Senator Roberts: FISA is Unconstitutional

[Marty Lederman]

Uh, that would be Pat Roberts of Kansas.  Sorry 'bout that, Jayhawks and Wildcats.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Marty Lederman 
  To: Lynne Henderson ; Gordon Silverstein ; 'Ringhand,Lori' ; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 5:00 PM
  Subject: Senator Roberts: FISA is Unconstitutional


  http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/02/senator-roberts-declares-fisa.html

  Senator Roberts Declares FISA Unconstitutional 


  Marty Lederman 


  Senator Pat Roberts of Nebraska, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today issued a 19-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in which he became (as far as I know) the first member of Congress to opine that the NSA's doemstic wiretapping program is lawful. Senator Roberts's argument is, almost in its entirety, that to the extent FISA purports to provide the "exclusive means" for the President to engage in electronic surveillance -- and Senator Roberts agrees that FISA does so (pp. 10-11) -- FISA is unconstitutional.

  Notably, Senator Roberts does not really indulge DOJ's specious argument that Congress gave the President the authority to override FISA -- and that Congress impliedly repealed the "exclusive means" provision of FISA -- when it enacted the force authorization related to Al Qaeda on September 18, 2001. To be sure, in the Conclusion to his letter, Senator Roberts mentions en passant that he "do[es] not discount" the AUMF argument -- but he doesn't try to defend it in the slightest. Indeed, he does not even suggest that when he himself voted for the AUMF, he intended -- or had any inkling -- that FISA was being overriden and in part repealed. His argument, instead, is that the President's constitutional authorities "should be the beginning and end of our legislative inquiry into the 'legality' of this program. It is quite clear to me that Congress could not, through passage of FISA, extinguish the President's constitutional authority to conduct the terrorist surveillance program at issue." Senator Roberts concludes (p.13) that the Supreme Court would, "even after FISA, determine that Congress cannot define the 'exclusive means' for the conduct" of the President's electronic surveillance within the United States.

  It's a rather remarkable and unusual event when the Chair of a congressional intelligence committee asserts that the landmark framework statute over which his committee has jurisdiction is unconstitutional. But that is what we've seen today. (One wonders why Senator Roberts did not, over the past five years, respond to the several enacted and proposed amendments to FISA, including in the PATRIOT Act, by saying they were unnecessary because FISA cannot limit the President's foreign-terrorism-related electronic surveillance.) 

  One other important thing about the Roberts letter: He reveals what many of us had suspected -- namely, that one reason the Administration is circumventing FISA is because it is engaged in interceptions that the FISA Court could not approve under the law as currently drafted: "FISA's burden of proof -- probable cause that [the targeted] individual is an agent of a foreign power -- is higher than the 'reasonableness' the Fourth Amendment requires and does not enable surveillance of all the assistants and collaborators of our enemies that the President should target for intelligence collection."

  Now, it should be understood what Roberts is saying here: FISA does not regulate at all the surveillance of "all the assistants and collaborators of our enemies" insofar as the interceptions occur overseas -- even if the communications are with persons in the U.S., NSA may freely intercept those calls (or that's my understanding, anyway). And even if the interception is made here in the U.S., FISA allows for a judicial order upon a showing of probable cause that the person in the United States whose phone or computer is targeted is "an assistant or collaborator of our enemies." Therefore, what's at issue here is (i) the targeting of U.S. persons who are not suspected of being Al Qaeda assistants or collaborators, but who are calling persons overseas who are suspected of being such; and/or (ii) the targeting of U.S. persons who the NSA suspects of being "assistants or collaborators," but where there is not probable cause to believe it.

  (By the way, Roberts confirms that "assistant or collarborator" is defined very broadly, to include not only members of Al Qaeda or those who assist in Al Qaeda's terrorist operations, but also persons "affiliated with" Al Qaeda and persons who are members of "organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda." Thus, some of the intercepted calls might not involve any party who is in league with Al Qaeda or who is otherwise even suspected of having had anything to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.) 

  Posted 4:16 PM by Marty Lederman [link] (0) comments 



    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Lynne Henderson 
    To: Marty Lederman ; Gordon Silverstein ; 'Ringhand,Lori' ; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 3:42 PM
    Subject: Re: Exec War Powers Syllabus


    The letter is excellent, Marty.  I meant to circulate the NY Review version yesterday, having gotten it via Stanford Law School.  I commend you all for writing it and sending it the leaders of Congress (and cc'ing the judge.)
    What else can us less famous others do?
    Lynne Henderson


    -----Original Message----- 
    From: Marty Lederman 
    Sent: Feb 3, 2006 12:10 PM 
    To: Gordon Silverstein , "'Ringhand, Lori'" , CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 
    Subject: Re: Exec War Powers Syllabus 


    Both are wonderful, indispensible volumes, I agree, but both are focused on what had been the dominant war powers question of the past couple of generations -- the President's power to initiate war or hostilities without congressional authorization, and with the ancillary question of what "counts" as legislative authorization (Jackson's "Categories" II and I, respectively).  The question raised by the current Administration is what happens in Category III, where the President acts contra legem.  Fisher and Glennon touch on that, but it's not the emphasis of their volumes.

    For those who are interested, here's a letter responding to DOJ's legal defense of the NSA wiretapping program that I and 13 others sent yesterday:

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/FISA.AUMF.ReplytoDOJ.pdf

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Gordon Silverstein 
      To: 'Ringhand, Lori' ; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
  To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

  Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20060203/4b05d1c0/attachment.htm