FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

New Anti-Terrorism Law Poses Old Risks

by Peter Swire

The Uniting and Strengthening America Act of 2001, expected to be signed by President Bush this week, will give our government important new surveillance powers to fight terrorism.

Unfortunately, the USA Act does not make sure that these expanded powers won’t be abused. While it sharply expands how government can wiretap e-mails and Web surfing, it provides no remedy if officials exceed that authority. It also breaks down the wall that once separated foreign intelligence-gathering from domestic law enforcement, without creating new safeguards to replace those it removes.

On the wiretap side, the act permits law enforcement to camp at a phone company or Internet service provider and monitor a wide range of communications as they flow through the network. The “computer trespasser” provision, as it’s called, is intended to let phone companies and Internet providers bring police into their systems to look for unauthorized usage.

The idea has a core of good sense. System owners should be able to ask for help from the police when they expect a hacker attack. The question is how well the new law has been written. The Bush administration proposed the “computer trespasser” language just four days after the attack on the World Trade Center. There was never a single hearing in Congress on the idea.

Law enforcement abuses feared

One worry with this new law is that a company might “invite” the police to stay based on undue pressure from law enforcement. Another worry is that the police might intentionally exceed their authority. Under the long-standing rule covering telephone wiretaps, law enforcement is forbidden from using wrongfully obtained evidence in court. But that rule does not apply to information illegally obtained by police from wiretaps of e-mail and Web surfing.

Last year, the Clinton administration proposed that intercepted e-mails be treated the same as intercepted phone calls. As the House Judiciary Committee debated the wiretap proposal this month, it agreed that illegal e-mail wiretaps should not be used in court. It made sure that law enforcement would have to report on how often it was using the expanded powers. The House also created a $10,000 fine against the government for illegal Internet wiretaps. None of these desirable safeguards made it into the final USA Act.

In a second big change, the USA Act integrates foreign intelligence-gathering and law enforcement in ways forbidden since the 1970s. Congress separated the two functions after discovering numerous abuses of the power, from clandestine spying here in the United States by the CIA to criminal prosecutions based on evidence obtained overseas by means that would be illegal under the Constitution.

Security forces work together

To stop those abuses, Congress enacted strict rules preventing the CIA and other intelligence agencies operating overseas from sharing information with domestic law-enforcement agencies. Those rules are outdated in the face of the current threat. In the recent words of one senior FBI official, “The walls are all down now.”

In the wake of Sept. 11, new integrated command centers house officials from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Customs Service, and so on.

The USA Act furthers this trend. It specifically provides that secret grand jury testimony, historically used only for law enforcement within the United States, can now be shared with intelligence agencies without getting permission from a judge, or even noting the fact that the information has been shared.

Similarly, the act allows information gathered from secret wiretaps on foreign agents to go directly to law enforcement officials. Defendants no longer have to be informed that the wiretap occurred, as previous law required. From now on, it will be easier for the government to conduct “foreign intelligence” wiretaps and use information from those wiretaps without ever revealing their existence.

Again, the logic for these changes is clear. Terrorists clearly operate both in the United States and overseas. Communications on the Internet constantly bounce between different countries. If we leave walls in place between the CIA and the FBI, we prevent our agencies from seeing dangerous patterns and taking needed action.

In summary, there are strong reasons to support new surveillance powers. But we should stay keenly aware that we are repealing safeguards created because of previous abuse. The Framers adopted the Fourth Amendment to make sure that all government searches were reasonable and approved by an independent judge. When Congress revisits the wiretap rules soon, as it inevitably will, it must create new safeguards to match the new surveillance powers our government gained this week.

Peter P. Swire is a visiting professor of law at George Washington University. During the Clinton administration, he chaired a White House Working Group on how to update wiretap laws for the Internet age.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail