! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! You Have the Right to Maintain Privacy: How the U.S. Government’s Development and Advancement of Unwarranted Domestic Spying Programs on Millions of Innocent Americans is Illegal and Unconstitutional
! ! ! ! A thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science ! By ! DeAndre Joseph Horton ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! In partial fulfillment of the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science ! May 2014 
Introduction The purpose of this research paper is to expose the reader to elements of national security that are meant to protect the nation, but have been doubled into domestic spying tools employed by the U.S. government. My thesis serves to inform the reader on how the US government’s domestic surveillance undermines the fundamental principles upon which a liberal democracy is built upon. It encourages free thought while fostering an informed population of scholars in the domestic and international realms of politics. Beginning with an empirical account of the one event that issued in this era of electronic surveillance as a means of counter-terrorism—the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001—I establish the real-world context that led to the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, as well as the development and implementation of various sophisticated and powerful means of surveillance in the 21st century. I expose the reader to a historical timeline of the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program, graphs on the calculations on modern terrorism trends, polls on how Americans view their right to privacy compared to the state’s interest in investigating possible terrorist threats, and a chart illustrating how the NSA uses it’s programs to clone and split copies of electronic communications for its own record and analysis purposes. My research not only dives into the purpose and goals for the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security—the two major government entities that I argue infringe most upon the constitutional rights of citizens—but it also gives an account into various lawsuits filed against these organizations mainly on principles regarding the Freedom of Information Act, so as to demand more transparency among government institutions. For example, the case of Jewel v. NSA where millions of American citizens unknowingly and unwarrantly had all means of conversation— telephone calls, text messages, instant messages, emails, and various other electronic communications methods—were recorded and stored by the NSA via huge telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon. I then dive into an analysis of terrorism post-9/11 to analyze !1
its evolution through today and, more importantly, how the population has and continues to perceive it as a threat. I also introduce the case of Wilner v. NSA where 23 American attorneys were subject to unwarranted surveillance solely for representing individuals detained at Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. In my analysis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I use the cases of the EFF v. the DHS, where the DHS and Department of Transportation (DOT) employed very sophisticated Predator drones to local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies without exposing certifications and authorizations explaining the use of such drones domestically. I then introduce the natural born right of every human being to that of privacy, which further establishes the definition upon which my central theme rests—to preserve the American people’s right to privacy through the dismantling of domestic spying programs. Furthermore, I shed light into the most recent and developing case of illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance practices in regards to the CIA being accused of spying on Senate computers, offering this case scenario as possibly the most realistic chance we as a nation have of tearing down these repressive tools and harmful policies used to undermine the liberal democracy of the state, as well as the rights of every natural born U.S.-citizen today. Finally, I end with a normative approach to how the American people should discourage the development of such domestic surveillance programs to preserve their fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution of the liberal democratic republic of the USA. I describe how today’s liberal democracy runs and operates in light of all counter-terrorism policies, practices, and infrastructures, offering the threats that they pose to the continuing and legitimacy of the United States democratic structure of government.
! Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 At 8:45 on a clear Tuesday morning, an American Boeing 767 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Only 18 minutes later, a second Boeing 767 appeared !2
in the sky, sharply turning toward and smashing into the World Trade Center’s south tower. By 10:30 that morning, both towers had crumbled to the ground, engulfing all of lower Manhattan in a thick black smoke and filling the surrounding 5 blocks in burning debris. The attack would go on to take the lives of close to 3,000 New Yorkers, including emergency response officers, and injure almost 100,000 more civilians. That day, September 11, 2001, would immediately issue in a new world era of counterterrorism that would grow to influence American policy so much that it would raise question to the integrity of the liberal democratic republic of the United States of America that the Constitution stands to protect (history.com 2010). The attacks on September 11th had direct and indirect implications on U.S. governmental structures. In the weeks after 9/11, President George W. Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct a range of surveillance activities inside the United States, which had been barred by law and agency policy for decades. In 2005, the New York Times exposed the NSA’s spying program for the very first time. In response, President Bush admitted to a small aspect of the program in which the NSA monitored, without warrants, the communications of between 500-1,000 people inside the U.S. with suspected connections to Al Qaeda. Other aspects of the program, however, were not aimed at targeted individuals suspected of terrorism, but perhaps millions of innocent U.S. citizens who were never suspected of any crime (Risen and Lichtblau 2005).
! The National Security Agency According to their official website, the National Security Agency was established by President Truman in 1954 with the purpose of collecting, processing, and disseminating intelligence information from foreign electronic signals for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes, and to support military operations. From its inception to the turn of the millennium, the NSA only had one documented incident of illegal domestic spying, which was resolved with the !3
establishment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). From the New York Times, "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was enacted in 1978, passed in response to revelations by the Church Committee showing widespread abuse of government wiretaps, and to growing concerns on the part of the Supreme Court over eavesdropping practices. The law governs the surveillance of people in the United States for the purpose of collecting intelligence related to foreign powers. A secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, was created to hear requests for such warrants. Safeguards were put in place to ensure that investigators pursuing criminal matters did not obtain warrants under FISA that they could not get from an ordinary judge.” All of this changed immediately following the 9/11 attacks. The culture of domestic spying began to shift at the NSA, with its post-9/11 approach being one that circumvented all federal statutes and the Constitution as long as there was some visceral connection for looking for terrorists. In the three years alone following Bush’s authorization of the NSA’s implementation of domestic spying as a measure of counterterrorism, the intelligence agency monitored the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, if not thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants, justifying this by claiming that the agency still sought warrants for obtaining records of completely domestic communications. As Timeline 1.0 shows, this claim would be refuted by various accounts of warrantless domestic spying that would only be more fully exposed later in 2009 via a leaked NSA inspector general report. Furthermore, the table gives an in depth look into the activities of the NSA and their Domestic Spying Program from it’s inception to today. The leading organization in this fight to demolish all domestic spying programs, especially employed by the NSA is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). As stated on the EFF website, they are a donor-funded U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that champions user privacy, free
!4
expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. Since they were established, in 1990, they have used the unique expertise
Timeline 1.0—Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying
!
*Source: Data collected by the Electronic Frontier Foundation * https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline
!
04/02/2014— Admiral Michael S. Rogers Assumes Role of Director of NSA
03/28/2014—Director of National Intelligence Clapper Confirms NSA Conducted Warrantless Searches of Information Collected Under Section 702 03/18/2014—The Washington Post Reveals the NSA's MYSTIC program
NBC Reveals GCHQ Tapped Into Fiberoptic Cable to Spy on Youtube Users
01/27/2014—NSA Spies on Users by Obtaining Information from "Leaky" Mobile Apps
01/03/2014—FISA Court Renews Order Collecting All Americans' Calling Records 11/14/2013—News Reports Reveal CIA Collecting Bulk International Money Transfers Using Patriot Act 08/21/2013—Office of the Director of National Intelligence Releases FISA Court Decision Detailing NSA's Violation of the Fourth Amendment
12/04/2013—Washington Post Reveals NSA Collecting 5 Billion Records of Mobile Phone Location Daily 10/02/2013—New York Times Reveals NSA Tracked CellPhone Location of Americans for up to Two Years
09/05/2013—Guardian Reveals How NSA and GCHQ Attack Encryption Standards and Hack
03/17/2014—Former Church Committee Members and Staffers Call for a New Congressional Investigation into Intelligence Collection 01/16/2014—Guardian Reveals NSA Collects Millions of Text Messages 11/21/2013—Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on NSA Spying 09/30/2013—Guardian Reveals NSA Stores Metadata of Millions of Web Users for up to a Year
03/27/2014—President Obama Releases an Official Statement on Section 215 Bulk Metadata Collection 02/06/2014—FISA Court Modifies Section 215 Program After President Obama's Request 12/10/2013—Washington Post Reveals How NSA Turns Browser Cookies Into Surveillance Devices 10/11/2013—FISA Court Renews Order Collecting All Americans' Calling Records
09/01/2013—New York Times Reveals AT&T Calling Records Database Used by DEA Goes Back 20 Years
08/09/2013—Guardian Reveals Legal Loophole NSA Uses to Spy on Americans
08/07/2013—Reuters Follow up: IRS also Uses Data DEA Receives from NSA 06/09/2013—NSA’s Boundless Informat Tool to Record and Analyze Spying Revealed by Edward Snowden
06/27/2013—The Guardian Releases Draft NSA Inspector General Report Detailing Complete History of Domestic NSA Spying 06/05/2013—Secret Court Order Revealing Spying of All U.S. Verizon Calls Leaked
08/05/2013—Reuters Reports on DEA's Use of Data Collected by NSA 07/11/2013—Guardian Reports on Microsoft's Cooperation with U.S. Government 06/06/2013—PRISM Program Revealed: NSA Tapping Into Internet Companies' Systems, Mass Collecting User Data
08/15/2013— Washington Post Reveals NSA Internal Audit Showing Thousands of Violations
XKEYSCORE Revealed 06/11/2013—ACLU Files New Lawsuit Against NSA Spying
!5
07/20/2012—Government Admits NSA Spying Violated Constitution
04/15/2012—New York Times Reports NSA Still Collecting Purely Domestic Communications 07/11/2008—ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of FISA Amendments Act
01/06/2011—NSA Starts Construction on Massive Data Center to Hold the World's Intercepted Communications
08/05/2007—Protect America Act Signed Into Law 05/11/2006—NSA Collecting All Americans' Phone Calls for Database
Early March 2004—Concerns Grow Over the Program in the Justice Department 09/25/2003—Congress Cancels "Total Info Awareness" Surveillance Program Due to Privacy Concerns Summer 2002—AT&T Technician Discovers NSA Is Working Inside AT&T Facilities
09/12/2001—Culture against domestic spying shifts at the NSA 1975—Senate “Church Committee” investigation uncovers illegal domestic spying by NSA
01/20/2009—President Obama Takes Office
07/09/2008—Congress Passes FISA Amendments Act, Giving Telecom Companies Immunity and Expanding Wiretapping 01/17/2007—FISA Court Rules It Will Now Oversee Certain Aspects of Program
01/20/2006—AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein Goes to EFF With Evidence of AT&T's Involvement in NSA Spying
12/23/2005—New York Times Reveals NSA Spying Program is Much Larger Than President Bush Acknowledged and that Companies Gave Backdoor Access to Their Domestic and International Communications Stream
03/02/2009—FISA Court Forces NSA to Obtain Court Approval for Every Metadata Search
10/11/2011—NSA Stops Internet Metadata Collection, Continues Collection of Internet Content
May 2006—Phone Companies' Voluntary Agreement to Hand Over "Bulk Metadata" to Government Ends 01/17/2006—New York Times Reports NSA Program Leads FBI to Hundreds of Dead-Ends and Innocent Americans
21/16/2005—New York Times Exposes NSA Spying to the Public for the First Time 03/19/2004—First Day of Three Month Period When NSA Stops Collecting Bulk Internet Metadata Late 2003—Selected FBI and CIA Employees Join NSA Team
03/11/2004—White House Approves 45-Day Extension of NSA Spying Without Justice Department Approval
Late Oct 2001— Companies Start Sending Internet and Telephony Content to NSA
2001—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
1954—President Truman establishes the NSA
02/05/2006—USA Today Names the Telecom Companies, Including AT&T, MCI and Sprint, Which Helped in NSA DSP
12/17/2005—President Bush Confirms Existence of NSA Spying 07/14/2004—Secret Surveillance Court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Signs First Order to Resume Collection of Bulk Internet Metadata
Late Sept—Parts of the Cancelled "Total Information Awareness" Program Quietly Moved into DSP
01/01/2003—Narus Surveillance Equipment Installed in Secret Room in AT&T’s San Francisco Facility
Mid-Oct 2001—NSA begins secretly approaching Telecom companies to participate in the DSP
08/03/2007—Protect America Act Passed by House and Senate, Expands President's Wiretapping Abilities
1973—Supreme Court rules warrants are required for domestic intelligence
07/17/2003—Sen. Rockefeller Writes to VP Cheney Questioning Legality of Program. Cheney Does Not Respond Late 2002—Telecommunications Companies Formally Enter Voluntarily Agreements with U.S. to Give Data to NSA 10/04/2001—President Bush signs order beginning NSA’s Domestic Spying Program (DSP) 1978— FISA signed into law, protecting Americans from domestic spying
!6
of leading technologists, activists, and attorneys in efforts to defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, advocate for users and innovators, and support freedom-enhancing technologies, filing more than 250 legal cases in defense of these Constitutional rights that advanced technology has and will continue to infringe upon more and more each day. Most notably, they sued the NSA and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers in Jewel v. NSA.
! Jewel v. NSA Filed on 18 September 2008, Jewel v. NSA aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans while holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it (EFF.org). The case was filed on behalf of Carolyn Jewel and several other AT&T customers who claimed their constitutional rights were violated by the U.S. government via the NSA’s unauthorized surveillance of their telephone and internet activity. The plaintiffs (represented by public interest and the private counsel of the EFF) allege that this was a joint effort by major telecommunications companies, outside of the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and without authorization by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). According to the case summary provided by the United States Courts website, they also allege that the defendants have unlawfully solicited and obtained from telecommunications companies the private telephone and internet transactional records of those companies’ customers, indicating who the customers communicated with, when they communicated, and for how long the conversations lasted, among other sensitive information. Using their nationwide network of sophisticated communications surveillance devices that carry the telephone and internet communications of millions of Americans not suspected of any crimes, the defendants continue to acquire the content of a significant percentage of phone calls, emails, text messages, instant messages, web communications, and other communications, both domestically and internationally, of practically every American who uses the internet and/or phone system today. !7
The government sought to block the suit outright, arguing that the information needed to litigate the plaintiffs’ claim was protected under the states secret privilege evidentiary rule that protects sensitive information obtained by the state in the interest of national security—despite the fact that Congress already created secure procedures for courts to review sensitive evidence in suits alleging unlawful domestic surveillance (ie. in-camera reviews). In January 2010, Judge Jeffrey S. White initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim because without the evidence needed to make this claim, there was no legal standing to proceed in court. On appeal, the Ninth Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal on legal standing ground, finding that the plaintiffs did have standing, and remanded “with instructions to consider, among other claims and defenses, whether the government's assertion that the state secrets privilege bars this litigation” (Jewel v. NSA). On 8 July 2013, the District Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary adjudication—on the basis that the defendants could not dispute the material facts of the case—and rejected the defendants’ state secret defense. However, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity—a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution—was also granted by the District Court. As of 19 November 2013, the plaintiffs’ First and Fourth amendment claim remain pending. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ electronic surveillance program violated the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, separation of powers, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act or the Stored Communications Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America dictates:
!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (U.S. Constitution). !8
Aside from the program’s obvious infringement on one’s freedom of speech, it also violates one’s freedom to peaceably assemble. Freedom of assembly is the freedom of association—the right of any group of people to join together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. The question that arises here is about what constitutes a “joining together” of peoples. In the digital era of today, is it not rational to broaden a definition of “joining together” to include digital representation as actual agents of our persons? For example, when you engage in communications via a telephone call, instant message, text message, or email, among various other forms of virtual communication, you are not physically assembling with the person(s) you are communicating with, but the infrastructure which you use to communicate acts solely on your behalf—you have control over what information is shared from your end—thus qualifying that as an agent. When these telecommunication companies implement new technologies to create digital clones of your conversations for their own record and analysis (See Chart 1.0), especially without any just reason, that is a violation your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America dictates:
!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution).
The argument here is blatantly obvious: warrantless domestic wiretaps and surveillance of millions of innocent Americans without their knowledge is a clear violation of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right as a citizen of the USA. The rebuttal to this argument is that there is probable cause on the grounds of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which is part of the President’s Surveillance Program, which is conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism. Founded in 1999, the New America Foundation is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan
! !9
!
Chart 1.0—Model of NSA’s Interception Centers Source: The Domestic Surveillance Directorate at http://nsa.gov1.info/surveillance/ (19 April 2014).
public policy institute and think tank focusing on a wide range of issues, including national security studies, technology, asset building, health, energy, education, and the economy. The organization is based in Washington, D.C. and, according to their study on the NSA’s bulk surveillance program’s execution of preventing terrorism, they conclude that a review of the government’s claims about the role that NSA “bulk” surveillance of phone and email communications records has had in keeping the United States safe from terrorism shows that these claims are overblown and even misleading. They go further into an analysis of 225 individuals recruited by al-Qaeda, or a like-minded terrorist group, that have been charged with an act of terrorism in the USA since 9/11, stating that the controversial bulk collection of American telephone metadata, which includes the telephone numbers that originate and receive calls, as well as the time and date of those calls but not their !10
content, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, appears to have played an identifiable role in, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases. So, how is it that the judicial system has allowed this domestic spying program to continue for more than a decade when the only semi-justifiable claim they have for it’s continuation has been proven to be ultimately ineffective in it’s purpose? Ultimately, it all can be summarized as follows: the U.S. government has infringed upon the Fourth Amendment rights of millions of innocent American citizens via unwarranted and unreasonable search and seizure of their communication records through illegal domestic surveillance programs. The staple of the liberal democracy of the United States of America is our three-branch government structure which all carry separate and independent powers and responsibilities so as to not conflict with one another. With this separation of power comes the system of checks and balances—allowing for one branch to limit another so as to prevent any branch of government from becoming supreme to the others. These checks allow for presidents to veto legislation or appoint new judges, Congress to impeach the president or change law, and the judiciary to declare acts unconstitutional. If the federal government has domestic-spying powers concentrated in the executive branch, with little oversight, the President can easily make use of this infrastructure to collect data on members of Congress, or any political enemy essentially, and use that information to strong-arm politicians or further his own political agenda. Such power in the executive branch seriously undermines this system of checks and balances that is a staple of the structure of our government. With this concentrated power, our system of government could easily veer toward what James Madison described as the definition of tyranny in The Federalist No. 47, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.” This mere presence of power does not prove that it has actually been abused by the Obama or Bush administrations, but given the secrecy surrounding such programs and intelligence communities, it is fair to conclude that it is possible that if such an abuse of power did/does occur, outsiders would likely never know. In fact, there is one account in which this temptation—that is the access to !11
extensive power with very little risk of being exposed—has already proven to overpower our nation’s leader, which, in this case, even led to the formation and passing of FISA. As history would dictate, Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States, used federal resources to spy on political and activist groups; and as the saying goes, “history does have a way of repeating itself.” The longer the general population of the United States does not stand up and collectively fight for the disbanding of this infrastructure, the greater a threat this will continue to become to the separation of powers within our government. Despite the fact that there are legitimate legal arguments that prove the NSA’s domestic surveillance program infringes upon Constitutional rights of millions of Americans, as well as poses a major threat to the structure of U.S. government, along with the violation of various governmental acts already signed into law, Jewel v. NSA is still being tried, some five plus years after it was originally filed. What does this say about the way our government is run? Not only does it tell Americans that their Constitutional rights are in fact privileges, not only does it display the grossly unbalanced system of power and control in the government, but it also broadcasts to the world and our nation that our government has no limitation of power because they can now hide any and all immoralities behind “The War on Terror.”
! Post-9/11 Terrorism As stated earlier, it is widely known that the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, along with the digitalization of the world today, is the reason behind the development and implementation of illegal domestic spying programs, especially by the NSA. In their New York Times article on President Bush’s secret order to widen domestic monitoring, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau report that officials said the Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States. Defenders
!12
of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.
! Graph 1.0—Homegrown Terrorism Against the U.S. Number of Attacks 35
33
30
25
20
18 13
15
12
10
7 3
5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1
0
2006
2007
2008
4
2009
!Source: Calculations based on data from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, at http:// www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents.html (20 April 2014). ! According to calculations based on data from the Research And Development (RAND)
Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, and shown in Graph 1.0, incidents of homegrown terrorism—extremist violence perpetrated by U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents, and linked to or inspired by al-Qaeda’s brand of radical Sunni Islamism—have decreased in the aggregate since 9/11. Since the database only began collecting data on domestic terrorism in the USA beginning in 2001, Graph 1.0 only shows cases of homegrown terrorism from 2001 to their most recent report in 2009. During this time span, there were 93 accounts of homegrown terrorism. With the number of
!13
Graph 2.0—Domestic and International Terrorism Against the U.S., 2001-2009: Fatalities and Injuries INJURIES
FATALITIES
6000
! 5000
5,107
4000
! !
3,861
Total
3000
2,770 2000
! ! !!
1000
0
8 Domestic
879
Excluding 9/11 attacks
International
Domestic
53
International
Source: Calculations based on data from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, at http:// www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents.html (20 April 2014).
!
attacks reaching its peak in 2001, the number steadily decreases to 0 in 2007, only increasing slightly with no more than 4 attacks in 2008 and 2009. Most terrorist attacks against the USA occur from outside of the state’s borders. In fact, as Graph 2.0 shows, international terrorism caused far more American fatalities and injuries than did domestic terrorism in the USA from 2001 to 2009. Domestic terrorism constituted for only eight deaths while international terrorism claimed 3,861 American lives—more than 482 times the number of domestic terrorist fatalities. Furthermore, of these 3,681 fatalities, approximately 77% can be solely attributed to the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Looking at the statistical results of the injuries caused by domestic terrorism vs. international terrorism against the United States from 2001 to 2009, the same analysis as was made with examining the American fatality statistics can be seen. Domestic terrorism injured only 53 Americans, compared
!14
to the 5,107 injuries caused by international terrorist attacks against the USA—more than 96% the total number of that of domestic terrorism. Furthermore, of these 5,107 injuries, 9/11 accounts for 46% of the total number of injuries caused by international terrorism from 2001 to 2009—2,770 to be exact. As Graph 3.0 shows, most acts of terrorism against the United States occur in the international community. Since 1969, more than half of all U.S.-targeted international acts of terror occurred in either Latin America and the Caribbean (36%) or Europe (23%), while the Middle East and Persian Gulf account for only 20%, the last 20% being attributed to the collective regions of Asia, Africa, and North America—the least of all acts of terrorism against the United States in the 40 years from 1969-2009 occurring in North America (4%).
Graph 3.0—International Terrorism Against the U.S., by World Region (1969-2009)
!Source: Calculations based on data from the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, at http:// www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents.html (20 April 2014). 1200
1000
Number and Percentage of Total Attacks
1,034 (36%)
800
600
649 (23%)
590 (20%)
400
333 (12%)
200
0
!
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe
Middle East/ Persian Gulf
Asia
148 (5%)
129 (4%)
Africa
North America
!15
The whole purpose of the NSA’s various domestic spying software was to collect data intelligence of individuals with suspected ties to al-Qaeda, and similar terrorist organizations, in effort to combat the “War on Terrorism” in the name of national security. If statistical analysis of trends in terrorism worldwide basically dictate one central claim—the great majority of terrorist attacks against the USA come from outside its borders—why, then, does the United States government still employ domestic surveillance programs to collect data on it’s own citizens today? Data shows that homegrown terrorism is proving to be less of a threat to America’s national security, while the threat of terrorism from the international community is drastically proving to pose a greater threat to the state, year after year. Terrorism has been the focal point of various institutional developments that have, as a collective, gradually infringed upon many rights of not only American citizens, but human beings as a whole: the greatest example being that of the establishment of Guantánamo Bay detention camp.
! Wilner v. NSA Wilner v. NSA, filed by Thomas Wilner and fifteen other attorneys who provided legal representation to individuals detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba, was a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the United States NSA and Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the official complaint filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), “Plaintiffs represent men detained at the U.S. Naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba as part of the ‘war on terror.’ Upon information and belief, plaintiffs’ electronic and/or telephonic communications have been monitored by defendant agencies and records of those communications have been compiled and retained by the defendant agencies because of plaintiffs’ representation of detainees and plaintiffs’ international communications with clients, released detainees, family members of detainees and/or organizations, business and individuals affiliated with detainees outside of the United States.” Filed on 17 May 2007, the suit demanded that the government comply with !16
requests made to turn over all records of the NSA’s unwarranted wiretapping gathered on 23 attorneys who have represented or currently represent detainees at Guantánamo. According to the CCR, the Bush Administration told Congress that attorneys were not categorically excluded from surveillance under the NSA Program. In addition Philip Shenon reported in his 2008 New York Times article “Lawyers Fear Monitoring in Cases of Terrorism” that, “the Justice Department does not deny that the government has monitored phone calls and email exchanges between lawyers and their clients as part of terrorism investigations in the United States and overseas,” also reporting that "two senior Justice Department officials” admitted that “they knew of a handful of terrorism cases since the Sept. 11 attacks in which the government may have monitored lawyer-client conversations.” In this case, the NSA and Department of Justice both refused to acknowledge the existence of documentation related to whether the individual lawyers were being subjected to warrantless surveillance. When the CCR filed, the government defended the suit stating that any allegations to the existence of records relating to unwarranted surveillance of the attorneys could be neither confirmed nor denied, a phrase coined into legal doctrine as the Glomar response. This raised the question, before the Supreme Court, of whether or not the government could use the Glomar response as a means to adequately refute such requests, even though any such wiretaps and surveillance are illegal and unconstitutional. The NSA’s wiretapping and surveillance of these American attorneys violated one of the oldest legal doctrines in this nation: that of attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege is the requirement that an attorney may not reveal communications, conversations, and letters between oneself and ones client, under the theory that a person should be able to speak freely and honestly with their attorney without fear of future revelation (Hill 2002). In any case, this privilege requires an attorney, and entitles a client, to not reveal any information that was exchanged during any attorney-client contact. It is so respected in the realm of the legal system of the United States that
!17
the only way an attorney may be compelled to breach this privilege is through compliance with a court order. The fact that conversations between the plaintiffs and their clients were subject to illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, simply because they involved detainees at Guantánamo, was a serious undermining of one’s Sixth Amendment right to legal counsel, especially since the Supreme Court ruled, in Brewer v. Williams, that “one gains the right to legal counsel at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him,” and that the right to legal counsel implies the “right to an effective assistance of counsel.” By hamstringing attorney-client privilege, the government implicitly fosters a climate where the attorney cannot effectively provide legal counsel for his client. Furthermore, the threat of the use of unwarranted surveillance seriously hindered the attorneys’ efforts to gather evidence, as it provided to be a huge deterrence for witnesses oversees to speak freely over the telephone, knowing the likelihood that the U.S. government would be listening in on and recording their conversation(s). On 4 October 2010, the Supreme Court granted judgment to the government’s Glomar claim, accepting that they had legal right to refuse to either confirm or deny the existence of records “relating to ongoing or completed electronic surveillance or physical searches” relating to any of the plaintiffs individually (CCRJustice.org). Throughout the past decade, it has become evident, through various cases tried from the levels of the District Courts up to the Supreme Court, that the National Security Agency, and the U.S. government, engage in illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical surveillance of millions of innocent American citizens on a daily basis. While the NSA is the leading force behind domestic spying programs in the United States, it is also fair to include the Department of Homeland Security in this discussion of how the reemergence of terrorism and advancement technology have led to policy makings and practices of unwarranted domestic surveillance on unknowing Americans not suspected of any criminal activity.
! !18
The Department of Homeland Security “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear—keeping America safe.” (DHS.gov). Equivalent to the interior ministries in other countries, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a federal government cabinet position—created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th—with the sole purpose of protecting the state and its territories from acts of terrorism, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. Its stated goal is to prevent, prepare for, and respond to domestic emergency situations, especially that of terrorism. Focusing more on what is possible instead of what is probable, the DHS, as many national security scholars would claim, has the tendency to create widespread fear without making Americans any safer. According to Benjamin Friedman’s article on Homeland Security in Foreign Policy magazine, “the assertion that terrorists continue to case American targets stems from the idea planted in the minds of Americans —by the [DHS] and various media outlets—that terrorists remain hidden in the United States. But 6th FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that there is little evidence that so-called sleeper cells reside in the United States, even as he warned the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he remains ‘very concerned about what we are not seeing.’ After years without a terrorist attack, perhaps Americans can take what they are not seeing seriously. The assumption that terrorists are flawless and ubiquitous results in unreasoned fear and overreaction. This ghost is worse than the reality.” This phenomenon of excessive fear of terrorism in the minds of millions of Americans, perhaps, is a reason as to why the constituency has remained complacent with the various spying and surveillance programs employed by the U.S. government. According to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, and shown in Graph 4.0, among !19
!
Graph 4.0—Public Say Investigate Terrorism, Even if it Intrudes on Privacy
Source: Pew Research Center and The Washington Post at http://www.people-press.org/ 2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/ (25 April 2014).
80
60
Investigate Terrorist Threats
Not Intrude on Privacy
68%
65%
62%
40
34%
32% 26%
20
0
Jan 2006
Nov 2010
June 2013
1,004 adults, 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy, while only 34% of adults say the inverse is more important. These opinions have changed slightly since a similar ABC News and The Washington Post survey in 2006 when 32% of adults said it is more important for the government to not intrude on personal privacy, even if that means limiting its abilities to investigate possible terrorist threats. The actual problem here arises when the U.S. government uses this fear as a tactic to mask and distract the public from covert development of more advanced technology that doubles as tools the state has the ability to use, at their discretion, to track and record your everyday movements and interactions without you even knowing or suspecting. This problem is, in fact, an !20
issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has foreseen, and even filed suit on behalf of the general public against the Department of Homeland Security for beginning to implement policy and technologies intended for the execution of this new level of domestic and international surveillance.
!
DHS and DOT’s Predator Drones On 30 October 2012, the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security, demanding answers about how and why it loans out its Predator drones to other law enforcement agencies across the nation. According to details of the case listed on the EFF website, “Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—a division of the DHS—uses and operates unmanned aircrafts, also known as drones, inside the U.S. to patrol the borders with surveillance equipment like video and infrared cameras, heat sensors, and radar. However, recent news articles, as well as a report from inside the DHS itself, show that CBP is expanding its surveillance work, flying Predator drone missions on behalf of multiple local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies—including a county sheriff's department in North Dakota, the Texas Rangers, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Defense.” Unmanned aircraft or drones come in many shapes and sizes, from as small as a hummingbird to as large as a commercial airplane, and are designed to carry various types of equipment that allow them to conduct highly sophisticated and virtually constant surveillance. Some of the newer drones even carry high resolution “gigapixel” cameras that can “track people and vehicles from altitudes of about 20,000 feet, can monitor up to 65 enemies of the State simultaneously, and can see targets from almost 25 miles down range.” (Munchbach 2011). In January 2012, when the EFF first filed suit against the Department of Transportation (DOT) to release documentation on authorizations and certifications issued by the department for drone operations within the state’s borders, EFF Attorney Jennifer Lynch wrote: “Predator drones can eavesdrop on electronic transmissions, and one drone unveiled at DEFCON [in 2011] can crack !21
Wi-Fi networks and intercept text messages and cell phone conversations—without the knowledge or help of either the communications provider or the customer. Drones are also designed to carry weapons, and some have suggested that drones carrying weapons such as tasers and bean bag guns could be used domestically.” She went further to explain that “many drones, by virtue of their design, their size, and how high they can fly, can operate undetected in urban and rural environments, allowing the government to spy on Americans without their knowledge.” On 10 December 2011, Brian Bennet reported in his Los Angeles Times article “Police Employ Drone Spy Planes on Home Front” that the CBP had used one of its Predator drones to assist the North Dakota Nelson County Sheriff’s Department in finding three individuals suspected of committing a property theft. In a later article on 28 April 2012, Bennet also reported that the CBP’s “drones often are unavailable to assist border agents because Homeland Security officials have lent the aircraft to the FBI, Texas Rangers, and other government agencies for law enforcement, disaster relief, and other uses.” If these highly sophisticated Predator drones are being funded and developed for the purpose of defense against serious threats to national security, why is it, then, that they have been used for solving domestic petty crimes, especially to the extent that the agency charged at the forefront of protecting our borders don’t have access to them? In October of 2012, Jennifer Lynch filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking for more information on these drone flights, more specifically who was flying them, where they were being flown, and for what purpose(s), but to date, the Department of Homeland Security has not responded to such requests. According the EFF’s website, that same day, she also “filed a second FOIA lawsuit with the FAA, demanding the latest data on certifications and authorizations that the agency has issued for public drone flights in the U.S.” Although the FAA did agree to turn over some files after the initial suit was filed against them in January of 2012, the process remains ongoing to this day. The agency’s slow response has meant that the information the EFF will receive will be outdated by the time it is received, and unless a new suit is filed requesting more !22
data, it is likely that most of the records from 2012 will not be included. Months after the EFF filed the initial suit against the Department of Transportation, however, the lawsuit helped to uncover 125 drone certificates and accompanying documents from the Federal Aviation Administration, totaling in thousands of pages of data. Drones are sophisticated and powerful surveillance tools. They can be used to gather extensive data on ones travel and communication records, and the American people need, and have the right, to know more about how and why such Predator drones are being used to watch them. As Lynch put it, the “FAA’s foot-dragging means we can’t get a real-time picture of drone activity in the U.S.” and in doing so, the FAA, and the U.S. government, are yet again infringing upon millions of innocent Americans’ overarching rights to privacy, including, but not limited to, their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly, and to be secure in their persons from unreasonable search and seizure.
! The Right to Privacy In order to assert that every American citizen, let alone every human being in the international community, has the basic right to privacy, one must first establish a relevant and applicable definition of privacy. While there are a multitude of definitions of privacy, differing among cultures and individuals, common themes are shared alike. The Haifa Center for Law & Technology is a renowned interdisciplinary center in Israel, dedicated to the study of the interconnection between law and technology. In light of the digitally-centralized culture of today and tomorrow, the following definition of privacy, provided by the Haifa Center for Law & Technology, shall be adopted and used for the remainder of this paper: “the right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the
!23
ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose.” (Yael Onn, et at. 2005). What then, constitutes an invasion of ones privacy? According to The People’s Law Dictionary, an invasion of privacy is “the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded.” While this does not protect public figures— who through their celebrity, make their activities considered newsworthy in the public eye—otherwise, non-public individuals have the right to privacy from: “a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage.” (Hill 2002). The government—through various agencies, and new policies and technologies implemented in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th—has repeatedly, unashamedly, and unjustly stampeded on every U.S. citizen’s basic right to privacy since the wake of the new millennium. While this hasn’t yet sparked widespread unrest in the public sphere, the private sector has actively protested against these infrastructures that have been destroying the fabric of society and advocated for the Constitutional, legal, and general human rights of all Americans on their behalf. What would life be without something so basic as one’s right to privacy? On a daily basis, any communication between you and anyone else being watched and recorded, all of your personal information posted via social media being watched and recorded, and above all else, your every physical move being watched and recorded. To what extent will the American public tolerate the sacrifice of their natural born rights in the name of national security—especially when such threats to national security, that are being used as the basis for justification of these surveillance programs, have been proven to essentially be on the verge of irrelevance anymore? Perhaps it will take a catastrophe to happen, in so far as the !24
information collected being hacked and obtained by foreign powers. Or perhaps it will take government agencies using the software to collect intelligence data on other government agencies, as can be seen in the recent media coverage of the CIA spying on the computers of members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
! CIA Spying on Senate Computers According to Halimah Abdullah’s CNN article on the CIA searching U.S. Senate computers, “The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, veteran Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, accused the CIA of secretly removing classified documents from her staff’s computers in the middle of an oversight investigation.” Only speaking out about this issue out of reluctance because of false media portrayal, Senator Feinstein spoke out about the accusation made by CIA Director John Brennan that maybe the Committee obtained the document in an illegal way, while also simultaneously denying claims that the agency ever searched the Committee’s internal network. Senator Feinstein responded to this allegation strongly stating, “Our staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled the sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the Panetta Review by the CIA itself. As a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime. I view the acting counsel general’s referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff, and I am not taking it lightly.” (Abdullah 2014). The issue here is that the Senate Intelligence Committee spent several years, starting back in 2009, looking into the practices of the Central Intelligence Agency after 9/11—those enhanced interrogation techniques—also referred to as torture—as well as the CIA’s detention of people at secret prisons around the world. Senator Feinstein said the CIA provided upwards of 6.2 million pages to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but at some point, the CIA had questions about an internal memo in the Committee’s possession. Wanting to know how the Committee received it in !25
the first place, the CIA allegedly searched the Senate’s internal network and deleted more than 900 pages from file. Referred to as the Panetta Review, this internal CIA review raised various questions about the agency’s own tactics. “What was unique and interesting about the internal documents was not their classification level, but rather their analysis and acknowledgement of significant CIA wrongdoing” Feinstein stated in her open address on the Senate floor. Normally a strong ally for U.S. intelligence agencies, Senator Feinstein expressed her concerns that the CIA’s search may have, besides the Constitutional implications, violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, separation of powers principles, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance (Abdullah 2014). CIA Director John Brennan denied all allegations of computer hacking. According to the Reuters article “CIA accused of spying on U.S. Senate intelligence committee,” Brennan claimed in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank that “nothing could be further from the truth. We [the CIA] wouldn’t do that.” Furthermore, “In a letter Brennan wrote to Feinstein in January [2014], which was obtained by Reuters, he acknowledged the data had been deposited in the part of the CIA computer network to which Senate investigators had access but said he did not know how this happened.” (Zengerle, et al. 2014). In light of recent electronic surveillance revelations made by U.S. NSA contractor and fugitive, Edward Snowden, this dispute heightened concerns about the effectiveness of congressional oversight of U.S. spy agencies. All in all, Feinstein said she is going to move as early as possible to have her committee’s entire report declassified and made available to the American public (Zengerle, et al. 2014).
! Theoretical Analysis of 9/11 Attacks For some time, the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001, and the War on Terror that followed, signaled a return to a world of realist security relations, given the renewed emphasis on the use of force. Contemporary structural realists, such as John !26
Mearsheimer, have acknowledged that realism, given its focus on states, has little to say about nonstate actors, such as “terrorists.” This can explain why, in fact, this electronic surveillance era came to be in the United States. The Bush Administration, not even a year in office yet, had experienced what history would deem the greatest single terrorist attack yet. Because of this, concerns with strengthening the state became primary to concerns of individual rights and freedoms, for in the realist frame of thought, there was no other way to secure the general public than to enforce the strength of the state, doing so via military deployment, drone development, increased transportation security policies and procedures, and, of course, electronic surveillance programs. While realism can explain the actions of the state and its response to the attacks, it is limited, first and foremost, by its assumption of a timeless objective condition of anarchy in which states are the primary actors (Dunne 2010). President Bush made an aggressive statement that went on to categorize the philosophy behind his administration’s counterterrorism actions in his 20 September 2001 address to a Joint Session of Congress: “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” Many scholars, however, view what has been coined as the “Bush Doctrine” as one of a spoiled child having a tantrum because his toy was broken and thus, began stealing everyone’s toys in revenge. Political scientist and retired USAF lieutenant colonel Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski wrote in her 2007 article “Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine” that “we are killing terrorists in self-defense and for the good of the world, you see. We are taking over foreign countries, setting them up with our favorite puppets ‘in charge,’ controlling their economy, their movements, their dress codes, their self defense projects, and their dreams, solely because we love them, and apparently can’t live without them.” How then, would one
!27
describe the liberal democracy of the United States today? Would it still be seen to uphold the morals and rights enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
! How does the Liberal Democracy of the USA Operate Today? “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.� (U.S. Constitution). These were the first words written by our founding fathers some two centuries ago in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Even though it is fair to keep in mind that there is no way that any of our founding fathers could have even imagined the world that we now live in, it is even more fair to say that the U.S. government is very different than the one they sought out in drafting the core documents of our liberal democracy. Liberal democracies are forms of governments in which a representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism—protecting the rights of minorities and, principally, the individual. Characterized by separation of powers into different branches of government, free and fair elections between multiple political parties, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of civil rights, human rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons, a true liberal democracy often draws upon a constitution to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social order. It is clear that our democracy has lost sight of these liberalist principles: government agencies illegally spy on citizens not suspected of any crimes, undermine the fundamental structures of government, and lack heavily in providing transparency. All in all, the liberal democracy of the United States today is more concerned with the obsession of acts of terrorism on the horizon than with the preservation of our human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties as expressed in the founding documentation of our constitutional republic that is a liberal democracy. !28
We do not live in a country where we can walk and talk freely, as per our First Amendment rights, but instead live in one where big brother is always watching over our back and threaten to send us to a secret, out-of-state prison if we say or do something not pleasing to them. We do not live in a country where the items we inherently possess are truly in fact our own possessions, but instead live in one where our property is searched and seized every single day: from our physical migrations to our shared philosophies. Furthermore, we do not live in a country where the rights of the individual and the minority are protected, but instead live in one where the general minority’s rights are always exploited by the economic minority who control the vast majority of the country’s wealth. Do we live in a truly liberal democracy as described in its technical definition? The answer depends on who you ask. One thing that can be asserted, however, is that if, in fact, we aren’t living in a truly liberal democratic society, we can reestablish one, but only if and when we truly want.
! Conclusion The U.S. government, through intelligence agencies employed to protect the nation from foreign threats, infringes upon the rights of millions of innocent, every-day American citizens. Their domestic surveillance programs are not only illegal—violating various Statutes, legal precedences, and Acts signed into law—but unconstitutional, infringing upon native resident’s First and Fourth Amendment rights, while also providing threats to the very structure of our government —specifically that of the separation of powers. The Bush Administration truly ushered in America’s reputation of being the “Policing State” in the international community. Not only have we made enemies out of various foreign nations because of a realistic approach to reassuring power through preemptive military strike, but will soon make enemies out of the voting constituency who underpin this liberal democracy that we have coined “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” If only our nation truly released the
!29
shackles of monitoring our every step and word, and stopped hiding cowardly behind the veil of “terrorism” and/or the “war on terrorism.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Muhammad Ali, Howard Baker, and Jane Fonda; what do all of these people have in common? Aside from the fact that these people are noticeably some of the most widely-known persons of American history (civil rights activist and leader; sports icon; U.S. Senator; and Emmy Award, and multiple Academy and Golden Globe Award winning actress), they were all unknowingly spied on by their own government. If the general public of the United States does not find reason to stand up and demand the termination of such programs and infrastructures that hinder our freedoms and rights, while simultaneously threatening the undermining of the structure of our government, then it won’t be very long before millions of Americans will also be able to knowingly say that they share that same commonality. Until then, to the state, we will always be suspect unless proven otherwise.
! "There are more instance of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison, 1788
!30
!
References
Bennett, Brian, “Police Employ Drone Spy Planes on Home Front,” Los Angeles Times, 10 December, 2011.
!
Bennett, Brian, “Predator Drones Have yet to Prove their Worth on Boarder,” Los Angeles Times, 28 April, 2012.
!
Bergen, Peter, Bailey Cahall, Emily Schneider, and David Sterman. 2014. “Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?” New American Foundation (January).
! Brewer v. Williams. 1976. 430 U.S. 387. !
Bush, George W. “Address to a joint Session of Congress and the American People,” The White House, 20 September, 2001.
!
CCRJustice.org. “Wilner v. National Security Agency (NSA).” http://ccrjustice.org/wilner (accessed 17 April, 2014).
! Abdullah, Halimah, “Feinstein says CIA spied on Senate computers,” CNN, 12 March, 2014. !
“Complaint for Injunctive Relief for Violation of the Freedom of Information Act,” No. 0164 (USDC for the Northern District of California 2012).
! DHS.gov. “About DHS.” http://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs (accessed 18 April, 2014). !
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. 2010. International Relations Theories—Discipline and Diversity. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
!
EFF.org. “EFF Demands Answers About Predator Drone Flights in the U.S.—Government Shares Drones with Law Enforcement Agencies Across the Country” https://www.eff.org/press/ releases/eff-demands-answers-about-predator-drone-flights-us (accessed 25 April, 2014).
! EFF.org. “Jewel v. NSA.” https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel (accessed 12 April, 2014). ! Friedman, Benjamin. 2005. “Homeland Security.” Foreign Policy (July-August): 22-29. !
Hill, Gerald, and Kathleen Hill. 2002. The People’s Law Dictionary: Taking the Mystery Out of Legal Language. 1st ed. New York, NY: MJF Books.
!
History.com. 2010. “9/11 Attacks.” http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks (accessed 14 April, 2014).
! Jewel v. NSA. 2011. 673 F.3d 902 (9th Cir.). !
Kwiatkowski, Karen. 2007. “Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine.” http://archive.lewrockwell.com/ kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski170.html (accessed 2 May, 2014).
!
!31
Madison, James. 1788. “The Federalist No. 47,” The Federalist Papers—New York Packet, 30 January.
!
Munchbach, Andrew. “US Army’s A160 Hummingbird Drone-Copter to Don 1.8 Gigapixel Camera,” Endgaget, 27 December ,2011.
!
New York Times. 2008. “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).” July 9. http://www.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/ foreign_intelligence_surveillance_act_fisa/index.html (accessed 14 April, 2014).
! NSA.gov. “Mission.” http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml (Accessed 16 April, 2014). ! Onn, Yael, Yaniv Druckman, Rom Timor, Arz Maroun, Yossi Nachmani, Saar Sicklai, Maor Fishman, Lotem Pery, Michael Geva, Ariel Zyssman, Inbal Lev, Tamat Maron, Yaniv Simsolo, Adi Fuches, and Shai Packer. 2005. Privacy in the Digital Environment. Israel: Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhackpp.
! Philip Shenon, “Lawyers Fear Monitoring in Cases of Terrorism,” New York Times, 28 April, 2008. !
Risen, James, and Eric Lichtblau, “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts—Secret Order to Widen Domestic Monitoring,” New York Times, 16 December, 2005.
!
Zengerle, Patricia, Doina Chiacu, and Mark Hosenball, “CIA accused of spying on U.S. Senate intelligence committee,” Reuters, 11 March, 2014.
!
!32