Skip to main content

The flaw in the government's logic on wiretapping

By Jameel Jaffer and Alexander Abdo, Special to CNN
October 29, 2012 -- Updated 1819 GMT (0219 HKT)
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
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1641 GMT (0041 HKT)
Robert Hickey says most new housing development is high-end, catering to high-earners.
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1317 GMT (2117 HKT)
Alexander Motyl says as Russian President Putin snarled at Ukraine, his foreign minister was signing a conciliatory accord with the West. Whatever the game, the accord is a major stand down by Russia
April 23, 2014 -- Updated 1229 GMT (2029 HKT)
Les Abend says at every turn, the stowaway teen defied the odds of discovery and survival. What pilot would have thought to look for a person in the wheel well?
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 2247 GMT (0647 HKT)
Q & A with artist Rachel Sussman on her new book of photographs, "The Oldest Living Things in the World."
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1958 GMT (0358 HKT)
Martin Blaser says the overuse of antibiotics threatens to deplete our bodies of "good" microbes, leaving us vulnerable to an unstoppable plague--an "antibiotic winter"
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1737 GMT (0137 HKT)
John Sutter asks: Is it possible to eat meat in modern-day America and consider yourself an environmentalist without being a hypocrite?
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1538 GMT (2338 HKT)
Sally Kohn notes that Meb Keflezighi rightly was called an American after he won the Boston Marathon, but his status in the U.S. once was questioned
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1256 GMT (2056 HKT)
Denis Hayes and Scott Denman say on this Earth Day, the dawn of the Solar Age is already upon us and the Atomic Age of nuclear power is in decline
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
Retired Coast Guard officer James Loy says a ship captain bears huge responsibility.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1708 GMT (0108 HKT)
Peter Bergen says the latest strikes are part of an aggressive U.S. effort to target militants, including a bomb maker
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1345 GMT (2145 HKT)
Cynthia Lummis and Peter Welch say 16 agencies carry out national intelligence, and their budgets are top secret. We need to know how they are spending our money.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1235 GMT (2035 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says President Obama knows more than anyone that he has much at stake in the midterm elections.
April 22, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Eric Sanderson says if you really want to strike a blow for the environment--and your health--this Earth Day, work to get cars out of cities and create transportation alternatives
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1408 GMT (2208 HKT)
Bruce Barcott looks at the dramatic differences in marijuana laws in Colorado and Louisiana
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 2047 GMT (0447 HKT)
Jim Bell says NASA's latest discovery supports the notion that habitable worlds are probably common in the galaxy.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1817 GMT (0217 HKT)
Jay Parini says even the Gospels skip the actual Resurrection and are sketchy on the appearances that followed.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1752 GMT (0152 HKT)
Graham Allison says if an unchecked and emboldened Russia foments conflict in a nation like Latvia, a NATO member, the West would have to defend it.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1311 GMT (2111 HKT)
John Sutter: Bad news, guys -- the pangolin we adopted is missing.
April 21, 2014 -- Updated 1825 GMT (0225 HKT)
Ben Wildavsky says we need a better way to determine whether colleges are turning out graduates with superior education and abilities.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1026 GMT (1826 HKT)
Charles Maclin, program manager working on the search and recovery of Malaysia Flight 370, explains how it works.
April 18, 2014 -- Updated 1250 GMT (2050 HKT)
Jill Koyama says Michael Bloomberg is right to tackle gun violence, but we need to go beyond piecemeal state legislation.
April 17, 2014 -- Updated 1845 GMT (0245 HKT)
Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts say Americans are ready for sensible gun laws, but politicians are cowed by the NRA. Everytown for Gun Safety will prove the NRA is not that powerful.
ADVERTISEMENT