Enough Secret Law: Newly Released DOJ Drone Killing Justification Memo... Points To Another Secret Drone Memo

from the sniffing-out-the-truth dept

We already reported on the finally released DOJ legal drone memo that supposedly "justifies" the extrajudicial killing of Americans via drones. However, as we noted, much of it was actually redacted, leaving many of the details and reasons totally secret. Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who helped get this heavily redacted memo released in the first place has written up an analysis which notes how ridiculous the redactions are and the fact that the memo actually points to another secret memo that reveals more details:

In one instance, the long sought-after drone memo references another legal memo that concluded that al-Awlaki's American citizenship did not "preclude the contemplated lethal action." From this reference, we can deduce that the OLC authored a separate drone memo assessing – and dispensing with – the proposition that an American citizen had the right not to be deprived of his life without some form of judicial process. But that earlier memo, treated by the executive branch as binding law, is still secret.

This kind of thing is all too common, but tremendously problematic. For folks actually trying to understand what the law actually is the fact that people have to play this bizarre game of 20 questions, seeking secret laws and interpretations, only to get breadcrumbs pointing to other secret interpretations of the law is just ridiculous. We've complained in the past about the dangers of a secret law, but just the fact that the American public needs to play this stupid game, and the DOJ appears to have broken up the secret interpretations of the law into different sections, making it that much harder to track it all down, raises serious questions about what sort of government we have, and how Americans can be expected to respect, let alone obey, the law when we can't even be told what it is.

Filed Under: doj, drones, extrajudicial killing, foia, olc, secret interpretations, secret laws
Companies: aclu

US Has A 'Secret Exception' To Reasonable Suspicion For Putting People On The No Fly List

from the also-known-as-the-'because-we-wanted-to' dept

Over the past few months, we covered the bizarre trial concerning Rahinah Ibrahim and her attempt to get off the no fly list. In January, there was an indication that the court had ordered her removed from the list, but without details. In February, a redacted version of the ruling revealed that the whole mess was because an FBI agent read the instructions wrong on a form and accidentally placed her on the no fly list, though we noted that some of the redactions were quite odd.

However, earlier this week, the court finally released the unredacted version, and we'll have a few things to say about the choice of redactions in a later post. But first, there were three main "reveals" from the newly unredacted version. The first is that Ibrahim was actually put on multiple lists by mistake (and never for any clear reason) and was actually dropped from the no fly list years ago (though the other lists created the same effective problem in barring her from being allowed to travel to the US). The second is that the US government has a "secret exception" to the requirement that there be "reasonable suspicion" to put someone in various terrorist databases, and that secret exception was later used on Ibrahim. And third, that despite the implications from the redacted versions, the fully unredacted ruling shows that Ibrahim is still likely blocked from coming to the US for separate undisclosed reasons, even though the government fully admits that she is no threat. All of these things were hidden by the redacted version.

Let's start with the first issue -- that Ibrahim was not just on the no fly list, but multiple other lists and databases. This all stemmed (at first) from that initial mistake from FBI Agent Kevin Michael Kelley. The yellow highlighted portions on this form were redacted in the original version, but now they're public: As you can see, Agent Kelley was supposed to be checking which lists NOT to put Ibrahim on, and did the reverse of what he intended to do, meaning that she got placed on both the no fly list and the Interagency Border Information System (IBIS). In the redacted version, all mentions of IBIS were redacted. Note that, from this, Kelley did intend to put her on the Selectee list. Later, an unredacted portion reveals that at the time she was removed from that selectee list, she was added to the lists the US gives to Australia and Canada (TACTICS and TUSCAN -- though no reason for that was ever provided). The court also notes that all the way back in 2006, a government agent requested that Ibrahim be removed from all lists, and she was removed from some, but not the others.

However -- and here's where it gets really sketchy -- the government started putting her back into the terrorist screening database (TSDB). She was added back in 2007... and then removed three months later, for no clear reason. But then, in 2009 she was added back to the TSDB "pursuant to a secret exception to the reasonable suspicion standard." Let's repeat that. In order to be put into the TSDB, the government is required to show a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is a terrorist. However, what this court ruling has revealed is that there is an unexplained secret exception that allows people to be placed on the terrorist screening database even if there's no reasonable suspicion, and the government used that secret exception to put Ibrahim back on the list.

Later in the ruling it notes that the terrorist screening center knows Ibrahim is not a terrorist threat. This line was revealed back in February:

The TSC has determined that Dr. Ibrahim does not currently meet the reasonable suspicion standard for inclusion in the TSDB.

However, the next two sentences were redacted until now:

She, however, remains in the TSDB pursuant to a classified and secret exception to the reasonable suspicion standard. Again, both the reasonable suspicion standard and the secret exception are self-imposed processes and procedures within the Executive Branch.

The ruling also makes it clear that Ibrahim has not been on the actual no fly list (even if she is on other lists) since 2005, and that she should be told this (and, indeed, to comply with the law, the government has now told her solely that she's not on the "no fly" list and hasn't been since 2005). It also tells the government to search for all traces of her being on all such lists and correct all of those that are connected to Agent Kelley's initial mistake. However, it's not at all clear if this applies to the later additions to the TSDB, which was done for this secret and undisclosed exception, and might not be directly because of Agent Kelley's mistake (though, potentially is indirectly because of that). In fact, a different unredacted section now says that the reasons why Ibrahim was denied a visa (which were revealed to the court in a classified manner) were valid, and thus it appears that Ibrahim will still be denied visas in the future (unredacted portions underlined) -- and, indeed, as we explain below that has already happened:

The Court has read the relevant classified information, under seal and ex parte, that led to the visa denials. That classified information, if accurate, warranted denial of the visa under Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). (That information was different from the 2004 mistaken nomination by Agent Kelley.) Therefore, under the state secrets privilege, any challenge to the visa denials in 2009 and 2013 must be denied

Thus, it appears that while Ibrahim has been told she's been taken off the no fly list (and has been for nearly ten years), she's still not going to be able to travel to the US, because she's still in the TSDB for an unrevealed secret reason -- even though everyone admits she's not a threat. And, indeed, Ibrahim tried to apply for a visa to the US on Monday and was denied (with the apparent reason -- if you read between the lines -- being that she is related to someone "engaged in a terrorist activity.")

Either way, what sort of country is this where there's a secret exception to "reasonable suspicion" that will put you on a set of secret lists that get you treated like a terrorist for wanting to travel?

Filed Under: doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, redactions, secret laws, tsdb

DOJ Says Public Has No Right To Know About The Secret Laws The Feds Use To Spy On Us

from the what,-you-want-to-know-that-stuff? dept

So, we were just discussing the insanity of the FISA court (FISC) basically acting as a shadow Supreme Court, making broad rulings in total secrecy that have created a secret body of law that the public is not allowed to know about. Given increasing revelations about these shadow laws, the ACLU and other public interest groups are trying, yet again, to get access to some of these key rulings. All along, they've been extremely careful to note that they're not asking FISC to reveal specific foreign intelligence issues, operations or targets: merely the parts of the rulings that identify what the law is -- i.e., how it's being interpreted by the courts. Because that seems rather fundamental to a functioning democracy.

However, as you might expect, the Justice Department has now hit back with a new filing that says, flat out, the public has no right to know what the secret court is ruling on and how it's codifying secret laws. The argument is, basically, that because FISC rulings have almost always been secret, then it's perfectly reasonable that they're secret. In other words, it's perfectly legal for secret laws to remain secret, because they're secret. Later it also argues that actually revealing the law would be (oooooooh, scary!) dangerous.

Let's make this simple: yes, revealing specific details of various surveillance efforts and targets could create security issues, no doubt. But revealing how a United States' law is interpreted can never by itself create a national security issue. And that's all that's being asked of here. The DOJ is being incredibly dishonest and disingenuous in conflating the two issues, arguing that because the FISC deals with intelligence operations, that its rulings on the interpretation of the law must also be secret. But that's wrong. You can reveal the basic interpretation of the law without revealing the specific intelligence efforts and methods. The only reason to keep the interpretation of the law a secret is because it'll be a huge embarrassment and show widespread abuse.

Filed Under: doj, fisa, fisa court, fisc, nsa, secret laws, surveillance

Senator Russ Feingold Correctly Predicted How The Patriot Act Would Be Abused; Too Bad He Got Voted Out Of Office

from the sad dept

Before there were Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall speaking out against the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act and secret interpretations of the law that take away our civil liberties, there was Senator Russ Feingold -- the only Senator who voted against the Patriot Act at the beginning. At the time, he clearly warned what it would lead to:

One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.

Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.

But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone - perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That's it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

That was in October of 2001. And he was right. And, since the beginning, he was the only Senator who consistently voted against the Patriot Act and various extensions and expansions. And, over the years since then he regularly warned us about secret interpretations of the law, including putting together a hearing more than five years ago on "Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government."

Not only did people fail to take him seriously back then, they voted him out of office in the 2010 "tea party" wave. Considering how many in the Tea Party are now among those most upset about the revelations of NSA surveillance, they might regret that decision... especially since the man they replaced him with, Senator Ron Johnson voted for both the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 and the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2012 which extended the various provisions that we now know were secretly interpreted by the FISA Court to make these surveillance programs "legal."

Feingold is now speaking out about the NSA surveillance, and it's already leading some to suggest he run again for public office.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, politics, russ feingold, secret laws, surveillance

DOJ Trying To Hide Secret Interpretations Of The Law Because You'd All DIE!!!!

from the secret-laws dept

It's kind of sad that anyone could possibly think that it's okay for the government to have secret interpretations of the law in a free and open society. "The law" is more than just the legislation itself, but the collection of caselaw and interpretations, combined with the legislation, that make up the overall "law." If some of those interpretations are kept secret, then how can the public obey the law? The answer is that they can't -- which is why secret interpretations shouldn't be allowed. The Justice Department, however, prefers to keep some things secret, and it's asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the EFF seeking to find out how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is interpreting parts of the FISA Amendments Act, after it was revealed (late on a Friday) that the court found at least one situation in which the feds collected info in violation of the 4th Amendment.

The EFF figured the public should know the details. The DOJ on the other hand... would rather the public stay in the dark. The DOJ actually suggests that merely revealing the fact that they got slapped down by the FISC provides enough "balance."

Last summer, in an effort to strike the right balance between government transparency and the protection of critical intelligence activities, the government declassified four statements concerning its activities pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) Amendments Act of 2008. Not content with that disclosure, Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF” or “Plaintiff”) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request seeking additional information related to two of the declassified statements, specifically, that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) “held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that “on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached th[e ] conclusion” that “the government’s implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law.”

And thus, we should be satisfied with that and want no more. Also, you don't want to know what kind of hell would break loose if the DOJ had to reveal how the law was actually interpreted. I mean, we'd all die or something very close to it, judging by the DOJ's language.

The government has determined that disclosure of the information withheld from Plaintiff could result in exceptionally grave and serious damage to the national security. Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise. The Court accordingly should defer to the government’s determination in this case, uphold the Department’s withholdings, and grant this motion.

Basically, we've determined that you're all better off not knowing this information, and you should trust us because it's not like we have any incentives to lie (though, of course, we do). Also: boo!

Thankfully, more people are realizing just how ridiculous this is. The Washington Post has put out an editorial slamming the DOJ for its position:

Yet, as the amicus brief points out, the OLC’s opinions aren’t some intermediary step toward establishing the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. In general, they are the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. The FBI could choose to exercise the authority that the OLC said it had — or not — but Congress, the judiciary and the public at large all deserve to know what the executive branch thinks it can do, once it issues a conclusive opinion.

In other words, it's not right that the government can determine its own secret interpretations of the law, and it's time for the courts to put a stop to this.

Filed Under: doj, fisa, fisc, secret laws, spying, surveillance
Companies: eff

Senators Tell The Obama Administration To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The Patriot Act

from the and-again-and-again dept

Over the last year or so, we've been covering Senator Ron Wyden's efforts to get Obama administration officials to come public with their secret interpretation of the Patriot Act. Wyden, of course, cannot say how they're interpreting the Patriot Act, though there have been clues, suggesting an extremely broad interpretation, that effectively allows them to spy on Americans, in direct contrast to the way most people (including many in Congress) believe the law allows. In the past, intelligence officials have basically said that they will not reveal how they interpret the Patriot Act because they don't want to, and doing so might reveal some of the details of how they spy on people.

Of course, keeping certain details secret concerning specific operations to monitor threats is reasonable. But a secret interpretation of the law that appears to go against what the law says directly? That's not acceptable. If the government can just make up how it interprets laws, and then keep those interpretations secret, we no longer have representative democracy at all. We have a sham government.

Given all of this, the NY Times and the ACLU sued the government for failing to reveal its interpretation of the law under a Freedom of Information Act. The administration is now seeking to get the two lawsuits dismissed... leading Senators Wyden and Udall to send a rather direct and forceful letter to Attorney General Holder questioning this move. I'll include a bunch of snippets below, but one key bit in this letter, which I believe is new, is the acknowledgement that further information that Wyden and Udall have come across suggest that the secret surveillance operation that makes use of this secret interpretation of the law is not even effective:

We would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly skeptical about the actual value of the "intelligence collection operation" discussed in the Justice Department's recent court filing regarding the pending lawsuits. This has come as a surprise to us, as we were initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about the importance of this "operation" at face value. We will provide more detail about this skepticism in classified correspondence.

That's a pretty pointed claim, and certainly makes clear another reason why the administration is fighting so hard against revealing the secret interpretation. They know that once people find out just how widely they're tracking people under this bogus interpretation of the law, that not only will people be upset about it, but that the administration won't even be able to prove that such efforts did anything to prevent terrorism in the country.

On to some other key parts of the letter:

It is a matter of public record that section 215, which is a public statute, has been the subject of secret legal interpretations. The existences of these interpretations, which are contained in classified opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or "FISA Court") has been acknowledged on multiple occasions by the Justice Department and other executive branch officials.

We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when the public doesn't know what its government thinks the law says.

That seems like quite an understatement. It really makes you wonder what country we live in today. I'm fine with the government keeping certain things secret -- but one thing that it should never keep secret is the law itself. That's not a democracy any more at all, a point made in the letter as well:

In a democratic society -- in which the government derives its power from the consent of the people -- citizens rightly expect that their government will not arbitrarily keep information from them. Americans expect their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly-understood law, and as voters they have a need and a right to now how the law is being interpreted, so that they can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know that their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they don't think that government officials should be writing secret laws.

Later, the letter notes that the administration certainly has been willing to reveal this secret interpretation to some members of Congress (such as the two of them), but it appears that even many members of Congress have no idea how the administration is interpreting the law:

While the executive branch has worked hard to keep the government's official interpretation of the Patriot Act secret from the American public it has, to its credit, provided this information in documents submitted to Congress. However, these documents are so highly classified that most members of Congress do not have any staff who are cleared to read them. As a result, we can say with confidence that most of our colleagues in the House and senate are unfamiliar with these documents, and that many of them would be surprised and angry to learn how the Patriot Act has been interpreted in secret.

Wyden and Udall are equally troubled by the insistence by the administration that it needs to keep its interpretation of these laws secret to prevent adversaries from understanding what's being done. They point out that this is "chilling logic" as it could mean that the government could basically create all sorts of secret intelligence laws:

The crux of the Justice Department's argument for keeping the official interpretation of the law secret is that this secrecy prevents US adversaries from understanding exactly what intelligence agencies are allowed to do. We can see how it might be tempting to latch on to this chilling logic, but we would note that it would then follow that all of America's surveillance laws should be secret, because that would make it even harder to guess how the United States government collects information. For example, when Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ct in 1978 it would have been useful to keep that law secret from the KGB, so that Soviet agents would not know how the FBI was allowed to track them. But American laws should not be made public only when government officials find it convenient. They should be public all the time, and every American should be able to find out what their government thinks those laws mean.

There's a lot more in the full letter, but it's difficult not to be furious about the sense of entitlement the administration has over this. Keeping details of investigations secret is perfectly reasonable. But keeping a secret interpretation of the law secret -- and one that lets them do much greater surveillance than what the law appears to state in plain language, is a significant problem for those who believe in a working democracy and representative government.

Filed Under: eric holder, mark udall, patriot act, ron wyden, secret laws, surveillance
Companies: aclu, ny times

Senate Approves Intelligence Bill, But Extension Of Secret Law Allowing Spying On Americans Cut Back

from the well-that's-good dept

While there's been plenty of (quite important) focus on the National Defense Authorization Act and its ability to detain Americans indefinitely, the Senate also recently passed the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2012, which (as the name implies) authorizes various intelligence activities. One important thing was missing from this bill: a multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act.

As you may recall, earlier this year, the Senate tried to rush through a multi-year renewal of the FISA Amendments Act. The FAA, originally approved in 2008, retroactively made warrantless wiretapping efforts by the US government legal. The supposed intention of the bill was to make it easier to tap foreigners outside the US. However, it appears that the government has interpreted parts of it in ways that go beyond what people might expect, leading to significant surveillance of Americans inside the country. Senator Ron Wyden had sought information on just how many Americans had their communications intercepted under this law and was told it was "not reasonably possible" to answer that question. In response, he put a hold on the bill, and the Senate chose not to fight him on it, choosing not to put such a multi-year extension into the bill -- meaning that the issue will have to be voted on again in 2012. According to Wyden:

“I’m pleased that the final version of the 2012 Intelligence Authorization Act does not include the multi-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act that was included in the Senate version of the bill. I opposed the Senate version of the bill, and I announced a public hold on it, because I believe Congress has an obligation to get more information about the effects of this law before extending it for several more years. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was intended to give the government new authorities to conduct surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, but right now nobody in government knows how many people inside the United States have had their communications collected and reviewed as a result of this law. Congress will inevitably need to debate the reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act at some point during 2012, and when this debate occurs I plan to continue to press for more information about the impact that this law has had on the privacy of law-abiding American citizens.”

Unfortunately, if the past few years have been any indication of how this all works, there will be no significant debate until the deadline is close, and then Senators will demand that everyone quickly reauthorize things or we're all going to die (or some equally horrible scenario). It's the "give us all sorts of extra powers immediately with no real oversight or we're all going to die" form of government that has been so in vogue lately.

Filed Under: fisa amendments act, ron wyden, secret laws, spying