By
Walter Russell Mead
The
American surveillance apparatus has come under more scrutiny than ever before
in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations. On Saturday, the New
York Times expanded on this theme with a new piece arguing that the FISA courts,
which review the constitutionality of the government’s data collection
programs, have effectively become a ”parallel Supreme Court” with little
oversight from the public or the rest of the legal system. The Times
highlights one particularly egregious decision:
The special needs
doctrine was originally established in 1989 by the Supreme Court in a ruling
allowing the drug testing of railway workers, finding that a minimal intrusion
on privacy was justified by the government’s need to combat an overriding
public danger. Applying that concept more broadly, the FISA judges have ruled
that the N.S.A.’s collection and examination of Americans’ communications data
to track possible terrorists does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, the
officials said.
That legal
interpretation is significant, several outside legal experts said, because it
uses a relatively narrow area of the law — used to justify airport screenings,
for instance, or drunken-driving checkpoints — and applies it much more
broadly, in secret, to the wholesale collection of communications in pursuit of
terrorism suspects. “It seems like a legal stretch,” William C. Banks,
a national security law expert at Syracuse University, said in response to a
description of the decision. “It’s another way of tilting the scales toward the
government in its access to all this data.” [...]
Unlike the Supreme
Court, the FISA court hears from only one side in the case — the government —
and its findings are almost never made public. A Court of Review is empaneled to hear appeals,
but that is known to have happened only a handful of times in the court’s
history, and no case has ever been taken to the Supreme Court. In fact, it is
not clear in all circumstances whether Internet and phone companies that are
turning over the reams of data even have the right to appear before the FISA
court.
This
is not exactly an unbiased take, as the experts quoted all seem to agree with
the New York Times editorial board. Over at Outside the Beltway, James
Joyner offers a more favorable view of the FISA courts, noting
that the practice of creating a parallel court system to handle specialized
cases is far from unusual, and that many of the constitutional decisions
criticized by the NYT aren’t particularly surprising:
[T]he notion that the
FISA judges are issuing broad rulings, establishing precedent for types of
operations rather than reviewing individual petitions, is hardly unusual. It is
both a court of original jurisdiction and an appellate court. It stands to
reason that it would over time establish a sort of common law to guide the
decision-makers in the intelligence community as to what sorts of surveillance
it can and cannot conduct.
Finally, it’s worth
noting that the FISA Court is subordinate to the US Supreme Court. To be sure,
given its secretive nature, this is more theoretical than practical. It’s not
obvious to me as a non-lawyer and non-insider who exactly has the standing to
appeal its decisions. But, presumably, members of the Congressional
intelligence oversight committees—the only outsiders with knowledge of the
court’s rulings—who strongly object to decisions they consider overly broad or
in violation of the Constitution could in fact petition for certiorari.
Both
arguments have merit, but regardless of who is right, there does seem to be a
need for some kind of judicial review here. A secret, non-adversarial parallel
legal system that repeatedly disposes of constitutional questions does not look
to us like an adequate system to protect Americans’ rights.
The
security issues are real, and in general we support the kinds of broad metadata
work under consideration. But we don’t trust any set of officials to handle
this indefinitely without adequate judicial oversight and review, and indeed it
would be hostile to the fundamental principles of our political system to do
so. The American constitutional system is based on the idea that you trust your
mother, but you still cut the cards. An adversarial justice system, like the
division of powers, is intended to ensure that every element of the government
is subject to checks and controls.
Congress
needs to revisit this subject, and we would like to see a greater role for the
Supreme Court in reviewing this emerging field of important constitutional law.
Sadly,
the combination of rapidly changing communications technology and an evolving
security threat means that these security questions will be with us for some
time. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that the legal
foundations of these programs be securely grounded in constitutional principles
and that the operation of this system be appropriately overseen.
http://tinyurl.com/mneoj64
No comments:
Post a Comment