Friday, February 01, 2008

Background: FISA in Historic Context

The purpose of this document is to provide you with historical context for the current fight over FISA, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 which is scheduled for a vote on Monday, February 4, 2008


Early American History of Civil Rights 1600 - 1875

1644 – Common Law
1760 – Writs of Assistance
February 1761 – James Otis’ Speech on Writs of Assistance
November 2, 1765 - Entick v. Carrington
1791 – The Bill of Rights
April 6, 1875 – Telephone Patented

20th Century Law on Wiretapping

June 4, 1928 - Olmstead v. United States
June 19, 1934 – Federal Communication Act of 1934
December 20, 1937 – Nardone v. United States
December 11, 1939 – Nardone v. United States
June 12, 1967 - Berger v. New York
December 18, 1967 – Katz v. United States
June 19, 1968 - Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
January 1970 – The US Government Spies on US Citizens
June 5, 1970 – The Huston Plan
June 17, 1972 – Watergate Break-in
May 9, 1973 – The Family Jewels
May 17, 1973 – Watergate Hearings
August 9, 1974 – Nixon Resigns
December 22, 1974 – “Family Jewels” Becomes Public
1975 – The Church Committee
1978 – Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
June 20, 1979 - Smith v. Maryland
October 21, 1986 - Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

21st Century – A struggle between Security and Civil Liberties

September 11, 2001 – America becomes afraid
September 14, 2001 – Authorization for Authorization for Use of Military Force
October 26, 2001 – USA PATRIOT Act
Early 2002 – Warrantless Wiretaps by the NSA
March 10, 2004 – Late Night Hospital Visit
December 16, 2005 – NY Times article reveals NSA spying
March 9, 2006 – Republican Congress Renews USA PATRIOT Act
August 5, 2007 –Protect America Act
September 27, 2007, Mayfield v. United States
February 4, 2008 – Senate set to Vote on S.2248


1644 – Sir Edward Coke and Common Law

Before there was a United States, and before there was a US Constitution, there was the Common Law. To this day the Supreme Court will refer back to the Common Law in setting a precedent. The greatest authority on Common Law was Sir Edward Coke (pronounced Cook). Coke’s writings were seen as the final authority on Common law for over 300 years.

In The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Coke had something significant to say on the subject of domestic spying. He said “For a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium; for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house?

Top

1760 – Writs of Assistance

In 1760, King George allowed customs officials to search anywhere at any time by using “writs of assistance,” or non-specific warrants. This behavior was such an affront to the American Colonists that they later referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, justifying the Colonists’ desire to become self-governed.

Top

February 1761 – James Otis’ Speech on Writs of Assistance

James Otis was a firebrand of the American Revolution. He was a pamphleteer and orator. In 1761 he gave a public address on the Writs of Assistance. Echoing Sir Edward Coke’s words, James Otis declared:

“A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire.”

Top

November 2, 1765 - Entick v. Carrington

Entick is one of the seminal rulings of common law, establishing the right of a person to be safe in his or her home. In his ruling, Lord Camden wrote:

“By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.”

In short, an individual may do anything they please within their home as long as they do not violate the law. The ruling also limits the rights of the government to take action against an individual unless that action is specifically codified by law.

Top

1791 – The Bill of Rights

In 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified, which included the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment is usually seen as containing two clauses:

1. The first clause provides protection from “unreasonable searches and seizure.”
2. Second clause governs the use of warrants.
a) Upon Probable Cause
b) Issued by independent court (supported by oath or affirmation)
c) Particularly describing the items sought (no fishing expeditions)

Top

April 6, 1875 – Telephone Patented

Though Antonio Meucci had applied for a patent in 1871, Alexander Graham Bell was eventually granted the patent for the telephone. Almost as quickly as there was a telephone, there was wiretapping.

Top

20th Century


June 4, 1928 - Olmstead v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled that a wiretap did not infringe on the Fourth Amendment since the Fourth Amendment does not apply to conversations, but instead only applies to a person’s physical property. This case was reversed by Katz v. United States in 1967.

Top

June 19, 1934 – Federal Communication Act of 1934

The first federal regulation that dealt with wiretapping was The Federal Communications Act of 1934. In part, it stated that “…no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communications to any person.”

Top

December 20, 1937 – Nardone v. United States

In Nardone (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Communications Act of 1934 meant that “evidence obtained by federal agents by tapping telephone wires and intercepting messages is not admissible in a criminal trial in the federal district court.”

Top

December 11, 1939 – Nardone v. United States

In the 1937 case, the court ruled on whether or not evidence obtained through a warrantless wiretap could be submitted as evidence. In Nardone (1939) the issue was whether Nardone's lawyer should have been allowed to question the prosecution on whether it had used information obtained in the wiretap.

The Court ruled that, once a defendant has established that evidence was illegally seized, the court "must give opportunity, however closely confined, to the accused to prove that a substantial portion of the case against him was a fruit of the poisonous tree."

This established the doctrine of “fruit of a poisonous tree,” which says in essence that evidence obtained through any illegal means, including warrantless wiretapping cannot be used to obtain a conviction.

Top

June 12, 1967 - Berger v. New York

In Berger, the Supreme Court affirmed that "conversation" was within the Fourth Amendment's protections, and that the use of electronic devices to capture it was a "search" within the meaning of the Amendment.

The court provided the following seven guidelines for wiretapping:
There must be probable cause to believe that a particular offense has been or is being committed.
The conversations to be intercepted must be particularly described in a warrant.
The surveillance must be for a specific, limited period of time.
If the warrant is to be renewed, continuing probable cause must be shown.
Surveillance must terminate once the conversation sought has been seized.
Notice must be provided unless a factual showing of exigency is made.
A return must be made on the warrant so the court may supervise and restrict the use of the seized conversations.

Top

December 18, 1967 – Katz v. United States

Following on the heels of Berger v. New York, this case reversed the court’s earlier opinion in Olmstead v. United States that the Fourth Amendment only applies to property searches. In the majority opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote a concurring opinion wherein he introduced the idea of a “reasonable” expectation of Fourth Amendment protection. This doctrine of a reasonable expectation of privacy was later affirmed through rulings such as Rakas v. Illinois in which the court used the phrase “legitimate expectation of privacy.”

Top

June 19, 1968 - Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the first bill since the Federal Communications Act of 1934 to attempt to clarify rules around wiretapping. Title III, known as The Wiretap Act states in part:

“To safeguard the privacy of innocent persons, the interception of wire or oral communications where none of the parties to the communication has consented to the interception should be allowed only when authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction and should remain under the control and supervision of the authorizing court.”

The law goes on to define the major crimes under which a wiretap may be authorized and the procedure for obtaining a warrant for a wiretap.

The law gives the President exemptions to protect the national security:

· “…to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the Nation against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, or to protect national security information against foreign intelligence activities…”
· “…to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.”

Top

January 1970 – The US Government Spies on US Citizens

In January, 1970 Washington Monthly published an article titled “CONUS Intelligence: The Army Watches Civilian Politics.” In the article, Christopher H. Pyle set off a firestorm when he reported “nearly 1,000 plainclothes Army investigators keep track of civilian political activity across the country...” This revelation, along with the Watergate scandal would eventually spark the formation of the Church Committee.

Top

June 5, 1970 – The Huston Plan

President Richard Nixon asked for a plan for obtaining better information on domestic dissenters, and asked the intelligence community to determine whether US citizens were subject to foreign influence.

A Whitehouse Aid named Tom Charles Huston put together a plan to spy on those Nixon arbitrarily labeled “dissidents.” It was called the Huston Plan. Huston had been assigned as White House liaison to the Interagency Committee on Intelligence (ICI), which was chaired by none other than J. Edgar Hoover. The plan included burglary, illegal electronic surveillance and opening the mail of “dissidents.” Some of the so-called dissidents included Martin Luther King, Jr., Eldridge Cleaver, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and anti-war protesters.

Top

June 17, 1972 – Watergate Break-in

Five men are arrested after breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel complex in Washington, D.C. At the time they were arrested they were setting up a warrantless wiretap on Larry O'Brien, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Top

May 9, 1973 – The Family Jewels

CIA Director James R. Schlesinger signed a directive asking for a complete accounting of activities that fell outside of the CIA’s charter. The resulting report, called the Family Jewels is a treasure trove of sins on the part of the CIA, including wiretapping. You can read a six page summary of the Family Jewels here.

Top

May 17, 1973 – Watergate Hearings

Televised hearings on the Watergate break-in begin. The public is outraged as the details of warrantless wiretapping come out.

Top

August 9, 1974 – Nixon Resigns

Ten days after being forced to provide tape recordings that clearly showed that Nixon had ordered the warrantless wiretaps; Nixon was forced to resign in shame. After being sworn in, Gerald Ford said “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.”

Top

December 22, 1974 – “Family Jewels” Becomes Public

Seymour Hersh published an article in the New York Times detailing CIA spying on Americans during Nixon years. The article titled “Huge CIA Operation Reported in US Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years,” reveals some of the details of the CIA Family Jewels report. The article detailed how the CIA had illegally spied on Americans.

Top

1975 – The Church Committee

After years of lax oversight, Congress became increasingly concerned about activities by the Intelligence community. Senator Frank Church (D-ID), chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, conducted a series of investigations into the illegal activities by the CIA and FBI. The Church Committee eventually produced 14 reports, the most comprehensive look at the activities of the Intelligence committee.

Top

1978 – Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

In the wake of the Watergate scandal and the findings of the Church Committee, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA in 1978. This act restricts the right of the intelligence agencies to intercept communication that involves US Citizens or long-term residents of the US. The law requires the Attorney General to go before a special FISA court to obtain a warrant for foreign surveillance in which one of the parties is a US Citizen.

Hardly draconian, the law offered several exceptions, allowing for much leeway for the Intelligence community. The law allowed a 15-day grace period for warrantless wiretapping during times of war. Wiretap warrants could even be obtained retroactively, after the fact, should a crisis occur.

Top

June 20, 1979 - Smith v. Maryland

Without a warrant, the police installed a pen register to record the phone numbers dialed from a suspects’ house. The court ruled that an individual should not have a reasonable expectation that the numbers that he or she dials are private. This was changed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.

Top

October 21, 1986 - Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 expands on the Wiretap Act in five significant ways:

It broadens the scope of privileged communications to include all forms of electronic transmissions, including video, text, audio, and data.
It eliminates the requirement that communications be transmitted via common carrier to receive legal protection.
It maintains restrictions on the interception of messages in transmission and adds a prohibition on access to stored electronic communications.
It responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. Maryland that telephone toll records are not private and restricts law enforcement access to transactional information pertaining to users of electronic communication services.
It broadens the reach of the Wiretap Act by restricting both government and private access to communications.

Top

21st Century


September 11, 2001 – America becomes afraid

With the horrific events of September 11, 2001, America suddenly becomes afraid and demands protection. Public opinion suddenly shifts toward security and away from civil liberties.

Top

September 14, 2001 – Authorization for Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

In a show of bipartisan cooperation after September 11, Congress quickly passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. It says the following:

“That 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.”

In later public comment, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez claimed that the AUMF was the legal basis for warrantless wiretapping.

Top

October 26, 2001 – USA PATRIOT Act

Not learning their lessons from history, the American people demand protection, even if it cost them their civil liberties. Congress obliged. Hardly a whimper of dissent is heard from any politician or mainstream media outlet as Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Key provisions of the act are set to expire, but are renewed in 2006.

Top

Early 2002 – Warrantless Wiretaps by the NSA

George W. Bush illegally authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without a warrant, in clear violation of FISA.

Top

March 10, 2004 – Late Night Hospital Visit

According to testimony by James B. Comey, a senior official at the Justice Department, on March 10, 2004 Alberto Gonzales, who was then White House Counsel went to the hospital bed of critically ill John Ashcroft, who was then Attorney General, to try to persuade him to sign an order extending the warrantless spying program. Ashcroft, who in fact had transferred his powers to Comey, refused to do so. On March 11, 2004 the program was reauthorized without consent from the Justice Department.

Top

December 16, 2005 – NY Times article reveals NSA spying

The New York Times revealed the existence of the warrantless spying program. This is quickly followed by several other revelations including the existence of a massive database of American phone calls.

Top

March 9, 2006 – Republican Congress Renews USA PATRIOT Act

For a complete discussion on the renewal of the USA Patriot act, go here.

Top

August 5, 2007 – Protect America Act

Caving to political fear-mongering, Congress passed the Protect America Act, which allows for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without court order or meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts. Fortunately, the act was set to expire in six months. As of February, 2008, the renewal is being argued in Congress. For a good overview of the Protect America Act, go here. For a running conversation on the topic, go here.

Top

September 27, 2007, Mayfield v. United States

As would be expected, the FBI, given the broad powers of the USA PATRIOT Act, eventually abused the power in the case of Brandon Mayfield. When the case went to trial, key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were found to be unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken. The case is currently under appeal.

Top

February 4, 2008 – Senate set to Vote on S.2248

Congress has continued to let the NSA spy without warrants and is considering letting the telephone companies off the hook for spying on Americans illegally. The FISA Amendments Act of 2007 is scheduled for a vote on Monday, February 4, 2008.

Top

RETURN TO RFDBLOG.COM

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 28, 2008

Background on the FISA Debate: Bush Broke the Law

President George W. Bush violated the US Constitution and the law when he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans. Three principles are enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.
  1. A person’s home is his/her sanctuary.
  2. Citizens are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.
  3. The warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause.

President Bush also violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I will begin at the roots of US law showing that authorizing warrantless surveillance of US Citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. I will then show how FISA came about and how the Bush Administration violated this law.

What is the controversy? Since 2001 the Bush Administration has allowed the NSA to read emails, listen to telephone conversations, (Lacayo, 2006) and capture data about incoming/outgoing phone calls of tens of millions of American Citizens (Cauley, 2006). The fact that the NSA spied on Americans without first obtaining a warrant is without dispute (Risen, 2005). This has been widely reported and has been acknowledged by President Bush (Sanger, 2005). The Bush Administration argues that this authority was specifically given to the president in Article II of the US Constitution and in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on September 18, 2001 (Gonzalez, 2006, January 16).

The American legal system owes its roots to the Common Law, a set of laws based, not on statute but on precedent (Wikipedia.org, Common Law, 2006). To this date, the Supreme Court will acknowledge the precedent of the common law in writing its opinions. Sir Edward Coke’s writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for over 300 years. (Wikipedia.org, Sir Edward Coke, 2006) In 1628 Sir Coke wrote “A man's house is his castle – et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium.” The Latin phrase means "And where shall a man be safe if it be not in his own house?” The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were keenly aware of Coke’s writings and echoed his language. For example they borrowed the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of [property] happiness” directly from Coke.

During the 1700’s, King George allowed customs officials to search anywhere at any time by using “writs of assistance,” (U-S-History.com, Writs of Assistance, 2006) or non-specific warrants. This behavior was such an affront to the American Colonists that they later referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, justifying the Colonists’ desire to become self-governed.

In 1761, James Otis referred back to the writings of Coke when he argued in court against the writs of assistance. He said:


“A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire” (U-S-History.com, James Otis, 2006).

The Common Law concept of a person’s home as his or her sanctuary was clearly on the Founding Fathers’ minds when they included the fourth amendment to the constitution.


“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Supreme Court several times has affirmed the need for an independent court to issue warrants, maintaining a separation of power. For example, in Trupiano vs. United States, 334 U.S. 699, the Supreme Court wrote, “It is a cardinal rule that, in seizing goods and articles, law enforcement agents must secure and use search warrants wherever reasonably practicable…This rule rests upon the desirability of having magistrates rather than police officers determine when searches and seizures are permissible and what limitations should be placed upon such activities.”

These important principles - that a person’s home is his/her sanctuary, that they are safe from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant and that the warrant must be provided by an independent court upon probable cause – went undisputed for generations. The importance of these principles was again affirmed in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration.

In the early 1970’s, under direction from the Nixon Administration, the FBI and other governmental agencies were used to spy on those whom Nixon chose to label as “dissidents.” Some of those dissidents included Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Eldridge Cleaver, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and anti-war protesters. Years later, in an interview with television personality David Frost, Nixon responded to a series of questions (LandmarkCases.org, 2006):



FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan [which included warrantless wiretapping] or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.


NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.


This interview was later included in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This evidence was used in writing the law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This act restricts the right of the intelligence agencies to intercept communication that involves US Citizens or long-term residents of the US. The law requires the Attorney General to go before a special FISA court to obtain a warrant for foreign surveillance in which one of the parties is a US Citizen. There are also exceptions built into the law, allowing a 15-day grace period for warrantless wiretapping during times of war and providing for retroactive warrants (FISA, 1978).

How difficult was it to obtain a warrant using the FISA process? According to The Crisis, the official publication of the NAACP (Gaines, 2006), “From 1979 to 2004, FISA denied only four of the government's applications for surveillance while approving 18,727 requests…The four rejections occurred in 2003.”

It was in the days following September 11th that President Bush ordered spy agencies, including the NSA to begin surveillance activities that included US Citizens. Despite a clear mandate from the Constitution and from FISA to first obtain a warrant, the president decided that he had the authority to ignore the requirement and to “use all necessary and appropriate force.”

The warrantless surveillance program remained a secret from the public until December 16, 2005. The New York Times knew about the spying program for more than a year, but had delayed publication of the article upon request from the Bush Administration.

Like the Nixon Administration before it, the Bush Administration has justified its actions by arbitrarily assigning people labels. Nixon arbitrarily labeled US Citizens as “dissidents.” The Bush Administration has branded people as “persons of interest,” “terrorists” or “enemy combatants.” Among some of the groups targeted by the Bush Administration are Greenpeace; Food Not Bombs; Code Pink, an international women's peace organization; and the Rhode-Island based Community Coalition for Peace (ACLU, 2006a).

In summary, the roots of American law have long established the rights to privacy and protection within one’s home and possessions. This principle was enshrined in the fourth amendment to the US Constitution. This right to protection from search and seizure was further clarified by Congress in the wake of the scandals of the Nixon Administration and set into statute under FISA. None of this has stopped the Bush Administration from flagrantly violating the law in its “war on terror.” By ignoring the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, the Bush Administration has brought us to another constitutional crisis. How this will end is up to the Courts, to Congress and to us, the citizens of the United States who hold those elected officials accountable.

References:

ACLU (2006a). FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peaceful, Faith-Based Protest Group, retrieved May 14, 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/25442prs20060504.html

ACLU (2006b). National Security Letters Gag Patriot Act Debate, retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html

ACLU (2006c). Presidential Powers, NSA Spying, and the War on Terrorism: Americans’ Attitudes on Recent Events, retrieved on May 28, 2006 from http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file966_24263.pdf

Bartels, L. (1993, June) Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. American Political Science Review 87(2) pp. 267-285

Brief of Amici Curiae, Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union

Cauley, L. (2006, May 11). NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls. USA Today, p. 1A, 5A

Cole, D. (2006, February 20). NSA Spying Myths, Nation, 282(7), pp. 5 – 7

Editorial (2005, January 26). The Wrong Attorney General, New York Times, 154(53106), p. A16

Editorial:(2006, 12 March). Domestic Spying Powers: Show some spine Congress. Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA)

Egelko B. (2006, April 8). Court filings may reveal role of AT&T in federal Net spying. San Francisco Chronicle (CA). p. A5

Eggen, D. (2004, August 20). U.S. Uses Secret Evidence In Secrecy Fight With ACLU. Washington Post, p. A17

Gaines, P. (2006 March/April). Surveillance: Bush's Spies, Hoover's Ghost. The Crisis. pp.12 – 15

Gellman, B. (2005, November 6). The FBI’s Secret Scrutiny. Washing Post, p. A01

Gonzalez, A. (2006, January 16) Letter from the Office of the Attorney General to Senator Bill Frist, dated 16 January 2006, retrieved 20 April 2006 from http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/doj011906.pdf

Gonzalez, A. (2006, February 6). United States Attorney General, US Department of Justice FDCH Congressional Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, NSA and Domestic Spying, 02/06/2006

Hirsch, E., Kett, J., and Trefil, J. (Eds.) (2002), The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Jaeger, P. & Bertot, J. & McClure, C. (2003). The impact of the USA Patriot Act on collection and analysis of personal information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Government Information Quarterly 20, pp. 295 – 314

Kelly, B. (2003). Worth Repeating: More Than 5,000 Classic and Contemporary Quotes. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional

Lacayo, R., et al (2006, January 9). Has Bush Gone Too Far? Time, Vol. 167 Issue 2, pp. 24-32

LandmarkCases.org article on David Frost interview of Richard Nixon, retrieved May 1, 2006 from http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

Lyon, B., Secret Evidence, retrieved May 13, 2006 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20000621_lyon.html

McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1972 Summer). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2) pp. 176-187

Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de (2002). The Spirit of Laws, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books

PBS (2006, May 11). NSA Program Revealed, retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/jan-june06/nsa_5-11.html

Priest, D. (2006, May 13). Secrecy Privilege Invoked in Fighting Ex-Detainee's Lawsuit. Washington Post, p. A03

Q&A: The NSA's Domestic Eavesdropping Program. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5187738

Risen, J. & Lichtblau E. (2005, December 16) Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. New York Times p. A1

Rudalevige A. (2005). The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sanger, D. (2005, December 18). In address, Bush says he ordered domestic spying. New York Times, p. 1

Savage, C. (2006, April 30). Bush challenges hundreds of laws. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Savage, C. (2006, May 3). Hearings vowed on Bush’s Power. Boston Globe, Retrieved May 6, 2006 from http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/05/03/hearing_vowed_on_bushs_powers/

Schlesinger, A. (2004 Reprint edition). The Imperial Presidency. Boston: Mariner Books.

Testimony before congress. Retrieved May 4, 2006 from http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju20875.000/hju20875_1.HTM

U-S-History.com article on Writs of Assistance, retrieved on May 2, 2006 from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1205.html

U-S-History.com article on James Otis, retrieved May 2, 2006 from http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1204.html

FISA (1978), US Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I – Electronic Surveillance, retrieved April 30, 2006 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

White, J. (2005, December 23). Unable to End 'Unlawful' Detention, Judge Says. Washington Post p. A04

Wikipedia.org article on Common Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Wikipedia.org, article on Natural Law, retrieved on May 13, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Wikipedia.org article on Sir Edward Coke, retrieved May 3, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edward_Coke

Wikipedia.org, Transparency (humanities), retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28humanities%29

Wikipedia.org, USA PATRIOT Act, retrieved May 16, 2006 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Now is OUR Time

NOW is the time to make a difference, and YOU are the one to do it. Our children are watching what we do. What legacy are you going to leave them? The writers of the history books will look at this time and report on what the American people did. How will history treat you?

Why Now?

Let’s think about this moment in the context of history:


  • Our government holds prisoners without charge for years at a time.
  • The gap between the rich and poor widens every day.
  • The government searches our private information without a warrant.
  • The earth warms, the ice melts and our lives hang in the balance.
  • The Bush-Cheney Whitehouse authorizes the torture of prisoners – and then orders the destruction of evidence.
  • We are fighting a war based on intelligence failures, enmeshing us in a civil war.


If you’ve listened to Barack Obama speak more than once, you’ve probably heard him quote Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., using the phrase “the fierce urgency of now.” Have you ever wondered about the context of that phrase? You can read the entire speech here, but if you don’t want to plow through the entire speech, then at least read this one paragraph:

“We are now faced with the fact, my friends that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, ‘Too late.’ There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: ‘The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on.’”

- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., "Beyond Vietnam," address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church, New York, NY, 4 April 1967. You can hear an audio recording of the entire speech here.

As Barack Obama said at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner,

“I am running in this race because of what Dr. King called ‘the fierce urgency of now.’ Because I believe there is such a thing as being too late – and that hour is almost upon us. America, our moment is now.”

This is the time, and you are the key.

It’s About You

Not only is this the time, but you are the one to make a difference. This is the chance to change the conversation – to take back our country from the special interest groups. This is our chance to win, but it is up to us.

If you want to understand your role in healing our nation, watch this video. Here is Barack Obama on February 11, 2007, in his own words, telling us what it is that he is trying to do. He says:

“I want to win, but I don’t just want to win. I want to transform this country. And the only way we are going to do this is if YOU make this a vehicle for your hopes and dreams.”

“Ultimately, the country changes when millions of people come together and their voices speak out on behalf of change.”

“When ordinary citizens are awakened, they accomplish extraordinary things.”

Do you get it? This race isn’t about Barack Obama. This race is about us – We the People. This is our chance to rise up and to be heard. The time is now, the place is here and the person to make a difference is you.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,