Obama Should Announce Ban On National Security Letters
President Obama is slated to give a momentous speech tomorrow, on the subject of what changes should be made to the National Security Administration and all of the other alphabet-soup agencies which provide intelligence to the federal government. Much attention has been paid to the N.S.A.'s activities, due mostly to the revelations from Edward Snowden. But there's one subject which Obama should address which has been discussed for years -- ending the blatantly unconstitutional practice of issuing "national security letters." Obama should take the opportunity tomorrow to announce he is adopting one of the key recommendations his oversight commission proposed: forcing judicial oversight of national security letters. In plain terms, making them similar to all other search warrants, to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
National security letters are nothing short of an abuse of power. Their use has exploded since 9/11, with the total issued now in the hundreds of thousands. National security letters, for those unaware of their definition, are search warrants issued by the executive branch with no signoff from the judicial branch. The F.B.I. can (and does) write out a letter demanding certain information (from an Internet Service Provider, for instance, or a phone company) be turned over to the government. No judge signs off on the order. They cannot be appealed. In fact, up until very recently, they could not even legally be talked about by the recipient. There was a "gag order" clause in the letter which stated that the letter's mere existence was a national secret which could not be disclosed to anyone, forever.
This, quite obviously, gives law enforcement officers absolute power over searching anything they felt like, in the sacred name of national security. With no legal recourse whatsoever. That is tyrannic power, folks. In fact, historically, it is no different than the abuses of King Louis XVI which led to the French Revolution. Back then, such orders were called lettres de cachet. But no matter what language you use, such non-judicial seizure orders issued on the sole say-so of the executive power are laughably unconstitutional today.
I'm not the only one to make this assertion, either. There have been a number of court cases where federal judges have banned national security letters from being issued, on the grounds that they are indeed blatant affronts to the United States Constitution (the First and Fourth Amendments in particular). The last such judgment was handed down last year, in fact. But somehow, no matter how many times the federal government loses such cases in court, national security letters never seem to quite go away. Just last week, the head of the F.B.I. was arguing against the recommendation that a judge sign off on such search warrants -- which would be a moot point unless the feds were still in the habit of issuing such orders, wouldn't it?
Obama's blue-ribbon commission is right. National security letters are nothing short of an abuse of executive power -- one that the Constitution specifically addresses. There's a reason why the Fourth Amendment exists, to put this another way, and a big part of that reason is to forever ban such abuses of power by the executive branch of the government. If the F.B.I. (or any other federal agency) feels it needs to search any records in any national security case, then they should have to present their case to a judge and get it signed off, just like any other court order. Having this check on executive power is a fundamental part of what this country was founded upon.
President Obama should say so, tomorrow. He should announce he is issuing an executive order (or rule change or whatever else is necessary) stating that national security letters will no longer be issued without the signature of a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (who are cleared to handle such national security issues). Even simpler, Obama should just announce a ban on the use of national security letters altogether, and that in their place the F.B.I. and all other federal agencies will be issuing national security search warrants instead. No congressional action should be necessary to achieve this -- Obama should be able to change this with the stroke of a pen.
I've been calling for the end to national security letters for a long time now, beginning back when George W. Bush was in office. It's not a partisan issue, for me. I don't care who is in the Oval Office, such letters are a plain abuse of power and should not be allowed in the United States of America. President Obama was forced into creating a commission to study intelligence gathering. His commission recommended doing away with non-judicial national security letters. Federal judges have pointed out again and again just how blatantly unconstitutional such power is. So there should be nothing stopping Barack Obama -- a former constitutional professor himself -- from announcing tomorrow that national security letters will now all have to be approved by a judge before they can be issued. It is the right thing to do, and the time to make this change is indeed long overdue.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I agree completely.
Paula -
I'm not exactly holding my breath, but I really hope this happens tomorrow, too.
-CW
It won't happen.
And when it doesn't happen ya'all will still follow Obama.
Ya'all will still support him unequivocally in everything he does.
Ya'all will still completely and utterly defend Obama in everything he does..
I have asked before and never got an answer...
Is there ANYTHING Obama can do that will cause ya'all to cease supporting him??
Do ya'all even HAVE a "red line" when it comes to Obama??
Put another way..
In 2007, what would you have thought if I had laid out all the actions that Obama has taken vis a vis drone usage, domestic surveillance, national security letters, all of it... I laid out ALL of this to ya'all back in 2007 and I told ya'all that you would, unequivocally and without even a whimper of protest support the POTUS who does all of these things and more...
Would you have believed me??
I don't really expect an answer..
Which pretty much IS my answer...
Michale
Put another way...
When Bush was caught doing much watered down versions of these actions, the entire Left screamed "IMPEACH DA WAR CRIMINAL!!" from the highest towers...
Such impeachment of Bush talk even pervaded Weigantia and made for an honorable mention in the vaunted MIDOTW award..
Yet, there is absolutely NO TALK from the Left about impeaching Obama over these actions..
If I recall correctly (and I usually do) ya'all commented time and time again during the Bush years how you simply could NOT understand how anyone could so blindly follow a President, despite CRIMINAL acts being committed. Ya'all simply could not fathom such blind loyalty..
Well, I guess ya'all can fathom it now, eh?
Funny, iddn't it?? :^/
I'm not exactly holding my breath,
I wouldn't.. According to advance reports, Obama is basically going to say, "Yea, these things are bad but they are necessary and they will continue"..
He may commission another panel here or there, but nothing of any consequence is going to change..
And the Left won't say squat and will still blindly follow Obama in all that he does..
Different issue, Same tune...
Party uber alles...
Michale
You know what is so annoying about all this??
Besides my incessant whining, I mean.. :D
It's that, under Bush, the Left had a MORAL argument. They were completely and utterly wrong, but they had a firm and steadfast MORAL argument and I respected that. I disagreed with the argument, felt it was borne of ignorance, but I had absolutely NO REASON to doubt the sincerity of the morality..
Until now..
Moral arguments are absolute. They are not open to interpretation, they are not ambiguous, they are not equivocal, they are not situational, they are not subject to the whim of a political agenda..
Moral arguments are absolute.
Black and White.
Right and Wrong.
Every moral argument the Left has ever had against Bush has been completely and utterly exposed for the creepy underhanded political-agenda-based fraud that it was..
It's so..... so...... disappointing..
Michale
Well, I for one LOVED Obama's speech...
It left intact every single intelligence gathering device..
Speaking as a representative of the intelligence community to Weigantia, I couldn't be happier...
Basically, the message to the American people from the Intelligentsia is this:
We got this. We'll save yer ass whether you like it or not. Calm down. Nothing to see here... Move along... .
I could not be prouder of my POTUS than I am right now... :D
Granted, that doesn't say very much... But, it's the thought that counts... :D
Michale
Pretty much what I expected, so I can't say I'm disappointed.
I seriously doubt either the Congress or the Supreme Court has the stomach to push back in a meaningful way. The historical trend line is pretty clear.
As a nation, we seem content to trade some freedom for for a promise of more security. Sad. That's what I'm feeling.
As a nation, we seem content to trade some freedom for for a promise of more security. Sad.
Apparently, it's one of the VERY few promises that our Government has actually DELIVERED on...
And yea.. I appreciate the irony of ME pointing that out. :D
Michale
TS,
Find an older Samuel L Jackson movie called UNTHINKABLE and watch it...
It will be a real eye opener for you...
Michale
On the plus side...
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921021000393
There ARE aliens among us!!! :D
Michale
Pretty much what I expected, so I can't say I'm disappointed.
I'll say one thing.
Obama owes President Bush a big... a HUGE apology... :D
Michale
LIBERTY AND SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD
Report and Recommendations of
The President’s Review Group on Intelligence
and Communications Technologies
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf
page 58, what I would call the Levi Principle, implemented in the Domestic Security Investigation Guidelines Attorney General Levi issued in 1976.
"the protection of civil liberties demands not only compliance with the Constitution, but also
a restrained use of government power, undertaking what we would describe as a form of risk management."
That's what I was looking for from the President. What I heard was carefully calibrated political triangulation around the core issues.
Michael, Unthinkable is a red herring regarding NSA, it basically casts doubt on the efficacy of torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario.
TS,
I can assure you with complete and utter certainty that torture is 100% effective at what it does..
You need to realize that torture is not about eliciting intel or information. It's only in the movies and on TV that torture is used for that. The intel and the information come later and it is freely and willfully given w/o any coercive means whatsoever..
Torture is wholly and completely about one thing and one thing only.
Co-operation...
That's it.. That is the entire raison d'être behind torture...
Once co-operation is established, that's when the intel flows and flows freely...
Michale
My reasoning for suggesting the movie UNTHINKABLE to you is to get you to understand how things CAN be out there in the real world..
In the real world, you have your CARRIE MOSSes who think it's horrific to torture people.. Who believe that NOTHING justifies torture..
And yet, when you have a nuclear device that is set to detonate and torturing a scumbag terrorist raises the odds of stopping the device......
Well, to a simple knuckle-dragger like me, it's a no-brainer..
The concept of THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS *is* a valid concept in real life...
I would think that you Lefties, of all people, would realize that, since it is now part and parcel to the Democratic Party Platform..
I mean, look at it.. The "ends" was universal healthcare...
The "means" was totally screwing over the American Middle Class....
If that ain't THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, what is???
Michale
The entire commentary here is an abject lesson in The Ends Justifies The Means.....
Michale
M, 13,14,15
reference John McCain, who knows a thing or two about torture.
reference John McCain, who knows a thing or two about torture.
I submit that A> McCain knows about torture as far as the receiving end, which is much MUCH different than on the application end..
And B> What McCain experienced was torture as applied by old school barbarians who are like the villains that the Left assumes ALL people who apply coercive interrogations are..
I can say with complete and utter conviction that comparing techniques used in McCain's military days to what we have in the here and now is like comparing a musket weapon of the Revolutionary War er to the Laser/Rail guns of the US Navy in the here and now...
We're a lot more... er.. civilized about it today.. :D
As I mentioned above, back then it was all about extracting information..
These days, that is secondary, albeit still the ultimate goal..
Michale
M-
You have introduced a frame shift from torture to coercion. Torture is a form of coercion, but there is no universal agreement of the boundary between the two.
As a practical matter, are you advocating use of "extreme" techniques that violate US law or US treaty obligations? Techniques that cause permanent physical or mental damage to the subject of interrogation?
Technology of warfare changes fairly rapidly, but the basic principles of effective war making do not. Same with interrogation. The old Wizard of Id comic strips pretty much cover all the basics.
I hear your assurances, but what scientific evidence exists that torture produces better intelligence than less extreme forms of coercion? You can make a pretty good case that it produces worse intelligence, by decreasing the signal to noise ratio.
I have a problem with faith based approaches to anything. If we are going to disavow US law and US treaty obligations, shouldn't we have a lot of evidence that there is a big payoff?
M-
Anyhow, we have gotten far off topic. NSA gathers electronic signals, it isn't torturing anybody.
As a practical matter, are you advocating use of "extreme" techniques that violate US law or US treaty obligations? Techniques that cause permanent physical or mental damage to the subject of interrogation?
Permanent??
Naaw.. :D
There is no treaty or US law that prevents inflicting damage on terrorists to prevent further terrorist attacks, so we're good there...
Technology of warfare changes fairly rapidly, but the basic principles of effective war making do not. Same with interrogation. The old Wizard of Id comic strips pretty much cover all the basics.
Now, you have switched tracks..
We're not taking conventional warfare...
We're talking counter-terrorism...
I hear your assurances, but what scientific evidence exists that torture produces better intelligence than less extreme forms of coercion?
Nothing succeeds like success...
I can point to many operations (Bin Laden takedown anyone??) that were the direct result of torturing terrorists.. Of course, such evidence was immediately back-tracked on by the current administration to appease the bleeding hearts..
I would also point to the fact that there has never been a successful terrorist attack on US proper since 9/11...
Such an outstanding success ratio doesn't happen just by being lucky...
You can make a pretty good case that it produces worse intelligence, by decreasing the signal to noise ratio.
To the un-trained, perhaps..
A well-trained interrogator can learn to disregard the chaff... As I said, today's interrogation techniques are not about gleaning intel.. The "ticking time bomb" scenario, while great fun on TV and in the movies, rarely happens in real life...
Today's interrogators are after co-operation.. Once that is obtained, the intel flows freely and willingly..
Anyhow, we have gotten far off topic.
I was just demonstrating how a good interrogator obtains co-operation... :D
Michale