To justify creating a domestic spying program, the Bush administration is relying on a law the US Congress passed in the chaotic days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that authorizes the president to wage war against al-Qaeda and its supporters.
In doing so, the administration bypassed a secret court system that for nearly 30 years has monitored the government's use of electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence on US soil.
But is the administration on solid legal ground in using warrantless electronic surveillance for more than four years?
Legal experts aren't so sure and are questioning the legal advice US President George W. Bush received, not so much in the days after Sept. 11, when the authorities were bracing for a possible second wave of attacks. Instead, legal experts are worrying that what seemed appropriate then may not be appropriate now.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday that the administration believes Congress gave Bush the authority to use "signals intelligence" -- wiretaps, for example -- to eavesdrop on international calls between US citizens and foreigners when one of them is a suspected al-Qaeda member or supporter.
The law Gonzales is relying on is the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which Congress passed and Bush signed a week after 19 hijackers crashed four commercial jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people.
The administration's interpretation allowed the government to avoid requirements under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The act established procedures that an 11-member court used last year to oversee nearly 1,800 government applications for secret surveillance or searches of foreigners and US citizens suspected of terrorism or espionage.
"I think they were aggressive," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
"Were they right? Here, I think context matters. Within six months, 12 months of the attacks, I think that the AUMF would have been a basis for legal authority," he said. "But that diminishes the further we are from the attacks."
Michael Nardotti, a former Army judge advocate general, said the administration may need to release more information about attacks that the spying program prevented.
"I don't think passage of time should be the guide," he said. "It should be the continuing assessment of the threat."
Kmiec said Bush clearly believes he did the right thing and deserves credit for keeping some members of Congress informed.
"But he was entirely reliant on the quality of legal advice he received," Kmiec said.
Gonzales, who was White House counsel when the program was created, said that just because Congress' war authorization doesn't mention electronic surveillance doesn't mean the law doesn't allow it.
He cited a plurality opinion by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor last year to back him up. Although Congress never included the word "detention" in the war authorization, O'Connor said lawmakers gave the president power to detain enemy soldiers -- even US citizens -- captured on the battlefield.
"That's ridiculous," Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe said.
"O'Connor wasn't saying that anything not mentioned [in the authorization] is OK ... To use that to say it's OK to eavesdrop on people ... is to stretch the authorization completely beyond recognition," Tribe said.
Congress passed the surveillance law after public outcry over a lengthy series of abuses during the Nixon administration, which spied on US anti-war and civil rights protesters.
Since Sept. 11, the FISA court's work has increased dramatically. Last year, the government filed 1,758 applications to conduct secret electronic surveillance or searches, compared with 932 in 2001.
The secretive court rarely denies a government request for surveillance.
But the judges sometimes force government agents to continue gathering evidence until the court is satisfied there is a basis for such surveillance: that a subject is "an agent of a foreign power."
Under the act, the attorney general can authorize a warrantless wiretap for up to 72 hours. But he must give the presiding judge of the FISA court a head's up, and justify the surveillance later.
If the attorney general fails, the court has discretion to notify the target of the surveillance.
Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said he suspects the administration could not meet its burden of proof under the law.
"My suspicion is they were engaging in a very large fishing expedition," he said. "And it had to do with breadth, not urgency."
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past