July 31, 2006 5:20 PM PDT

Feds appeal loss in NSA wiretap case

The Bush administration has asked a federal appeals court to halt a lawsuit that accuses AT&T of illegally opening its communication networks to surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Permitting the Electronic Frontier Foundation's lawsuit to proceed would endanger national security and possibly expose classified information, the U.S. Department of Justice said in a legal brief filed on Monday.

The administration also nominated Laurence Silberman, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., to serve as an expert in this case. A former deputy attorney general, Silberman was appointed by President Reagan and serves on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

The brief is a response to a July 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco, who surprised lawsuit watchers by saying there are "sufficient" grounds to let the lawsuit continue.

"Because of the public disclosures by the government and AT&T, the court cannot conclude that merely maintaining this action creates a 'reasonable danger' of harming national security," Walker wrote.

In a 24-page brief filed on Monday, the Justice Department asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case because of the "serious risk" of disclosing sensitive information. "The district court has, in a highly unusual action, overruled the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege, and has thereby placed at risk particularly sensitive national security interests," the brief states.

In its class action lawsuit filed in January, the EFF alleged that AT&T violated federal wiretapping laws by cooperating with the NSA. AT&T has declined to comment, although its attorneys have hinted that legal authorization exists. (In general, federal wiretapping law prohibits electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute" or by the attorney general.) The EFF is a nonprofit that advocates for privacy and free speech on the Internet.

After EFF's lawsuit was filed, reports of a secret room in an AT&T building in San Francisco surfaced and have become central to the nonprofit group's litigation.

AT&T switching<br />
center in downtown San Francisco
Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET News.com
A room in this AT&T switching
center in downtown San Francisco
is alleged to be a place where the
National Security Agency taps Internet
and telephone communications.

A former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, has released documents alleging the company spliced its fiber optic cables and ran a duplicate set of cables to Room 641A at its 611 Folsom St. building. Redacted documents seen by CNET News.com show that AT&T has tried to offer benign reasons for the existence of such a room.

"State secrets" claim
The Bush administration has tried to derail the EFF's lawsuit by invoking the "state secrets" privilege and has submitted statements from Keith Alexander, the NSA's director, and John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. The state secrets privilege generally permits the executive branch to dismiss lawsuits that could endanger the nation if allowed to proceed.

Those arguments worked before a federal judge in Chicago. On July 25, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kennelly granted the Justice Department's request to throw out another suit related to the NSA program brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

But Walker, the judge in San Francisco, saw things differently in the EFF suit and ruled that "even the state secrets privilege has its limits." Although the state secrets privilege might require that the case be halted at some point, he said, it should not be tossed out of courts before it could even properly begin.

In his opinion (click here for PDF), Walker also said he was contemplating appointing an expert with security clearance to assist him in "determining whether disclosing particular evidence" would endanger national security.

The Justice Department opposes the idea (click here for PDF) but said that if an expert was necessary, Silberman is its choice.

For its part, the EFF nominated as an expert: Louis Fisher, who works at the Library of Congress; Michael Jacobs, a former NSA employee who is now a vice president at consulting firm SRA International; and Washington attorney Kenneth Bass, a court-appointed expert in a case dealing with classified documents.

The EFF's brief (click here for PDF), which argued against the government's request to halt proceedings while the appeal continues, said the selection of a court-appointed expert was appropriate.

Proposals to rewrite federal surveillance laws could, however, imperil the case if they are eventually adopted. Last week, a U.S. Senate committee heard testimony from the heads of the CIA and NSA who urged the adoption of a bill to expand the 1978 wiretapping law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It would expand the president's ability to conduct broad telephone and Internet surveillance with limited judicial oversight.

Also on Monday, Walker approved a request from CNET Networks (publisher of News.com) and the California First Amendment Coalition to file a friend-of-the-court brief. In May, CNET and other groups had opposed a request by AT&T to hold part of a hearing behind closed doors. Walker rejected the request.

See more CNET content tagged:
NSA, AT&T Corp., lawsuit, secret, San Francisco

1 comment

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Where Did Government Put Your NSA-Wiretapped Communications?

Neither Congress nor the courts?determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute citizens.

In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in ?ordinary? criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. ?Intelligence Files? to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.

Considering this court case, it might be possible for NSA to share its ?recent? electronic-domestic-spying with countless U.S. police agencies; including government contracted--companies and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate seizing Americans? property?-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person?s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.

There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.? Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property.

In the U.S. private security companies and their operatives work so closely with law enforcement to forfeit property?providing intelligence information, they appear to merge with police.

Rep. Henry Hyde?s bill HR 1658 passed, the ?Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000? and effectively eliminated the ?statue of limitations? for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they ?learned? that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property ?A preponderance of Evidence?, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to telecom-NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal, to secure evidence to arrest Americans and or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on ?Asset Forfeiture? to help pay their salaries and operating costs?

Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde?s 2000 bill HR 1658?for ?retroactive civil asset forfeiture? of ?assets already subject to government forfeiture?, meaning "property already tainted by crime" provided ?the property? was already part of or ?later connected? to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.

To help protect Americans from continuing police forfeiture abuse, Congress should pass legislation that raises the standard of evidence Government uses for Civil Asset Forfeiture from a mere ?Preponderance of Evidence?, to ?Clear and Convincing Evidence.

End of Item

Read Recent Shocking U.S. Police Forfeitures Story at:

Article By Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune describes Tenaha, Texas?How African Americans and other motorists entering the town, were stripped by police of their belongings: cash, jewelry and other valuables without charging them with a crime. Asset forfeiture victims had to sign over their property to the town or face felony charges. This is an enormous story of police forfeiture abuse.
Posted by Ross Striker (43 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.