The Surveillance Regime
The recent California federal district court ruling that the Bush
administration's warrantless wiretapping violated a 1978 surveillance
law was the first significant judicial rebuke to post-9/11 government
eavesdropping. For that reason alone, Judge Vaughn Walker's damages
award to the Muslim charity Al-Haramain and its attorneys, targets of
unlawful spying in 2004, is worthy of celebration. But the ruling won't
change our current deeply troubling surveillance regime. In that sense,
it is a timely reminder of unfinished business.
Ever since Barack Obama took office, accountability for rights
violations during the "war on terror" has been thin. Victims of wrongful
overseas detention, surveillance and torture have received no apology
and no reparations. Despite an early commitment to close
Guantanamo, 183 prisoners remain there. Indeed, Obama has
released fewer detainees than Bush did during his last year in office.
And despite an early promise to protect the First Amendment rights of
Muslim charities, Obama has done nothing to change the onerous
application of terrorism financing laws. Walker's decision is only the
second to have ruled against the so-called Terrorist Surveillance
Program. All other challenges--including one against the odious 2008
FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which The Nation has joined as a
plaintiff--ultimately got booted at the courthouse door.
Even if Walker's opinion survives possible appeal, it will have no
effect on the broad surveillance powers unleashed by the FAA, which
passed with then-Senator Obama's support. Under that law, the government
can dispense with individualized warrants, the cornerstone of Fourth
Amendment privacy protections. Absent meaningful judicial review, we
simply can't know how much surveillance the government is carrying out.
Continuity, not change, has characterized the conduct of Eric Holder's
Justice Department. Walker documents, in his opinion, the government's
persistent "refusal to cooperate with the court's orders," its improper
use of procedural delays and even point-blank refusals to produce
information. Yes, this was business as usual during the Bush era. But
Walker was talking about events on Obama's watch.
Nor is Walker's experience unusual. In lawsuits by survivors of the
CIA's "black sites" and Guantanamo's interrogation rooms, the
government either keeps insisting that "state secrets" require outright
dismissal or has stuck to the canard that noncitizens forcibly brought
into US custody overseas lack all constitutional rights. In
Guantanamo litigation, habeas lawyers complain about obfuscation,
secrecy and delay not dissimilar from what they faced in the Bush era.
Blaming the lawyers is easy. But it is the otherwise near-absolute
absence of accountability that makes Walker's opinion such a lonely
beacon. This absence is, in large part, a result of the Obama
administration's failure to explain to the American people that the
surveillance program violated the Constitution, and that unlawful and
futile torture was rife in Guantanamo and the black sites.
It is not too late to win the political, or the moral, battle. It is not
too late to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to explain that
reckless and illegal incursions into privacy rights are no road to
security. It is only by taking on that battle that the Obama
administration, and not just a handful of voices on the federal bench,
can produce the real change its lawyers have been fighting.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The recent California federal district court ruling that the Bush
administration's warrantless wiretapping violated a 1978 surveillance
law was the first significant judicial rebuke to post-9/11 government
eavesdropping. For that reason alone, Judge Vaughn Walker's damages
award to the Muslim charity Al-Haramain and its attorneys, targets of
unlawful spying in 2004, is worthy of celebration. But the ruling won't
change our current deeply troubling surveillance regime. In that sense,
it is a timely reminder of unfinished business.
Ever since Barack Obama took office, accountability for rights
violations during the "war on terror" has been thin. Victims of wrongful
overseas detention, surveillance and torture have received no apology
and no reparations. Despite an early commitment to close
Guantanamo, 183 prisoners remain there. Indeed, Obama has
released fewer detainees than Bush did during his last year in office.
And despite an early promise to protect the First Amendment rights of
Muslim charities, Obama has done nothing to change the onerous
application of terrorism financing laws. Walker's decision is only the
second to have ruled against the so-called Terrorist Surveillance
Program. All other challenges--including one against the odious 2008
FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which The Nation has joined as a
plaintiff--ultimately got booted at the courthouse door.
Even if Walker's opinion survives possible appeal, it will have no
effect on the broad surveillance powers unleashed by the FAA, which
passed with then-Senator Obama's support. Under that law, the government
can dispense with individualized warrants, the cornerstone of Fourth
Amendment privacy protections. Absent meaningful judicial review, we
simply can't know how much surveillance the government is carrying out.
Continuity, not change, has characterized the conduct of Eric Holder's
Justice Department. Walker documents, in his opinion, the government's
persistent "refusal to cooperate with the court's orders," its improper
use of procedural delays and even point-blank refusals to produce
information. Yes, this was business as usual during the Bush era. But
Walker was talking about events on Obama's watch.
Nor is Walker's experience unusual. In lawsuits by survivors of the
CIA's "black sites" and Guantanamo's interrogation rooms, the
government either keeps insisting that "state secrets" require outright
dismissal or has stuck to the canard that noncitizens forcibly brought
into US custody overseas lack all constitutional rights. In
Guantanamo litigation, habeas lawyers complain about obfuscation,
secrecy and delay not dissimilar from what they faced in the Bush era.
Blaming the lawyers is easy. But it is the otherwise near-absolute
absence of accountability that makes Walker's opinion such a lonely
beacon. This absence is, in large part, a result of the Obama
administration's failure to explain to the American people that the
surveillance program violated the Constitution, and that unlawful and
futile torture was rife in Guantanamo and the black sites.
It is not too late to win the political, or the moral, battle. It is not
too late to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to explain that
reckless and illegal incursions into privacy rights are no road to
security. It is only by taking on that battle that the Obama
administration, and not just a handful of voices on the federal bench,
can produce the real change its lawyers have been fighting.
The recent California federal district court ruling that the Bush
administration's warrantless wiretapping violated a 1978 surveillance
law was the first significant judicial rebuke to post-9/11 government
eavesdropping. For that reason alone, Judge Vaughn Walker's damages
award to the Muslim charity Al-Haramain and its attorneys, targets of
unlawful spying in 2004, is worthy of celebration. But the ruling won't
change our current deeply troubling surveillance regime. In that sense,
it is a timely reminder of unfinished business.
Ever since Barack Obama took office, accountability for rights
violations during the "war on terror" has been thin. Victims of wrongful
overseas detention, surveillance and torture have received no apology
and no reparations. Despite an early commitment to close
Guantanamo, 183 prisoners remain there. Indeed, Obama has
released fewer detainees than Bush did during his last year in office.
And despite an early promise to protect the First Amendment rights of
Muslim charities, Obama has done nothing to change the onerous
application of terrorism financing laws. Walker's decision is only the
second to have ruled against the so-called Terrorist Surveillance
Program. All other challenges--including one against the odious 2008
FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which The Nation has joined as a
plaintiff--ultimately got booted at the courthouse door.
Even if Walker's opinion survives possible appeal, it will have no
effect on the broad surveillance powers unleashed by the FAA, which
passed with then-Senator Obama's support. Under that law, the government
can dispense with individualized warrants, the cornerstone of Fourth
Amendment privacy protections. Absent meaningful judicial review, we
simply can't know how much surveillance the government is carrying out.
Continuity, not change, has characterized the conduct of Eric Holder's
Justice Department. Walker documents, in his opinion, the government's
persistent "refusal to cooperate with the court's orders," its improper
use of procedural delays and even point-blank refusals to produce
information. Yes, this was business as usual during the Bush era. But
Walker was talking about events on Obama's watch.
Nor is Walker's experience unusual. In lawsuits by survivors of the
CIA's "black sites" and Guantanamo's interrogation rooms, the
government either keeps insisting that "state secrets" require outright
dismissal or has stuck to the canard that noncitizens forcibly brought
into US custody overseas lack all constitutional rights. In
Guantanamo litigation, habeas lawyers complain about obfuscation,
secrecy and delay not dissimilar from what they faced in the Bush era.
Blaming the lawyers is easy. But it is the otherwise near-absolute
absence of accountability that makes Walker's opinion such a lonely
beacon. This absence is, in large part, a result of the Obama
administration's failure to explain to the American people that the
surveillance program violated the Constitution, and that unlawful and
futile torture was rife in Guantanamo and the black sites.
It is not too late to win the political, or the moral, battle. It is not
too late to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to explain that
reckless and illegal incursions into privacy rights are no road to
security. It is only by taking on that battle that the Obama
administration, and not just a handful of voices on the federal bench,
can produce the real change its lawyers have been fighting.