Posts

GOP Not Anxious to End John Roberts’ Unilateral Reign Appointing FISA Judges

/in /by

FWIW, Roger “Broccoli” Vinson aside, John Roberts has been appointing some solidly conservative, but nevertheless not lockstep Republicans to the FISA Court in recent years. But especially given the degree to which the FISC is now playing what former FISC judge James Robertson called a policy role, it is all the more inappropriate to have the Chief Justice, of whatever party, unilaterally pick FISC judges.

And some members of Congress — Adam Schiff in the House and Richard Blumenthal in the Senate — are trying to change that.

Curiously, however, while Republicans are happy to cosponsor legislation to force FISC to publish their opinions, Schiff, at least, has had no success finding a Republican cosponsor to support moves to take the FISC appointments out of John Roberts’ hands.

Schiff’s having a tougher time finding GOP co-sponsors for a second measure that would require Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation of FISA judges. Currently they are appointed by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

I guess whatever claims GOP Representatives make about wanting to impose some controls on this dragnet take a back seat to maximizing party influence?

PCLOB: An Exercise in False Oversight

/2 Comments/in , /by

As you may have seen from the reporting or my live-tweeting of yesterday’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board hearing on the government’s surveillance program, there were a few interesting bits of news, starting with former FISC judge James Robertson’s assertion that what FISC has done since it started approving bulk collection amounts to “approval” not “adjudication” and puts the court in an inappropriate policy making role. Robertson also said FISC needs an adversarial role it doesn’t currently have. Robertson also raised the possibility Section 215 could be used to create a gun registry not otherwise authorized by law, a point ignored by the former government officials on his panel.

I also thought James Baker’s testimony was interesting. In his prepared statements, Baker seemed to suggest the entire hearing was a wasted exercise, because the program had plenty of oversight. (Remember, Baker was in a key role at DOJ working with FISC through 2007, and got stuck trying to keep intelligence gathered under the illegal program out of traditional FISA applications.) But just before the end of the hearing Baker said before all the bulk collection, FISA worked. He repeated it, FISA worked. Baker may have come to accept these bulk programs, but he sure seemed to think they weren’t necessary.

But the most telling part of the hearing, in my opinion, is the presence of Steven Bradbury and Ken Wainstein on the panel.

There were plenty of other former government officials on the panels, representing all branches. But these two were in far more central positions in the roll out of both the legal and illegal programs. One of the key documents released by the Guardian, showing Wainstein and Bradbury recommending that newly confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey resume the contact chaining of Internet metadata, shows them expanding one of the most legally questionable aspects of this surveillance.

The ground rules of the hearing made it worse. The hearing followed the inane rules the Obama Administration adopts in the face of large leaks, pretending these public documents aren’t public. The Chair of PCLOB, David Medine, said no one could confirm anything that hadn’t already been declassified by the government.

Which not only put that document outside the scope of the discussion. But meant neither Bradbury nor Wainstein disclosed this clear conflict.

At one point in the hearing, the moderator even suggested that every time ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer said something, either Bradbury or Wainstein should have an opportunity to rebut what Jaffer said.

Yes, there were a number of interesting revelations at the hearing, along with the typical inanity from Wainstein and, especially, Bradbury. But it was set up with all the conflicts of a Presidential Commission meant to dispel controversy, not a real champion for privacy or civil liberties.

And its treatment of these two former government shills is just representative of that.

Government Continues Its Fight for Indefinite Detention

/in /by

The government appealed its loss in the habeas petition of Mohamedou Ould Salahi Friday.

It’s worth reviewing what this appeal is about. At the District level, Judge James Robertson ruled that while Salahi had clearly been an al Qaeda sympathizer and, before al Qaeda declared war on the US had been a sworn member of al Qaeda, the government had presented no admissible evidence (the most damning evidence submitted was gotten by torturing Salahi) that he was working under the orders of al Qaeda when they detained him in 2001.

His ruling is important–and damaging for the government’s hopes to indefinitely detain those who it can’t charge–for two reasons. First, because he hewed very closely to the terms of the AUMF.

If the government has any authority to detain Salahi without charging him with a crime, its source is the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-04, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).

“The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-04, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).

That purpose, the “prevent [ion of] any future acts of international terrorism,” has the Supreme Court’s seal of approval, see Boumediene, 128 S.Ct. at 2277 (“The law must accord the Executive substantial authority to apprehend and detain those who pose a real danger to our security.”) those who, as the government argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 2639 (2004), were “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners . . and who engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” (internal quotations omitted) .

And based on the AUMF’s reference to those who attacked us on 9/11, Robertson ruled that a suspicion that Salahi might one day return to al Qaeda–even if he had not been part of al Qaeda in 2001 when it attacked the US and had not taken up hostilities against the US–was not enough to detain him indefinitely.

The government’s problem is that its proof that Salahi gave material support to terrorists is so attenuated, or so tainted by coercion and mistreatment, or so classified, that it cannot support a successful criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the government wants to hold Salahi indefinitely, because of its concern that he might renew his oath to al-Qaida and become a terrorist upon his release. That concern may indeed be well-founded. Salahi fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan (twenty years ago) , associated with at least a half-dozen known al-Qaida members and terrorists, and somehow found and lived among or with al-Qaida cell members in Montreal. But a habeas court may not permit a man to be held indefinitely upon suspicion, or because of the government’s prediction that he may do unlawful acts in the future -any more than a habeas court may rely upon its prediction that a man will not be dangerous in the future and order his release if he was lawfully detained in the first place. The question, upon which the government had the burden of proof, was whether, at the time of his capture, Salahi was a “part of” al-Qaida. On the record before me, I cannot find that he was. [emphasis original]

And of course, given that both sides admit much of the evidence is inadmissible because it was coerced, this raises questions of what happens to those we’re holding because they incriminated themselves under coercion.