.