"Beyond the imagination of George Orwell" and Other Expressions of Congressional Outrage Over NSA Spying
Back in 2010, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) first started warning us that "Americans would be stunned to learn" about how broadly the government interprets its authorities under Patriot Act Section 215. Now that the cat's out of the bag about the NSA collecting millions of Americans phone records, it's big of him not to whip out the old "I told you so" – but really, he told us so.
Americans across the country are outraged, and Democrats and Republicans alike are scrambling to introduce legislation that will rein in the government's out-of-control surveillance programs and force disclosure about these programs' breadth and legal rationale. Clearly, not just everyday Americans were "stunned," but members of Congress too –and the bi-partisan group hasn't exactly been timid in expressing its anger.
Responding to the leaks, Wyden stated that he believes that "when law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information. Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans' privacy." Furthermore, he says that "[b]ased on several years of oversight, I believe that its value and effectiveness remain unclear."
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who also helped to sound the "secret law" alarm, joined Wyden in disputing the efficacy of the surveillance program, saying "[w]e have not seen any evidence showing that the NSA's dragnet collection of Americans' phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a longtime opponent of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act, called "the revelation…an outrageous abuse of power and a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution," as well as "an astounding assault on the Constitution."
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), said that he is "deeply disturbed" by these reports and that "under this secret court order, millions of innocent Americans have been subject to government surveillance."
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) called the NSA wiretapping of Verizon phones "yet another example of government overreach that forces the question, ‘What sort of state are we living in?' There is clearly a glaring difference between what the government is doing and what the American people think they are doing."
Sen. Max Baucus' (D-Mont.) press release stated that "[e]veryone wants to do their part to keep America safe, but that doesn't give the government free reign to ignore civil liberties. I have very serious concerns with law-abiding citizens getting swept up in surveillance that is meant for terrorists. If the government really needs this type of information to keep the country safe, they ought to be able to make their case in an open and transparent courtroom instead of behind closed doors."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the surveillance programs "an unprecedented intrusion into Americans' personal phone records and potentially into their broader online activities," and says that this surveillance "fits into a troubling pattern of disregarding the Bill of Rights."
Even Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who originally voted for the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, wrote to the President that these surveillance programs "raise extremely serious concerns about why such a broad collection is necessary and how this information is used."
In the House, members are equally alarmed.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who voted in favor of the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, calls the surveillance "more than creepy" and "beyond the imagination of George Orwell."
And Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) authored a letter signed by a bipartisan group of 19 members questioning the surveillance program. Speaking of members who support it, he said, "Maybe too much time in D.C. has left them totally oblivious to what's right and wrong."
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) called the programs "secret and blanket form of surveillance on the American public - whether they are suspected of wrongdoing or not."
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) stated that he was "deeply troubled" and that "it is becoming uncomfortably clear that the privacy of the American people is being compromised by intrusive and over-zealous intelligence gathering and law-enforcement activity."
And then there's the coup de grâce.
When even Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the author of the Patriot Act, writes the Attorney General that he is "extremely disturbed by what appears to be an overbroad interpretation of the [Patriot] Act" and that "these reports are deeply concerning and raise questions about whether our constitutional rights are secure," it's time to rein in the surveillance state and repeal the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act.
Learn more about government secrecy and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.