Board of directors’ retreat
Yüklə 68,91 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- The First Amendment (1791)
- The Fourth Amendment (1791)
- 2. National Security Agency overview 3
- 3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- 4. Edward J. Snowden Profile 19
- Is he a hero, a traitor, or perhaps something in between We leave that to you to decide...
- Profile 1: Representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Profile 2: Concerned Citizen / Academic Professor
- Profile 6: Chairperson of the Senior Select Committee on Intelligence Profile 7: International Investigative Journalist Profile 8: The US Attorney General
- Your priorities are 21
- PROFILE 2: Concerned Citizen / Academic Professor 22
- PROFILE 3: Senior Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 23
- PROFILE 4: U.S. Intelligence Officer
- PROFILE 5: United States Federal Judge
- PROFILE 6: Chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 24
- PROFILE 7: International Investigative Journalist 25
- PROFILE 8: The U.S. Attorney General
- PROFILE 9: Criminal Defendant Accused of Terrorist Activity
 1
EDWARD J. SNOWDEN: HERO OR TRAITOR? 1. The United States Constitution - The Bill of Rights “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~ Benjamin Franklin2
The Snowden Files reveal a number of mass-surveillance programs undertaken by the NSA. The agencies are able to access information stored by major U.S. technology companies – Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Verizon, etc. – often without individual warrants, as well as intercepting mass amounts of data from the fiberoptic cables which make up the backbone of global phone and internet networks. The agencies have also worked to undermine the security standards upon which the internet, commerce, and banking rely. The possibility that the agencies have gone beyond their duties has raised concerns about growing domestic surveillance and possible abuse of U.S. persons’ privacy rights. There are also questions regarding the quality of the laws and government oversight keeping the agencies in check. 3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was created by Congress in response to previous abuses of U.S. persons’ privacy rights (Watergate and beyond) by the United States government. Those abuses had occurred, according to the government, as part of its efforts to counter possible threats to national security.4 Unquestionably, such threats existed in and before FISA; however, they pale in comparison to the threats to national security that the United States currently faces. Those threats bear the face of terrorism, primarily foreign but domestic as well. Though FISA is not a legally usable tool for combating domestic terrorism, its electronic surveillance and physical search authority are legal and very effective methods for monitoring the activities of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers while they operate within the United States. The current objective of such operational activities is to thwart terrorist acts.5 Further legislation expanded federal laws dealing with foreign intelligence gathering to address physical searches, pen registers and trap and trace devices, and access to certain business records. The USA PATRIOT Act of 20016 made significant changes to some of these provisions. Further amendments were included in the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20027, the Homeland Security Act of 20028, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act9, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 200510, and the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.11,12 When a situation occurs that could be international terrorism or espionage, the same factual situation may be the focus of both criminal investigations and foreign intelligence collection efforts. Some of the changes in FISA under these public laws are intended to allow information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence elements. In its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 “wall” between intelligence and law enforcement “has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action within the FBI.”13 Note that the FBI carries the statutory authority for domestic law enforcement and approved surveillance; thus, this “cooperative action” can present interesting legal questions when such information is shared with other intelligence agencies tasked with external monitoring – such as the CIA and U.S. Military. To better understand this dilemma, it is important to consider the U.S. Supreme Court legal philosophy on the relationship between the government’s national security powers, and the privacy interests of U.S. citizens protected by the Fourth Amendment. Investigations for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence have caused concerns about the legitimacy of the Government’s national security interests and the protection of privacy interests. The stage was set for legislation to address these competing concerns in part by Supreme Court decisions on related issues. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Court held that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extended to circumstances involving electronic surveillance of oral communications without physical intrusion. The ultimate test, drawn from Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz, became: 1) The individual must have exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, and 2) That subjective expectation of privacy must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.14 The Katz Court stated, however, that its holding did not extend to cases involving national security.15 In United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (the Keith case), the Court regarded Katz as “implicitly recogniz[ing] that the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards.” Mr. Justice Powell, writing for the Keith Court, framed the matter before the Court as follows: “The issue before us is an important one for the people of our country and their Government. It involves the delicate question of the President’s power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Successive Presidents for more than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees, without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government’s right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen’s right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion.”
The Court held that, in the case of intelligence gathering involving domestic security surveillance, prior judicial approval was required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Justice Powell emphasized that the case before it “require[d] no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without the country.” The Keith decision, coupled with the fallout of the Watergate scandal and other instances of government abuses, prompted Congress to create a clearer policy on foreign surveillance, while also preserving domestic safeguards. With the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)17, Congress sought to strike a delicate balance between these interests when the gathering of foreign intelligence involved the use of electronic surveillance. Collection of foreign intelligence information through electronic surveillance is now governed by FISA and Executive Order 12333, and both have been amended numerous times since their original authorizations, especially since the events of September 11, 2001.18 4. Edward J. Snowden Profile19 On June 9, 2013, 29-year-old Edward Snowden revealed himself as the source of the NSA revelations published that week in the Guardian and the Washington Post, in a video interview with Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, journalists with those respective sources. Snowden, an information technology specialist working for U.S. contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, had left his home in Hawaii for Hong Kong days before, and met with Poitras, Greenwald, and another Guardian journalist, Ewen Macaskill. Saying he wanted to launch a global debate on the limits of NSA surveillance, Snowden said, "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant." It has been speculated that the motivation for the timing of Snowden’s disclosures was based, at least in part, on the testimony of DNI Clapper before Congress. When asked if NSA was collecting bulk intelligence on US citizens, DNI Clapper simply responded “No, Sir.” Despite being offered the opportunity to correct or amend the response on public record, his office declined to correct the statement – even with the threat of penalties for perjury from congressional leadership.20 Snowden had already left the USA for Hong Kong for fear of legal retribution or punishment as a result of his leaks. For several days, he remained in an undisclosed location in Hong Kong. However, just days after the USA issued an international warrant for his arrest on espionage charges, the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks announced Snowden had boarded a flight to Russia, as a stop-off to an undisclosed country in South America. Snowden was expected to board a plane to Cuba the following morning but did not. It was discovered that his temporary travel authorization, issued by an Ecuadorian diplomat, had been revoked. After spending several weeks trapped in a Moscow airport, he was granted one year’s asylum in Russia. He is currently staying at an undisclosed location in the country, much to the distaste of the Obama Administration which would prefer that Mr. Snowden be extradited for prosecution under the Espionage Act. Since his period of asylum in Russia, Snowden has appeared on live-feeds at the 2014 South-by-Southwest Music Festival in Austin, Texas, and in other public forums by video feed. Snowden, who obtained his first job at the NSA as a security guard during his periodic study of computer science at a Maryland community college, moved up through the ranks quickly in both the NSA and the CIA before leaving the government to take a salaried position as an NSA contractor in Oahu, Hawaii. Despite raking in a salary in excess of $200,000 a year, he gave it up to knowingly and purposefully disclose some of our nation’s most well-guarded secrets, and to live his life abroad in indefinite but voluntary exile to evade prosecution. Is he a hero, a traitor, or perhaps something in between? We leave that to you to decide... Find nine profiles of individuals who represent various points of view regarding whether Edward Snowden should be viewed as a traitor or a hero. They include the following: Profile 1: Representative of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Profile 2: Concerned Citizen / Academic Professor Profile 3: Senior Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Profile 4: U.S. Intelligence Officer Profile 5: U.S. Federal Judge Profile 6: Chairperson of the Senior Select Committee on Intelligence Profile 7: International Investigative Journalist Profile 8: The US Attorney General Profile 9: Criminal Defendant Accused of Terrorism PROFILE 1: Representative of American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) You represent one of the most active and vocal “watchdogs” of American civil liberties in the U.S. The ACLU proclaims itself as our nation's “guardian of liberty,” working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. You believe that freedom of speech, association, assembly, press and religion, as well as the right to due process and privacy are fundamental rights of every person in the US and the recognition of them is the pillar upon which our democracy stands. Your priorities are21 - You believe that Snowden’s disclosures show that the U.S. government has gone way beyond what is constitutional in its monitoring and surveillance of its citizens. You see this as a clear violation of the people’s right to privacy – the freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into our personal and private affairs. - As someone who deeply believes that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are a fundamental necessity to the successful functioning of American democracy, you are extremely concerned with the extent of the government’s infringement on the public’s rights. - The Constitution proscribes specific protection against the abuse of government power and you are worried Snowden’s disclosures show that these protections are eroding in their effectiveness. - You believe that Snowden should be lauded for his efforts to bring this unconstitutional infringement on our individual rights to the public spotlight. To you, without Snowden’s disclosures, the adversarial process that keeps the government in check when it abuses individual would be destroyed.
As an accomplished professor of philosophy at a prominent U.S. university, you have studied human rights and political theory extensively, to better understand both the rights of the individual and duties of the government. You see the chief purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens – their lives, liberty, and property – and you oppose any action by the government to act against those rights without the consent of the people. Your Priorities Are - As someone who is deeply concerned with protecting the natural rights of the people, you have been troubled by the recent revelations made in the media about the whole Snowden affair. - You see the disclosures by Snowden as clear evidence of how the government, specifically, the presidencies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have used 9/11 and the fear of another terrorist attack to exert control over the populace and consolidate power. You see this as more evidence of the government’s natural want to extend its own power and reach at the expense of the public. - You see President Obama’s promise to scale back some of the surveillance programs in reaction to the widespread outrage over Snowden’s disclosures as evidence of the necessity of what Snowden did. - You applaud the extreme risk Snowden placed upon himself by revealing what he did to the public. You are a firm believer that such actions by public as necessary to keep the government in check. It is your philosophical belief that the public always retains the right to do what is necessary to protect against the infringement of their natural rights by the government. - Without Snowden’s disclosures, the public discussion on the issues of a government power would be valueless, as the people would have remained unaware of the true scope of government abuses. A democratic society requires openness and transparency to preserve true accountability. - You believe that Snowden cannot, and should not, be punished for his actions. The government must always hear the voice of the people, for if they do not, we will lose the essence of our democratic society – a government by the people, for the people.
As a member of the U.S. Senate you are well aware that Congress carries special duties of checking and advising the executive branch of the government, including advice and consent for the executive’s principal officer appointees, oversight of executive branch intelligence programs, and the authority to conduct investigations into allegations of misconduct. You believe the nation’s biggest challenges can only be solved by what you call “principled bipartisanship,” solutions that allow all parties to stay true to their respective principles and celebrate agreements. For years before Snowden’s leaks, you have been trying to force senior intelligence officials to be more forthcoming about spy programs that gather information on Americans with no ties to terrorism whatsoever. Your Priorities Are - You are less concerned with what should be done with Snowden personally and more concerned with using the information he has revealed to find out more about the exact nature and extent of the surveillance being done by the national security community on the citizens of America. - While you are concerned about national security and protection of American interests at home and abroad, you dislike is the “Culture of Disinformation” you have witnessed grow in prominence within the intelligence community. - As member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the people have entrusted you with oversight of the executive intelligence functions, and you want truthful, honest answers from members of the intelligence community. You see this as necessary component to carrying out your job of analyzing and assessing the effectiveness of our national security programs. - Recently, you have been particularly frustrated with the leadership of the Intelligence Community as a whole. Prior to the Snowden Disclosures, you directly asked DNI Clapper during a legislative hearing whether or not the Intelligence Community was “gathering bulk information on U.S. citizens,” to which he bluntly responded “No, Sir [...] not wittingly.” - Following the Snowden Disclosures, and data on FISA warrants and the PRISM program, you feel betrayed by this blatant lie from the most senior intelligence leadership. You want Congress and your fellow Senators to help solve these issues. - To protect hard-working folks in the intelligence community and ensure informed public debate on national security issues, you want to push to have the controversial anti-leaks provisions removed from the latest intelligence authorization bill. This preserves the proper role of the whistleblower exercising some discretion. - While you do not agree with the manner in which Snowden disclosed the information, you cannot help but admire his efforts to bring these issues to light. You want this topic to be discussed in an open and public forum where the government and its citizens can come to a reasoned decision about how to reconcile the need to protect our national security with the necessity of preserving our natural rights. - You are working with other lawmakers to propose legislation that you believe will restore the proper balance between the constitutional authority of the executive branch to conduct national security surveillance, and the constitutional protections of individual privacy rights. - Rather than permit continued operation in absolute secret, you propose that a “Public Advocate” be appointed to attend sessions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This advocate would in turn provide feedback to the public on what it is doing to protect them, to the extent that they may without endangering sources or unnecessarily releasing classified information. - You believe this legislation will effectively promote and preserve the presumptive warrant requirement, and the finding of particularity to restrict their scope.
You are a career Naval Officer specializing in intelligence. Upon hearing about Snowden’s disclosures, you immediately questioned his motives and began to doubt his credibility. As someone who has been working for years in the intelligence community, you have a hard time reconciling how someone could work in that field and then be so willing to leak information that could ruin everything they and their colleagues have worked for. Your Priorities Are - You see Snowden as a traitor and believe that he should come home and stand trial for his crimes. You sincerely hope that if he did face trial, he would receive the harshest punishment possible for such a clear treasonous act against his country. - You feel that, in the rush to get mad at the government after his disclosures, people are losing site of what really matters here – the advantages America’s enemies receive from this disclosure and this type of traitorous behavior. - You are worried because it is impossible to know the full scope of the damage Snowden has caused. It could cost the U.S. military and intelligence community billions to develop new sources and methods to counter what was lost by his disclosures. In the meantime, you feel that America is more vulnerable to attack by its enemies. - You feel that intrusion into people’s daily and private lives is being overblown. The NSA is not listening to substance of people’s calls, but rather they are only tracking who is calling whom. If that person does turn out to be a bad guy or person of interest in some fashion, then – and only then – does the NSA actually listen to substance of someone’s call. - You view Snowden as a traitor, and his leaks have caused you and the intelligence community at large, no shortage of headaches. - You believe that the U.S. has now become blind and how lost its ability to “effectively thwart” [terrorist] attacks. - These proposals made by those on the Senate Intelligence Committee to restrict NSA operations will deprive it of crucial tools to foil terrorist plots. A task that is getting harder and harder by the day. PROFILE 5: United States Federal Judge As a federal judge, you have an ethical duty not to take public sides on an issue and to avoid political battles where possible. You rule on the issues based on our common law precedents, and interpret the intent of the legislative branch through the laws it has enacted. Cautious to make calculated decisions, you realize that any opinion you make on a particular case is subject to review by the Circuit Courts of Appeals Your Priorities Are - You find Snowden’s actions to be “treasonable” due to the unknown scope of assistance it may provide our nation’s enemies in developing effective counter-tactics to our intelligence gathering operations. - While, you realize that this type of censorship of information is exactly the type of government intrusion the Founding Fathers feared, you also recognize that the times and situation have changed drastically since then and in some cases exceptions need to be made for public safety. - You have said: “The rights protected by the First Amendment [...] must at times yield to the need for national security.” - You find that the sole purpose of Wikileaks is the disclosure of classified information and, while they claim an interest in informing the public, you find their manner and approach haphazard and dangerous. For that reason you see this type of action as a danger and threat to our national security. - You believe the executive interest of the President in protecting our national security is threatened by the actions of the Wikileaks organization and its followers, such as Edward Snowden. - You feel that this disclosure could have been done much better. Wikileaks is not the New York Times, a reputable and established newspaper that is careful in its treatment of such information due to its experience litigating 1st Amendment issues related to disclosure of classified information. Wikileaks is an international, mass media organization that thrives on the disclosure of many nations’ top secrets – regardless of the harm that may follow from such disclosure. - Despite assertions by Wikileaks and Snowden himself, there is evidence that the information was not fully evaluated for the needless damage it could cause to national security. - Mr. Assange, and his contacts at Britain’s The Guardian paper, lack the expertise, knowledge, and U.S. government contacts to properly evaluate classified information in their possession.
You are the Chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For years you have stood your ground – at times against members of your own political party and committee – to defend government actions and activities in the area of national security. You are generally supportive of the government’s need to go the extra step to ensure our national security. Your Priorities Are - You believe the phone records program authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act plays an important role in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks against the United States. You believe the program has been carried out consistent with the Constitution and the law and under strong oversight by all three branches of government, and you support the continuation of this program. - You believe that the President’s Proposed Actions to Reform NSA Programs is a “worthy effort.” The plan includes a reformation of the phone records metadata program. You believe that the reform is a good plan so long as the changes meet national security needs, address privacy concerns, and provide the government with the means to protect against future terrorist attacks. - You do not see yourself as someone who always supports the intelligence or military communities no matter what. You were outraged at the actions of the CIA regarding the detainee program in Guantanamo Bay and you spearheaded an investigation into it. But with regard to this issue, you still “stick to your guns” in defending the NSA program as a vital tool in protecting our national security. - While you acknowledge and understand Snowden’s desire to expose what he believes is an appalling abuse of power and his ability to think for himself, you think in this case he is extremely misguided and his actions have severe consequences that you do not believe he thought through. - You believe that Snowden needs to stand trial for what he did and to let him off would open a slippery slope that could endanger the entire intelligence community and the safety of the nation as a whole. PROFILE 7: International Investigative Journalist25 Before you became an investigative journalist you were a determined young lawyer. After your stint with a three-person firm fighting for First Amendment rights, you started a blog in 2005 to voice your opposition to President Bush’s surveillance policies. Your articulate stance garnered the attention of Wikileaks, and you joined them. Your Priorities Are26 - You believe the public must be informed to properly exercise their continued consent in government. This is one of the most fundamental principles of ordered liberty, and the Founders saw the press as a critical watchdog over the government’s actions. - You believe that the people’s consent in government is preserved through transparency and accountability for government action. A government is transparent when the people are aware and informed of the actions it takes on their behalf. - You believe that a government is only accountable when breaches of the rule of law by individuals in government are made known to the people, so they might act, by vote or prosecution, to remove those unfit to serve and replace them with another of their choosing. - You believe, and have great pride in, America’s strong tradition of respecting the important role of the press in safeguarding rights of American citizens against government abuses. The 1st Amendment itself has a provision preserving the freedom of the press and as such you believe Wikileaks should be protected from any type of criminal charges brought against it. Wikileaks is merely doing its job as a watchdog of the government. - To preserve our right of consent through informed participation in government, it is the duty of the press to ensure that light is brought to those questionable acts committed outside the public eye, and that those who undermine the system by breaking the law are brought to justice. You believe that the founders of Wikileaks began a revolution in Investigative Journalism and you hope Snowden and his story will encourage others like them. - You are worried that that rush to impeach Snowden’s character and make him stand trial will discourage others with important information such as his from coming forward and sharing their story with the public. Info that could be the difference from living in a free society and a tyrannical one.
As the Attorney General, you represent the United States in legal matters generally and give advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General, which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws. Personal Facts - You have made it clear that while the government very much wants to bring Mr. Snowden back to the United States, a deal involving clemency for the former NSA contractor is not on the table. You believe that Mr. Snowden is not a whistleblower, rather a defendant that has been charged with a crime. - You have said that “If Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States, enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers.” - Despite your firm conviction in Mr. Snowden’s prosecution, officials within the Department of Justice (namely the FBI) have struggled to identify terrorist attacks that would have been prevented by the NSA call log program, which has existed in its current form since 2006. - The clearest breakthrough attributed to the program was a case involving several San Diego men who were prosecuted for donating several thousand dollars to a terrorist group in Somalia.28 - While you harbor some doubts about the efficacy and constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act, you still believe that Snowden has without a doubt violated the law and believe that he must stand trial to answer for his actions. PROFILE 9: Criminal Defendant Accused of Terrorist Activity You moved to the United States a few years ago from Syria and recently obtained U.S citizenship. Taking advantage of every opportunity, you have opened a small restaurant with two of your relatives in a major U.S. city. You recently learned that your mother back home in Syria is ailing from a severe illness. Concerned, you make contact with a friend to wire the funds necessary to tend to your mother’s treatment until you can arrange travel to Syria to handle matters yourself. Upon your return, you are hustled away from the U.S. Customs processing line to a security checkpoint. Unnamed law enforcement agents interrogate you at length. After answering their questions you request permission to leave. However one of the agents has just received a phone call and you have been informed that you are being placed under arrest. After being detained in solitary confinement for a four-month period, and having not been informed what specific evidence the government holds against you, you coordinate with your attorneys to file for habeas corpus, to petition the government and demand answers for its reasons for detaining you. Your Priorities Are - You want to be set free. You have done nothing wrong and yet because of this atmosphere of paranoia and fear you are being deprived of your natural rights. - Your attorney is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against you, believing it was obtained illegally through monitoring of your phone calls and money transfers back home to Syria. - Obviously it was a mistake, but after Snowden’s disclosures, your attorney realizes that officials can obtain a warrant through the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without much cause, and those almost always result in indictment and conviction. - You see Snowden as a hero. Without Snowden’s disclosures, the government may get away with gathering volumes of data on U.S. citizens through illegal monitoring domestically or through questionable warrants issued through “secret” courts, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). These warrantless intrusions could lead to unjust prosecutions of “terrorist” suspects (like yourself) engaged in innocent activity. - You are hopeful that Snowden’s disclosures will increase the awareness and public discourse surrounding this subject and will lead to the government backing off. 1Image Source: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/new-york-times-time-to-grant-clemency-to-edward-snowden/ 2 Quote Source: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/ 3 The Guardian UK, “The NSA Files”: http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files 4 James G. McAdams, III, Senior Legal Instructor, FLETC: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/miscellaneous/ForeignIntelligenceSurveillanceAct.pdf. 5 Id. 6 Public Law 107-56 (2001) 7 Public Law 107-108 (2002) 8 Public Law 107-296 (2002) 9 Public Law 108-458 (2004) 10 Public Law 109-177 (2005) 11 Public Law 109-178 (2006) 12 Congressional Research Service Report, “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Review of Decisions,” RL 30465, 15 February 2007: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL30465.pdf 13 Id. 14 Katz v. United States, 398 U.S. 347, at 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., Concurring) 15 See Fn. 13. 16 Id. 17 P.L. 95- 511, Title I, October 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1796, codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. 18 See Fn. 7. 19See Id. 20 Remarks by Sen. Ron Wyden (D - Or.) at World Affairs Council of Oregon Presentation, “National Security, Civil Liberties, and the Surveillance State,” delivered at Portland, Oregon, 18 March 2014. 21 About ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0 22Modeled upon interview by Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian with Northwestern University Philosophy Professor Peter Ludlow: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/12/james-clapper-says-transparency-helps-terrorists-like/ 23 Modeled after interviews and press releases by Sen. Ronald Wyden, D-Or., Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. See: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/meet-ron/biography 24 Modeled on Senator Dianne Fienstein (D-Ca.), Chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For biographical information, see: http://www.biography.com/people/dianne-feinstein-21136107 25 Modeled after Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who first broke Snowden’s leaks, and interviewed him in Hong Kong shortly after he fled US extradition and capture. 26Glenn Greewald Biographical Information: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/how-glenn-greenwald-became-glenn-greenwald 27 US Dept. of Justice Homepage: http://www.justice.gov/ag/meet-ag.html 28 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/us/politics/senators-push-to-preserve-nsa-phone-surveillance.html?ref=diannefeinstein first Friday in December: Oregon Civics Day for teachers. It’s the law! Yüklə 68,91 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|