Skip to main content

The flaw in the government's logic on wiretapping

By Jameel Jaffer and Alexander Abdo, Special to CNN
updated 2:19 PM EDT, Mon October 29, 2012
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to a 2008 law that expanded the government's authority to wiretap Americans.
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to a 2008 law that expanded the government's authority to wiretap Americans.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Jameel Jaffer, Alexander Abdo: FISA Amendments Act violates Americans' privacy
  • They say the act lets the government to target people without suspicion of wrongdoing
  • They ask: Will this invasive program be subject to meaningful judicial review at all?
  • Jaffer, Abdo: Government's efforts to shield the act from judicial review is disturbing

Editor's note: Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, argues for the plaintiffs in Clapper v. Amnesty before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. Alexander Abdo, a staff attorney at ACLU, is co-counsel on the case.

(CNN) -- On Monday, the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to a 2008 law that dramatically expanded the government's authority to wiretap Americans' phone calls and e-mails. At stake are not only the privacy protections guaranteed by the Constitution, but the ability of the courts to enforce them.

The law in question -- called the FISA Amendments Act -- endorsed and expanded the warrantless surveillance program that President George W. Bush authorized shortly after 9/11. It gives the National Security Agency a virtual blank check to intercept Americans' international phone calls and e-mails, to store them indefinitely in huge databases, and to share them with other agencies with few restrictions.

Surveillance under the law must target foreigners abroad, but the law permits the government to sweep up Americans' communications in the process. Indeed, administration officials who advocated for the law made clear that their principal interest was in collecting Americans' international communications.

Jameel Jaffer
Jameel Jaffer
Alexander Abdo
Alexander Abdo

Most troublingly, the FISA Amendments Act allows the government to wiretap Americans' international communications in a dragnet fashion -- potentially sweeping up thousands or millions of Americans' communications at a time -- without any suspicion of wrongdoing and without even identifying the targets of its surveillance to any court.

In the Clapper v. Amnesty case, the Supreme Court will, for the first time, hear a case concerning FISA -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- which was enacted more than 30 years ago, after the Senate's Church Committee exposed the rampant surveillance abuses of the preceding decades. And it will be the first time since 1972 that the court has considered any case concerning "intelligence surveillance" -- surveillance conducted not for law enforcement, but for investigating threats to national security.

The question before the justices is in one sense a narrow one: Can the law be challenged? The plaintiffs include an array of attorneys, human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose work requires them to engage in sensitive and sometimes privileged phone and e-mail communications with people abroad.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



In the past, we have argued that the plaintiffs have the right to challenge the law because it puts their communications at risk of surveillance, and because that risk is substantial enough to have compelled them to take costly and burdensome measures to protect their confidential communications.

For example, some of the plaintiffs have had to travel overseas to gather information in person that -- if not for this law -- they would have been able to gather by phone or e-mail.

An appeals court agreed with us last year, but the government argues that the plaintiffs may not sue because they cannot prove that their communications have actually been intercepted under the law or will be intercepted under it in the future. Of course, the government refuses to disclose whether it has -- or will in the future -- wiretap the plaintiffs' phone calls or e-mails.

The flaw in the government's logic should be obvious: If only those who can prove they were wiretapped can sue, and if the government categorically refuses to reveal whom it has wiretapped, then no one will ever be able to challenge the law. The real issue here is whether this unprecedented and invasive surveillance law will be subject to meaningful judicial review at all, ever.

If the plaintiffs cannot challenge the law, then the only judicial scrutiny the law is likely to receive will come from the FISA Court, which meets in secret, generally allows only the government to appear before it, rarely issues public decisions, and doesn't have the authority to consider several key constitutional problems with the law.

The government's argument is really about the role of the judiciary in patrolling the boundaries between the lawful measures that the executive should take in the defense of national security, and the unconstitutional and effectively unbridled discretion the government now has to acquire Americans' international communications.

Whatever one's views of the legality of the FISA Amendments Act, the government's efforts to shield the law from any meaningful judicial review should be profoundly disturbing to all Americans.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jameel Jaffer and Alexander Abdo.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 6:25 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Pilot Robert Mark says it's been tough for the airline industry after the plane crashes in Ukraine and Taiwan.
updated 11:10 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
Jennifer DeVoe laments efforts to end subsidies that allow working Americans to finally afford health insurance.
updated 8:45 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
John Sutter responds to criticism of his column on the ethics of eating dog.
updated 9:02 AM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
Frida Ghitis says it's tempting to ignore North Korea's antics as bluster but the cruel regime is dangerous.
updated 2:50 PM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
To the question "Is Putin evil?" Alexander Motyl says he is evil enough for condemnation by people of good will.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Laurie Garrett: Poor governance, ignorance, hysteria worsen the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, Guinea, Liberia.
updated 9:49 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Patrick Cronin and Kelley Sayler say the world is seeing nonstate groups such as Ukraine's rebels wielding more power to do harm than ever before
updated 6:05 PM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Ukraine ambassador Olexander Motsyk places blame for the MH17 tragedy squarely at the door of Russia
updated 7:42 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
updated 2:53 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Les Abend says, with rockets flying over Tel Aviv and missiles shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, a commercial pilot's pre-flight checklist just got much more complicated
updated 9:17 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Mark Kramer says Russia and its proxies have a history of shooting down civilian aircraft, often with few repercussions
updated 12:37 PM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
Gerard Jacobs says grieving families and nations need the comfort of traditional rituals to honor the remains of loved ones, particularly in a mass disaster
updated 10:13 AM EDT, Thu July 24, 2014
The idea is difficult to stomach, but John Sutter writes that eating dog is morally equivalent to eating pig, another intelligent animal. If Americans oppose it, they should question their own eating habits as well.
updated 12:30 PM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Bill van Esveld says under the laws of war, civilians who do not join in the fight are always to be protected. An International Criminal Court could rule on whether Israeli airstrikes and Hamas rocketing are war crimes.
updated 10:08 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2014
Gordon Brown says the kidnapped Nigerian girls have been in captivity for 100 days, but the world has not forgotten them.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT