Supreme Court Rules Against Constitution

Twin blows were struck against civil liberties today in Washington, where the Supreme Court struck down objections that the executive branch had acted unconstitutionally and the Senate passed a bill that builds upon the powers extended by a controversial executive order. The executive branch expressed satisfaction with both the ruling and the legislation. Attorney General Michael Mukasey smugly told UACL representatives that he was "very satisfied with the way the Supreme Court ruled in this case." The UACL plans to publicly state its disappointment and to wage a campaign to defeat the bill on the floor of the House. "There is nothing to be done except to say that we, as concerned citizens and as campaigners for civil rights, are saddened by the decisions made today by the United States Government,"said the UACL's own Kelly McCarthy. Press Secretary Dana Perrino, when asked about the administration's response to probable public discontent about the Senate's actions, said that the administration hopes "that the bill the Senate has passed will please the public." The UACL very much doubts it will.

Which Way Will It Go?

The Supreme Court will announce their decision on their recent hearing on the constitutionality of the Executive Order tomorrow afternoon. The UACL has made our stance clear that in order to wiretap an American citizen, the proper measures to obtain a warrant must be taken, something that this administration has clearly failed to do. Even AG Mukasey and Diana Perino have said that the administration did not go through all the steps to receive the warrants. The country will be greatly affected by this crucial decision, and this case will also set precedents for the future. The UACL can only hope, for the country's state, that the Supreme Court justices make the right decision.

--Jordan Lonner

Q & A with Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Thursday, UACL reporters Jordan Lonner and Casey Hursh sat down with Attorney General Michael Mukasey to discuss the new bill that some Senators are drafting up.......

Q: Has the white house contributed to writing this bill?
A: As far as I know, they have not.

Q: Will the Supreme Courts decision be made by the time this bill is released?
A: The decision will be issued first.

Q: Where is the bill now?
A: The bill is currently in the committee.

Q: Specifically, what does this bill do?
A: My sources tell me that the bill will allow the Department of Justice and other intel gatherings to give FISA faster warrants and allow the attorney general to skip to the front of the line when it comes to recieving a warrant.

Q: Is the white house satisfied with this bill?
A: I'm not completely sure but my sources hint that it sounds like it's good.

--Casey Hursh and Jordan Lonner

Amending the 1st Amendment

During oral arguments today in front of the Supreme Court, UACL lawyer Kelly McCarthy raised an interesting issue, which might have "flown under the radar screens" of many spectators in the court. She said that the President's Executive Order presents an undue burden to exercising first amendment rights. There are a couple of reasons that this is true.
First, the Administration has said that the warrantless searches authorized by the EO will largely be triggered by information retrieved through "chatter scanners." Basically, the idea is that these chatter scanners pick up specific words that the intelligence community has "red-flagged" as indicators of terrorist activity. When one of these scanners locates a call that has a medium to high density, frequency, or quantity of these "red-flag" words, the DoJ considers a wiretap. Due to this method of operation, many individuals, especially those here at the UACL, are afraid to use language that might initiate a tap. UACL lawyers have to be especially careful, because, due to the nature of our lawsuit regarding the EO, we use a lot of the "red flag" words in legal discussions. Ms. Perino said, when announcing the attack on Sumatra, that the initial threat had been intercepted by a chatter scanning program that caught several references to "ANSWER", "Malamar", and "Sumatra" in the same conversations. One can imagine that, as representatives of ANSWER, UACL lawyers probably mention those words more than anyone else, anywhere. Further, there is an even greater "chilling effect" on our use of certain words because a wiretap by the DoJ would be especially dangerous for the UACL, as we are suing the DoJ. Details of our case could easily be garnered using an unwarranted wiretap, simply by claiming that the DoJ picked up "chatter" originating from the UACL. This represents an abridgment of the right to free speech, as protected in the first amendment to the Constitution.

Second, the EO "abridg[es]... the right of the people to freely assemble," as protected in the first amendment. The EO authorizes surveillance of entire groups, not specific individuals. That creates a disincentive to join a certain group, out of the fear of being searched. Dana Perino acknowledged that all ANSWER communications are subject to surveillance because of the actions of one of its members. There are certainly member of ANSWER, a nationwide group, that have no animosity towards the United States, and certainly didn't have any knowledge of, or actively participate in, the attack on the US consulate in Sumatra. In this county, we don't believe in guilt by association. Just because a coworker of mine doesn't like the way America handles itself overseas, doesn't mean the government should be able to spy on me because of it. That's why the founding fathers put the protection of speech first, it's that important.

-Michael Soneff

Convoluted Proceedings Obscure Administration's Constitutional Rewrite

""We're not breaking the law; we're rewriting it."

The above words are those of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, spoken at a press conference only days before he was illegally held in contempt of congress. While this statement is not astoundingly unexpected on its own, it is overshadowed and confused by the words of the other members of the administration. Shortly after Mukasey's press conference, President Bush corrected his Attorney General's statement by insisting that the administration is not "rewriting the law so much as we're amending it." While the members of the press worked day and night to untangle the web of fuzzy logic that hangs over these statements, Press Secretary Dana Perino made another convoluted statement in a secret interview. "We're not changing the law," she said, "we're expanding on it." The UACL is concerned about the general ramifications of these goings-on, as well as the individual problems with each official's statement. The primary concern is the President's implication that he has the legal authority to amend the law; the ability of the Executive to amend existing laws is limited; in addition, the constitutional amendment that the President has singlehandedly carried out legally requires a 2/3 majority of Congress to pass. Both Mukasey and Perino implied that the Executive Branch has the ability to make law, and the UACL would like to remind them that while Executive Power exists and extends limited lawmaking powers to the President, it in no way serves as a substitute for democracy. The UACL's own Kelly McCarthy contends that the controversial executive order does in fact rewrite law by extending the emergency authorization provision of FISA by four days, as well as by allowing the administration to bypass the FISC.

--Matt Lerner

McCarthy Presents Case To Supreme Court

Today in Washington, in the highest court in all the land, UACL council Kelly McCarthy presented the facts about the Executive order. Before Ms. McCarthy defended the UACL's claim, AG Mukasey and Solicitor General Andrew Clement tried to convince the court that the order was constitutional. THe court repaeatedly ask "Was the warrantless wiretapping constitutional?" No one on AG Mukasey's side could come up with an answer that would sit well with the court. At one point, the AG's team presented the justices with the warrants to wiretap members of the anti-war group ANSWER, and somehow the president connected that group to Malamar, who was then connected to Al Queda. While the warrants were kept private, the people in the room were able to understand the gist of what was contained in the documents. The Supreme Court then began to ask why the warrants were shown to the justices. Clement responded by stating that they just wanted to show the court that they were working inside the law to wiretap the so called "enemy combatants". Chief Justice Roberts thoughtfully asked, "If you are trying to prove to us that you don't need warrants to conduct domestic surveillance, why are you presenting us with warrants?" Next, Ms. McCarthy contended that the Executive Order is unconstitutional because it intended to rewrite FISA and and because it authorized surveillance that violates bothe the first and fourth amendments. The Supreme Court will hand in their decision on Friday. Stay tuned to the media center for more news on the issue...

-Jordan Lonner

Supreme Court Will Listen to Cases Tomorrow

The Supreme Court will open up its hearings on the President's Executive order tomorrow morning. UACL representative, Kelly McCarthy and SPAC representative Andrew Lieberman are expected to be called to defend their stances on the order. Ms. McCarthy is fresh off her appearance in front of Congress, where she admirably defended the rights of the American citizen, something that Mr. Lieberman failed to do while in front of the same committee. While pictures and video of the hearing will be forbidden, the UACL Media Team will be inside the Court and will report on the day's events at the end of the hearings. Stay tuned...

--Jordan Lonner

McCarthy Testifies at Senate Hearing

Yesterday, Kelly McCarthy sat in front of the senate and answered questions regarding her opinion on the constitutionality of the executive order. McCarthy argued passionately that the order was not constitutional. Much to the dismay of the President, she did not support his lack of checks and balances when issuing this order. In particular, McCarthy criticized the violation of the 4th Amendment and questioned how reasonable searches are decided on. She also questioned the necessity of writing up the warrant after the search has been completed. Overall, it was a good day for McCarthy, who performed well.

- Casey Hursh

UACL v. Mukasey

Tonight at 8 p.m. Attorney General Brown, on behalf of the ANSWER coalition, filed a suit against the Bush Administration. The lawsuit is rapidly approaching the Supreme Court level. The case is being argued by UACL veteran lawyer Jameel Jaffer, who prosecuted a case against the NSA in 2007. The full text of the filing can be found here.

-Michael Soneff

Syllogism

For anyone who is still unclear on how the Executive Order is unconstitutional, here it is, in plainer English than the White House can use:
1. The White House has made it very clear that the EO gives powers to the AG that he didn't have before. They have made it very clear that the EO changes when the President has to submit what to FISC. That is by their own admission. So, there can be no argument; the EO contradicts the current law. If you still doubt that the EO violates the law, look here. The first paragraph makes it vert clear that the AG has to go to FISC before the tap takes place. The EO says the AG can go to FISC later. Thus, it clearly changes the law.
2. The Supreme Court has ruled at least twice that an executive order cannot violate the law. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court invalidated President Truman’s EO 10340, because the order didn’t enforce the law, so much as it rewrote the law. Second, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Court ruled that congress may not give the President the power to make laws. So, it's clear that if the EO violates the law (see #1) then it is illegal.
3. The EO is clearly illegal, as it violates the law.
4. However the Administration has made the argument that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Terrorists allows them to use any means necessary to combat terror. They argue that the EO is justified through the AUMF.
5. The Supreme Court has said otherwise. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that the AUMF does not authorize the Administration to do anything that isn't specifically allowed under the AUMF. The AUMF does NOT allow the Administration to alter FISA, or any other surveillance laws for that matter.
6. So, the AUMF clearly doesn't justify the EO, thus the EO is clearly illegal by any standard.

- Michael Soneff

Senator Clinton Takes a Stand

In today's Congressional hearing, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) vehemently defended the freedoms of American citizens against the surveillance authorities claimed in the President's recent Executive Order. Clinton contended that FISA law had been bypassed, and therefore violated by the order. The UACL applauds/welcomes Senator Clinton's continuing efforts to combat the administration's unlawful actions. Her high-profile symbolic move to hold AG Mukasey in contempt of congress, if nothing else, should certainly draw some much needed attention to this issue of vital importance.

-Jordan Lonner

whoACL?

At this afternoon's press conference, President Bush quite conspicuously avoided taking any questions from UACL media representative Michael Soneff. In the last press conference before today, Soneff had been aggressive in going after the new Executive Order, and had asked questions that led to some controversial (and at times comical) answers from administration officials. Perhaps the President hopes to avoid all questions that might be critical of his most recent order. One might even venture to say that he's punishing Mr. Soneff, by showing that if the UACL doesn't want to play ball, the Administration doesn't have to deal with them. Is it appropriate for the Administration to require passive acceptance of all executive acts in order to acknowledge the UACL as a legitimate media outlet? Fortunately, after today's Press Conference Ms. Perino agreed to respond to any and all written questions submitted by the UACL. Hopefully this represents a new way forward for the Administration.

-Michael Soneff

Texas Barbecue

President Bush held a press conference today, immediately preceding the congressional hearings. The first question came from veteran UACL representative Jordan Lonner:
"Mr. President, Attorney General Mukasey admitted that your executive order contradicts FISA, but that your order was necessary. However, FISA already has the emergency authorization provision that gives the Attorney General the ability to tap any phone, foreign or domestic, and get a warrant from a FISA court 72 hours later, after the tap has been done. So why do you need this order?"
An excellent question. The President doesn't need his illegal executive order because the AG can already tap any phone that he believes he needs to tap in order to combat terror. The only difference between FISA and the President's EO is that the AG has to go to the FISA court within 72 hours after the phone has been tapped under FISA. This doesn't hinder the abilities of the AG in the slightest. The only possible reason that the President would want this ability is in order to tap phones without ever having to provide a reason in a court. His reasoning has nothing to do with a time problem. So, in that context, let's examine the President's response. He said:
"This order is put in place to make sure that we have a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies. {inaudible} Uh, they are able to move at such a speed that uh, it's frankly quite frightening. {the President laughs} Uh, this enemy is able to assume different identities is able to be in parts, different groups at different times, and is a threat to our national security. I issued this order to make sure that everything could be done to make sure that this december plot, which, from the information I have received, could be potentially one of the greatest attacks ever planned on any country, was prevented from happening."
The point of Mr. Lonner's question was that the AG already had "a very hastened and speedily way to track our enemies." The question was, why do we need this new ability, in light of the Emergency Authorization Provision of FISA.
The President later went on to say:
"This Executive Order has been issued to make sure that lives of Americans are not lost. {inaudible} We want to keep the citizens of this country safe, we want to make sure they enjoy a good holiday this year, and uh, anyone opposed to this executive order, while perfectly within their rights, is indirectly saying they value their emails more than they value american lives."
Strong words. Incorrect... but strong none the less. Of course the UACL cares more about life than it does about E-mails. The problem with President Bush's argument is that he doesn't need his EO to fight terrorism. The FISA EA provision is perfectly sufficient; that was the point of Mr. Lonner's question, which the President either failed to understand or decided not to answer. The President's argument is, frankly, quite offensive. The UACL cares about the precedent of protecting our civil liberties, codified in the Constitution of the United States, a document which he swore an oath to protect and uphold. As a matter of fact, the entirety of the Presidential oath of office reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nowhere in that does he swear that he will violate the Constitution if he feels he needs to. The UACL is concerned about protecting the rights of Americans, ALL their rights, even the ones that the President wants to be able to violate.

By: Michael Soneff

Mukasey Dodges Questions, is Held in Contempt and Released

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- During public hearings held today on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Michael Mukasey became increasingly evasive when confronted with objections to the Administration's actions since the attack on the U.S. embassy in Sumatra. Appearing in front of a Congressional panel chaired by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California), Mukasey conceded that the administration's failure to notify congress of the Executive Order was a mistake, but refused to admit anything further, denying that the new measures taken violated citizens' civil liverties. The UACL's representatives looked on in patriotic terror as Mukasey stated that he would do "whatever is necessary" to protect America, and even going back on a previous statement to state that he believes measures taken to bypass Congress "are appropriate because Congressional oversight might endanger national security." The UACL and its associates view this as an affront to the liberties and principles America stands for, as well as to the ideas put forth by the Founding Fathers. Mukasey's evasiveness at one point prompted committee member Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) to incredulously ask, "can you READ?"

When prompted to produce documents for which he had been subpoenaed, Attorney General Mukasey failed to produce them and invoked executive privilege "on behalf of the president," echoing the irrational statements J. Lewis "Scooter" Libby made during the Valerie Plame espionage case. The Attorney General refused to respond to the subpoena and Senators Clinton and Obama called for his arrest in contempt of court. A tied vote on the Senate floor failed to support Mukasey's imprisonment and he was released.

The UACL has become more and more worried about the administration's rogue attitude: ignoring Congress and failing to respond to supboenas displays an increasing disregard for law and democratic practice in the U.S.

--Matt Lerner

Bush Not to Testify

Today, President Bush declined congress's invitation to testify in tomorrow's Senate Select Committee hearings. However, the President will be giving a statement tomorrow, to be followed by an opportunity for the press to ask questions. We at the UACL hope that some of the many questions we have will be answered there. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and UACL representative Jameel Jaffer will be testifying in front of the Senate. Sparks should fly as the two titans of national policy go head to head. Tickets are already sold out, but you can watch the main event at home with CSPAN on demand.

-Jordan Lonner

Presidential Power-Grab

This isn't the first time that the President has amended FISA. On July 28, 2007, President Bush called on Congress to pass legislation to reform the FISA in order to ease restrictions on surveillance of terrorist suspects where one party to the communication is located overseas. On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed a Republican-sponsored version of FISA in a vote of 60 to 28. The House followed by passing the bill, 227-183. The Protect America Act of 2007 was then signed into law by George W. Bush on August 5, 2007.
Under the Protect America Act, communications that begin or end in a foreign country may be wiretapped by the US government without supervision by the FISA Court. The Act removes from the definition of "electronic surveillance" in FISA any surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. As such, surveillance of these communications no longer requires a government application to, and order issuing from, the FISA Court.
The Administration's justification for the Executive Order is that they need to be able to tap calls that go overseas without a warrant. The only reason the administration would want this power is because they want to listen to phone calls from anti-war groups calling American citizens, without obtaining a warrant. The Administration is lying and fear-mongering to try to expand their powers. They are needlessly encroaching on our civil liberties, with the sole goal of listening to lawful conversations between American citizens. Americans have an absolute civil right to carry on a conversation which isn't listened to by the NSA, so long as they follow the law. MORE...

By: Michael Soneff

Clinton Strong on Civil Liberties

In an interview today, Hillary Clinton made some strong statements in support of civil liberties. When asked, "Do you feel that the rights of Americans are being violated by the Bush administration?" She said, "Yes, I do feel they are violating the citizens’ rights. This is a serious issue and something must be done but in such a way where we are protecting their civil liberties." The UACL applauds Mrs. Clinton's strong statements. We hope that she can help to shape the debate in congress, and move to override the President's unlawful action.

By: Michael Soneff

White House Defends Controversial Order

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- Speaking at a hastily assembled press conference held this afternoon at the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino attempted to defend the Administration's choice in the controversial passage of yesterday's Executive Order. Ms. Perino told those members of the press who had assembled that the Order's expedient and--as has been argued, unconstitutional--composition was necessary. According to the White House, the new measures created by the Order have turned up evidence of an extant and highly dangerous terrorist threat. "We did what we thought was in the best interests of national security," she said later by phone, insisting that the bill was more effective if brought into action urgently. Ms. Perino went on to say that "there is a potential attack on our country that [NSA] has been made aware of" and that the NSA's foreknowledge of this threat is a direct result of the measures put forth in the executive order. In both the press conference and later, the Press Secretary insisted that the White House hopes Congress will pass a bill both strengthening and building on the Executive Order. But, she says, "I cannot predict what Congress will do."
This new development has many civil rights advocates concerned, as the UACL and others wonder about the unbelievable day-old efficacy of such an expediently produced piece of legislation. The White House has yet to release a print copy of Ms. Perino's suspiciously hasty statements, and is unlikely to release even a partially-redacted version of the NSA memo which the White House claims supports the controversial Executive Order.

--Matt Lerner

Letter to the President

In a letter to the President, the UACL has raised concerns over the new Executive Order issued by the President yesterday.  The letter can be found here.  

By: Michael Soneff

Obama and Clinton See Eye to Eye on the Need for Lawful Surveillance

Today, Senators Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and Hillary Clinton (D-New York) stated similar opinions when asked if they would protect the civil liberties of citizens, saying that they would respectively handle wiretappings on "a case to case basis". Both Senators agreed that all surveillance of the American public must be carried out lawfully, with granted permission under a judicial warrant. The statements made by both Senators, while reinforcing the UACL's stance on the matter, were noncommital in nature. Other Senators involved in yesterday's argument presented views similar to those stated by the two democratic Senators. When asked whether she endorsed the President, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) stated that although she believes that all our resources need to be used to find suspected terrorists, the constitution cannot be violated and the proper measures must be taken, which she said included getting proper warrants in order to wiretap citizens. She also said that the FISA agreement had been broken by the Executive order. Senator Arlen Specter stated that while he isn't in favor of the act, he wouldn't go as extreme to support a comment he made in January 2006, when he stated that if the president approved this action, he should be impeached. It is encouraging to see that at least some officials within our nation's government recognize the threat posed by the President's independent and unlawful actions. Hopefully, they will follow their statements with consistent action in favor of respected civil liberties when the issue hits the floor of Congress. We will just have to wait and see.

by: Jordan Lonner

Fox News Accuses the Bush Admin of Helping Terrorists

In the most recent press conference called by the administration, FOX news reporter Rachel Twersky asked Attorney General Mukasey if it was possible that democrats had leaked the memo from the Department of Justice asking the President for greater powers for the NSA.  Dana Perino appeared stunned by the question, mostly because it was the administration, not democrats, who had leaked the memo.  Ms. Twersky suggested that the leak of the memo could jeopardize ongoing investigations, potentially exposing the US to additional terrorist attacks.  Ms. Twersky seems to be implying that the memo was leaked in order to assist terrorist efforts.  She certainly realizes that the memo wasn't leaked by democrats, as the administration, not the congress, has control over the Department of Justice.  Could Fox News, through Ms. Twersky's question, have been accusing the administration of treason?  Was she implying that the administration wants to create an atmosphere of fear, in order to justify further curtailing civil liberties?  Ms. Twersky declined to comment, saying that the question was written by a colleague, and that questions should be directed to Alisa Wecker.  Ms. Wecker also declined to comment, but did ask that the UACL refrain from running the story.  When confronted with the whole text of this article, Ms. Wecker and Ms. Twersky didn't dispute any of the facts stated, but refused to comment on the event.  Does this refusal to comment indicate that Fox is standing by its question?  Fox News reporters threatened UACL representative Michael Soneff, saying that they would run stories that imply the UACL supports terrorists if the UACL ran a story detailing Ms. Twersky's questions.  These facts might call into question the journalistic integrity of Fox News.  

by: Michael Soneff

Attorney General Mukasey: The President Can Abolish Congress

This morning AG Mukasey and White House Press Secretary Dana Perino announced the new NSA spying program, which doesn't require warrants in order to initiate a wiretap. The new plan, by Mr. Mukasey's own admission, violates FISA requirements. Mr. Mukasey says that the President has the power to amend any act of congress, even the constitution itself, with the use of an executive order. He claimed that the President can legally do, quite literally, whatever he wants, until the congress or the courts over rule him. When asked, by UACL media representative Michael Soneff, whether or not the President can abolish congress and the judiciary, AG Mukasey declined to comment. This should raise some serious questions in the hearts and minds of all Americans. The Head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States, claims that the President has the constitutional authority to unilaterally amend laws passed by congress. Dana Perino has admitted that this executive order literally contradicts standing law. That means that the President has violated an act of congress and overridden judicial precedent. These acts on the part of the executive are outrageous.
Furthermore, When asked what is more important, civil liberties or national security, the Attorney General answered without a doubt, national security. He continued by arguing that because the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution later, the Civil Liberties protected in this document should take second place to the security of the country. Does Mr. Mukasey not realize that the Bill of Rights was the provision that allowed for the ratification of the Constitution and to this day upholds our most essential rights as American citizens? It is appalling that he would seek to deny the value of such an important part of our nation's highest law.


by: Michael Soneff