[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"national security" exception to wiretap laws
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: "national security" exception to wiretap laws
- From: [email protected]
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 01:15:14 -0800
- Comments: This message is NOT from the person listed in the Fromline. It is from an automated software remailing service operating atthat address. Please report problem mail to <[email protected]>.
* * * * *
18 USC s 2511(2)(f):
Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121, or section 705 of the
Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the
United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international
or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in
accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic
communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as
defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,
and procedures in this chapter and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined
in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire and oral
communications may be conducted.
* * * * *
[From USCA annotations for 18 USC s 2511]
13. Executive powers
This chapter providing that nothing therein should be deemed to limit the
constitutional power of the President to protect the United States against any
clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the government did
not constitute a grant of power and was not intended to expand, contract or
define whatever presidential surveillance powers existed in matters affecting
national security, but was only intended to make clear that this chapter should
not be interpreted to limit or disturb such power as the President might have
under the Constitution. U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich.,
Southern Division, Mich.1972, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 407 U.S. 297, 32 L.Ed.2d 752.
Former Attorney General was entitled to qualified immunity in civil damage
action based upon wiretaps, where sufficient facts were alleged to place
wiretap in rational national security context. Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 1986, 807
F.2d 204, 257 U.S.App.D.C. 59, certiorari denied 108 S.Ct. 197, 484 U.S. 870,
98 L.Ed.2d 148.
Former national security council staff member's admission that he had access
to option papers discussing possibility of Cambodian bombing operation, secret
talks with North Vietnamese, and withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, as well as
contingency planning in event that such steps might be taken, together with
evidence that staff member had roomed with reporter who wrote article reporting
classified bombing raids on Cambodia, was sufficient to establish reasonable
national security grounds for wiretap of staff member's phone so as to entitle
government officials who ordered wiretap to qualified immunity defense in civil
damage action brought by staff member. Halperin v. Kissinger, 1986, 807 F.2d
180, 257 U.S.App.D.C. 35.
Those provisions of this chapter which, in the context of pure intelligence-
gathering activities, would frustrate the constitutional power of the
President, cannot be applied to such surveillance. (Per Wright, Circuit Judge,
with three Judges concurring and three additional Judges concurring in the
judgment.) Zweibon v. Mitchell, 1975, 516 F.2d 594, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 1,
certiorari denied 96 S.Ct. 1684, 1685, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L.Ed.2d 187.
Restrictions upon the President's power which are appropriate in cases of
domestic security become artificial in the context of the international
sphere. U.S. v. Brown, C.A.La.1973, 484 F.2d 418, certiorari denied 94 S.Ct.
1490, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L.Ed.2d 575.
Whatever constitutional power lies without scope of this chapter and is
invested in chief executive to authorize warrantless surveillance for sake of
"national security," necessary prerequisite to administration of such power is
express approval by President or Attorney General. U.S. v. Kearney,
D.C.N.Y.1977, 436 F.Supp. 1108.