Surveillance Without Limit — Part 2

Surveillance Without Limit — Part 2

By Laurence W. Britt A version of this article appeared in the ‘Daily Record’ on August 13, 2008. Both houses of Congress and the President have recently signed off on revisions to the FISA law, which minimally increase oversight but leave under a veil of secrecy all past practices, whether legal or not. Telecommunication companies, that might have been involved in illegal activity, are now immune from civil suits. The suits would have shed a light on what the Bush administration has been up to. According to sworn statements of former telecommunication workers, some of this surveillance activity occurred before 9/11. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously had indicated that he would lead a filibuster to block this FISA revision legislation if it still contained immunity, ultimately voted for the bill. Twenty-three Democratic senators voted against it. Obama apparently calculated that during an election year he did not want to be accused of being “soft on terrorism.” Some of his supporters are very disappointed by his capitulation to realpolitik and hope that if and when he achieves the presidency that remedial actions will be taken. These actions should include a thorough investigation of what has transpired in the past seven years that violate constitutional safeguards. After this has been exposed appropriate legal actions should then be taken and new and constitutional FISA legislation enacted. Convinced that the FISA revision legislation is unconstitutional, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against it. This lawsuit has been joined by a number of other institutions and individuals, such as The Nation magazine, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Global Fund for Women, PEN America Center, International Defense Lawyers Association, Washington Office on Latin America, and the Service Employees Union. Some of the many individuals include writers Naomi Klein, Chris Hedgers and attorneys Scott McKay and David Nevin. Jamaal Jaffer, Director of ACLU’s National Security Project, has said, “The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind.” In the words of Naomi Klein, “As a journalist, my job requires communications with people in all parts of the world – from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. Government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporter’s confidential conversations my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised. Unchecked surveillance is extremely vulnerable to abuse. That abuse can put almost anyone in great jeopardy and I cannot accept that my conversations with foreign nationals will put them at such risk.” World-renowned author Chris Hedges adds, “When privacy and free speech are diminished, our democratic institutions crumble. I believe that the majority of my international communications will be intercepted by the government without any meaningful oversights or checks on that intrusive because of this law. This law is using terrorism as a red herring to permit wholesale spying. It is being used to thwart reporting that shines alight on aspects of U.S. policy that those in power find inconvenient and seek to keep secret. This law removes our constitutional right, indeed our duty, to expose deceit and lies, to inform the American public and to protect democratic dissent. We cannot be paralyzed by fear. We will be stripped, if we do not resist, of our few remaining rights. To resist, while there is still time, is the highest form of patriotism.” The realistic result of this law, if it is to stand, will be to put a heavy cloud over international communications that are entirely legal and appropriate. The journalist’s ability to gather information will be further hindered. The assumption that the government is listening will put a chilling pall over every communication and stifle the frank passing of information of a personal, commercial or technical nature. And to what purpose – some false sense of security for being “tough on terrorism”? Already assuming the capability of American communications monitoring technology, terrorist organizations will simply find other ways to pass critical information between themselves. The potential for abuse of executive power within this legislation cannot be underestimated. The ability to spy with little or no supervision can easily slide from the “war on terror” to snooping on the political opposition. History tells us that unfettered surveillance is one of the most prominent features of totalitarian governments. America must avoid any movement in this direction.