A Collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh

Domestic surveillance program said to provide few terror leads

[JURIST] Current and former intelligence officials and private sector sources, speaking anonymously, have said that the National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program [JURIST news archive] monitoring communication coming from outside the US to US residents has yielded few actionable results, according to a Sunday report in the Washington Post. Fewer than 10 US citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls as well, which would require a warrant from a federal judge. This low rate of success adds to concerns that the program is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment because a search cannot be judged reasonable if based on unreliable evidence. The Washington Post has more.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [official profile] will defend the program at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing [official notice] on Monday. He is expected to reiterate the administration's position that the program is not governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [text] but rather by a 2001 Congressional resolution [PDF text] authorizing the use of military force against al Qaeda. He is also expected to say that media reports about the program are misleading [TIME report]. He may be in for tough questioning, however. Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter said in an NBC Meet the Press interview [transcript] Sunday morning that he found several of Gonzales' contentions made in preliminary responses to written Committee questions [JURIST document] to be "strained" and "unrealistic", particularly in regards to the Authorization to Use Military Force:

The authorization for the use of force doesn’t say anything about electronic surveillance, issue was never raised with the Congress. And there is a specific statute on the books, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which says flatly that you can’t undertake that kind of surveillance without a court order.
AP has more.

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.