Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 Tactics in the War on Terror, including the authorization of domestic wiretapping, appear
to be part of a concerted, organized effort to rebuild presidential powers. See Maura Rey-
nolds, Cheney Defends Domestic Spying, L.A. Times, Dec. 21, 2005, at A20.
2 Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).
3 See Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney Gen., Dep’t of Justice Ofªce
of Legal Counsel, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Con-
duct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A (Aug. 1, 2002), available at http://
news.ªndlaw.com/nytimes/docs/doj/bybee80102mem.pdf; Memorandum from John C. Yoo,
Deputy Assistant Attorney Gen., Ofªce of Legal Counsel to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to
the President (Aug. 1, 2002), http://news.ªndlaw.com/ wp/docs/doj/bybee80102 ltr.html.
4 See Jane Mayer, Outsourcing Torture, New Yorker, Feb. 14, 2005, at 106, available
(2000 & Supp. II 2003) and in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. (2000 & Supp. III 2003)).
518 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
suggestions for reform and concludes that any changes should be made
by Congress, not by presidential directive.
I. FISA Background
8
See id.
9 See 50 U.S.C. § 1803. The NSA may conduct domestic surveillance for up to sev-
enty-two hours without a court order if the Attorney General determines there is an emer-
gency and informs a FISC judge. Id. § 1805(f). An application must still be made within
seventy-two hours of this authorization. Id.
10 This ofªcer must occupy a position subject to Senate conªrmation. He must certify
that the information cannot be obtained by normal means and state the proposed acquisi-
tion method. See id. §§ 1803–1804.
11 Id. § 1805(a)(3)(A).
12 See James Bamford, The Agency That Could Be Big Brother, N.Y. Times, Dec. 25,
2005, § 4, at 1.
13 Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, at A1. Even before the presidential directive, the
NSA began to expand its domestic surveillance operations. See Eric Lichtblau & Scott Shane,
Files Say Agency Initiated Growth of Spying Effort, N.Y. Times, Jan. 4, 2006, at A1.
14 See Bamford, supra note 12, at 1.
15 Government ofªcials claim this shift responds to the different challenges posed by a
highly delocalized, mobile adversary. See Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, at A1. Analysis
emphasizes “meta-data,” the tags that identify the date, time, destination, and origin of a
message, in a search for patterns from which to identify those linked to al Qaeda. See David
Ignatius, Op-Ed., Spying Within the Law, Wash. Post, Jan. 13, 2006, at A21.
2006] Recent Developments 519
16 See Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6; see also Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales
and Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Dir. for Nat’l Intelligence, Press Brieªng
(Dec. 19, 2005), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/
20051219-1.html [hereinafter Press Brieªng] (statement of Gen. Michael Hayden) (“I can
say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would
not otherwise have been available [under the old regulatory framework].”).
17 See Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, at A1.
18 The NSA negotiated access to switches, many of which are on American soil, which
act as gateways for voice and Internet trafªc into and out of the United States. Telecom-
munications companies have cooperated by storing information on calling patterns, which
is then turned over to the NSA. See Eric Lichtblau & James Risen, Spy Agency Mined Vast
Data Trove, Ofªcials Report, N.Y. Times, Dec. 24, 2005, at A1.
19 Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, A1.
20 See Press Brieªng, supra note 16.
21 Press Brieªng, supra note 16 (statement of Gen. Michael Hayden) (“I can assure
you, by the physics of intercept, by how we actually conduct our activities, that one end of
these communications are [sic] always outside the United States of America.”); see also
James Risen & Eric Lichtblau, Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls, N.Y. Times, Dec. 21,
2005, at A1.
22 See Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, at A1.
23 The ªrst audit in over two years since its inception resulted in new guidelines for as-
ofªcials at the NSA, CIA, and Justice Department, were also aware of the program. See
id.; President’s Radio Address, supra note 4; Press Release, White House, Setting the Re-
cord Straight: Democrats Continue to Attack Terrorist Surveillance Program (Jan. 22,
2006), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/print/20060122.html.
26 See Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Au-
thority: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006), available at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1727 [hereinafter Hearings]; Douglas Jehl,
Specter Vows a Close Look at Spy Program, N.Y. Times, Jan. 16, 2006, at A11; Letter from
Arlen Specter, Senate Judiciary Chairman, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. (Jan. 24,
2006), available at http://news.ªndlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/specgonz12406ltr.html. A survey
by the New York Times/CBS News found that ªfty-one percent of respondents thought that
the President was right to order wiretaps without warrants to reduce the threat of terrorism,
while forty-six percent said he was wrong. Adam Nagourney & Janet Elder, New Poll Finds
Mixed Support for Wiretaps, N.Y. Times, Jan. 27, 2006, at A1.
27 This defense focuses on the method of authorizing the terrorist surveillance program.
See Dep’t of Justice, Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the Na-
tional Security Agency Described by the President (2006), available at http://news.
ªndlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf [hereinafter DOJ White Paper].
28 See id. at 1–2.
29 See id.; President’s Radio Address, supra note 4.
30 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001).
2006] Recent Developments 521
31 See DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 10–12. They also note that Congress could
have limited authorization in the AUMF to speciªc actions. See id.; see also Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 519 (2004) (ªnding authorization for the detention of enemy
combatants in the broad language of the AUMF); Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386, 396 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing id.).
32 DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 11; see Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 518–19; Padilla,
speciªc exceptions, it typically provides for them. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) (2000) (limiting
exceptions to those enumerated in that chapter).
37 DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 21. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act enumerates the speciªc means for intercepting domestic wire, oral, and
electronic communications and includes FISA in these means. Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520 (2000) (governing general use of wire-
tapping and electronic surveillance). The AUMF, as a claimed exception to FISA, thus also
falls within the Title III exception for FISA.
38 DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 24; see Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 517 (holding that
the AUMF permits detention of U.S. citizens deemed to be enemy combatants, since it ªts
within an exception for acts of Congress to a general prohibition on detention, as provided
by 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)).
522 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
39
50 U.S.C. § 1811.
40
See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (1978), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4048,
4063 (acknowledging possible need for wartime amendments to FISA).
41 See 50 U.S.C. § 1811; DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 25–28.
42 See DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 27 n.13; see also, e.g., Uniting and
special legislative authority.”49 At least one court, the FISA Court of Re-
view, has assumed the President has inherent authority to conduct war-
rantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence.50 Also, the Supreme Court,
in United States v. United States District Court (Keith),51 recognized such
presidential power over intelligence gathering without delineating the
scope of that power.52 Furthermore, limiting intelligence collection would
contravene policies underlying Article II by impairing the executive
branch’s ability to protect the nation53 and undermining the President’s
unitary command of the military.54
Supporters suggest this constitutional authority casts doubt on Con-
gress’s ability to regulate executive action.55 The administration contends
that past congressional statutes limiting presidential power upheld by the
Supreme Court, such as those in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,56
derived from congressional power to regulate commerce under Article I.57
The terrorist surveillance program, however, has no direct implications
for commerce58 but rather has an exclusively military role59 central to the
“day-to-day ªghting in a theater of war.”60
The administration argues that this constitutional power to conduct
warrantless surveillance is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, noting
the Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the propriety of warrantless
searches in foreign intelligence surveillance.61 Warrantless searches in this
context are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, balancing admit-
tedly important privacy rights against the government’s compelling need
for foreign intelligence.62 Supporters also contend that the terrorist sur-
veillance program ªts within a “special needs” exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement, because the surveillance targets a speci-
ªc threat rather than general crime prevention.63 Noting that the Fourth
Amendment does not require the least intrusive methods, supporters ar-
49 The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668–69 (1863); DOJ White Paper, supra
cl. 3.
58 See DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 32–33.
59 Id. at 1.
60 Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 587.
61 United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321–22
No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717, 744 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002).
524 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
64 There must be “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication
Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)).
67 Memorandum from Elizabeth B. Bazan & Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorneys,
Am. Law Div., Cong. Research Serv., Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Elec-
tronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information, at 44 (Jan. 5, 2006), avail-
able at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf [hereinafter CRS Memo].
68 Beth Nolan et al., On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress, N.Y. Rev. Books, Feb. 9,
ments, a posture consistent with FISA’s providing the exclusive means for electronic sur-
veillance. See 50 U.S.C. § 1811 (2000); Nolan et al., supra note 68. The explicit rejection
of a one-year window by the House of Representatives as too long suggests they would not
look favorably on the terrorist surveillance program’s four-year window. Letter from Laur-
ence H. Tribe to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., supra note 68, at 3.
2006] Recent Developments 525
70 CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 43. The President does not have a monopoly on “war
powers”; congressional power over armed forces may impinge upon the Commander-in-
Chief role. See Dames & Moore, 453 U.S. at 669 (citing Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635
(Jackson, J., concurring)).
71 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520 (2000) (governing general use of wiretapping and elec-
tronic surveillance).
72 CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 44.
73 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f).
74 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, § 201(c),
92 Stat. 1783, 1797 (codiªed as amended in 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1811 (2000 & Supp. II
2002) and in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C. (2000 & Supp. III 2003)).
75 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-351, § 802, 82
Stat. 197, 212–23 (codiªed as 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3)). “The exclusivity clause makes it im-
possible for the President to ‘opt-out’ of the legislative scheme by retreating to his ‘inher-
ent’ Executive sovereignty over foreign affairs.” United States v. Andonian, 735 F. Supp.
1469, 1474 (C.D. Cal. 1990); see also CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 29.
76 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 609 (1952) (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring) (“To ªnd authority so explicitly withheld is . . . to disrespect the whole legisla-
tive process and the constitutional division of authority between President and Congress.”).
77 The legislative history and context of FISA’s enactment suggest FISA was carefully
79 CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 40; see supra notes 35–38 and accompanying text.
80 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-511, § 109, 92 Stat. 1783,
1796 (codiªed as amended in 18 U.S.C. § 1809).
81 See supra notes 35–38 and accompanying text.
82 It seems unlikely that Congress would provide such a large “backdoor” for invalidat-
ing Title III. See CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 40–41.
83 Such a broad construction of the AUMF would allow the Executive Branch to override
any statutory prohibition associated with national security with an “except as authorized by
statute” provision. CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 36. Furthermore, separation-of-powers
concerns are heightened because this construction may apply Commander in Chief powers
to the domestic sphere. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 645 (1952)
(Jackson, J., concurring). Notably, FISA’s subchapter on physical searches also contains a
provision that bars physical searches by persons acting under color of law “except as au-
thorized by statute.” 50 U.S.C. § 1827 (2000).
84 The Court relied heavily on international law to reach its conclusion. Hamdi v. Rums-
feld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004); see also CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 34–36; Letter from
Laurence H. Tribe to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., supra note 68, at 4.
85 The CRS disputes whether signals intelligence is as fundamental to combat as re-
of the Nation’s citizens.” CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 33–34 (quoting Hamdi, 542 U.S. at
536). In Padilla, the Fourth Circuit expanded this detention authority to U.S. soil, ªnding
that the detainee’s express intention to ªght against America justiªed military detention.
Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386, 392–94 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, No. 05-533, 2006 WL
845383 (Apr. 3, 2006).
2006] Recent Developments 527
Memo, supra note 67, at 37; Press Brieªng, supra note 16.
91 See supra notes 23–26 and accompanying text.
92 Nolan et al., supra note 68. The Court worried that Fourth Amendment rights would
be endangered if domestic surveillance were left to the discretion of the Executive Branch.
See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 356–57 (1967) (stating that the Constitution re-
quires the interposition of a judicial ofªcer between the citizen and the police).
93 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 582–83, 587 (1952).
94 Letter from Laurence H. Tribe to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., supra note 68, at 3.
95 Justice Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown classiªes presidential power into three
categories. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). In the ªrst category, the
President’s power is at a maximum when he acts pursuant to an expressed or implied con-
gressional authorization. Id. If Congress has not addressed the subject matter of a particu-
lar presidential action, that action may fall within “twilight,” the second category, in which
the President and Congress may have concurrent authority. Id. at 637. In the third category,
the President’s power is weakest when he takes actions incompatible with expressed or
implied congressional will. Id.
96 CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 44.
97 See United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 321–22
tronic surveillance to FISA procedures and Title III,98 then the President’s
actions fall in the third category of Youngstown, where presidential power
is weakest and sustainable only if Congress’s restrictions are unconstitu-
tional.99
Critics observe that some of the administration’s recent actions are
inconsistent with its broad interpretation of the AUMF. The strong lobbying
for renewal of the PATRIOT Act seems superºuous if the AUMF justiªes
actions such as the terrorist surveillance program.100 Additionally, the Attor-
ney General admitted the decision to keep the program secret stemmed
from suggestions by legislators that amendments to FISA authorizing the
terrorist surveillance program would be “difªcult, if not impossible” to ob-
tain.101 The administration’s lobbying for FISA amendments seems to belie
claims that the President thought he had sufªcient power under the AUMF
or the Constitution to conduct electronic surveillance.
98
See supra notes 71–75 and accompanying text.
99 CRS Memo, supra note 67, at 44.
100 Letter from Laurence H. Tribe to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., supra note 68, at 5–6
(claiming that the PATRIOT Act authorized actions that the President already could have
taken under the administration’s broad reading of the AUMF).
101 Press Brieªng, supra note 16.
102 Press Brieªng, supra note 16 (noting that electronic surveillance would normally
require a warrant).
103 In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002).
At the time of this case, the United States was involved in the War on Terror, making
difªcult any argument that its interests have changed. If the FISA Court of Review be-
2006] Recent Developments 529
lieved the War on Terror made FISA unconstitutional, it would have said so.
104 Thus, the NSA program falls into the third category of the Youngstown analysis. See
quired to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-
56, § 206, 115 Stat. 272 (amending 50 U.S.C. § 1805(c)(2)(B) (2000 & Supp. II 2002)).
106 “[T]he FISA court will still need to be careful to enter FISA orders only when the
requirements of the Constitution as well as the statute are satisªed.” 147 Cong. Rec. S10589
(daily ed. Oct. 11, 2001) (statement of Sen. Edwards). The unwillingness to consider an
exemption for one year after a declaration of war strongly suggests that in a less formal
confrontation, there would be even less willingness to grant the four-year grace period so
far enjoyed by the terrorist surveillance program. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (1978),
as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4063.
107 See supra note 100 and accompanying text.
108 See In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d at 746.
109 Nolan et al., supra note 68.
110 In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d at 746; see also Nolan et al., supra note 68
(noting that the existence of such special needs has never been held to permit warrantless
wiretapping). Special needs arise when a warrant and individualized suspicion are imprac-
ticable and the privacy intrusion is minimal. In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d at
744–46.
111 The FISA procedure is not only established, but the record of the FISC court sug-
gests obtaining one is not difªcult. See In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d at 744–46;
see also Risen & Lichtblau, supra note 6, at A1.
530 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
3909–10.
116 Id. (emphasis added).
117 Several bills amending FISA are already in circulation, including one sponsored by
Senator Arlen Specter that would clearly bring the terrorist surveillance program within FISA’s
control. See National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, S. 2453, 109th Cong. (2006); see
also NSA Surveillance Act, H.R. 4976, 109th Cong. (2006); Terrorist Surveillance Act of
2006, S. 2455, 109th Cong. (2006).
118 FISA provides for retroactive application for a warrant as well as certiªcation by
the Attorney General in lieu of particular elements of proof, allowing for immediate sur-
veillance of ºeeting terrorist communications. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1802, 1804 (2000).
119 See President’s Radio Address, supra note 4; Press Brieªng, supra note 16 (discuss-
120 See DOJ White Paper, supra note 27, at 30–36; President’s Radio Address, supra
note 4; Press Release, Dick Cheney, Vice President’s Remarks on Iraq and the War on Ter-
ror (Jan. 4, 2006), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/print/
200060104-2.html.
121 Sixty-four percent of those polled were somewhat to very concerned about losing
civil liberties as a result of antiterrorism measures. See Nagourney & Elder, supra note 26.
122 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 12–14; id. art. II, § 2.
123 See United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 321–22
(1972). Simply because Congress requires a more restrictive framework than unfettered execu-
tive discretion does not necessarily mean the President’s military role has been impermis-
sibly impaired. See Press Brieªng, supra note 16.
124 See supra notes 95–99 and accompanying text.
125 Hearings, supra note 26 (statement of Alberto Gonzales, Att’y Gen.), available at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1727.
126 At present, the administration identiªes the chain of approval required even for
emergency warrants as too cumbersome, especially since it requires input from the Attor-
ney General. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., Responses to Questions from Chairman
Specter 4 (Feb. 3, 2006), available at http://www.cdt.org/security/nsa/20060203gonzalez.
pdf.
532 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
127 Situation-speciªc procedures should not be overlooked. However, in the event they
are omitted in the original application, FISC could still conditionally grant the warrant,
subject to submission of appropriate adjustments within a reasonable time.
128 For example, the NSA may want to tap a set of phone numbers in a cell phone ad-
Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are
reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence
information and the protected rights of our citizens. For the warrant application
may vary according to the governmental interest to be enforced and the nature of
citizen rights deserving protection.
See United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 323–24 (1972).
130 See Philip B. Heymann & Juliette N. Kayyem, Preserving Security and De-
surveillance options available, but also they yield vastly different types of data. Now, it is
easier than ever to manage the degree of intrusiveness. See Heymann & Kayyem, supra
note 130, at 79–80.
133 See id.
134 Tech. and Privacy Advisory Comm., Safeguarding Privacy in the Fight
could continue to look for patterns but could not unilaterally impinge further
upon privacy. In cases where patterns suggest terrorist activity, the NSA
could apply through FISC for access to more data.136 Access to the data
should expire after a reasonable period of time.
Even with a more streamlined process, Congress must still accom-
modate the most pressing surveillance needs. A larger window in which
to apply for retroactive warrants would help accommodate emergency
situations. However, this would lengthen the time during which the gov-
ernment encroaches on the rights of potentially innocent individuals. Thus,
too large a grace period may defeat oversight goals. Furthermore, a larger
delay may increase the chance that applications will be lost and never ªled.
To further accommodate emergency situations, Congress could place FISC
judges “on call.” Bolstering FISC’s ability to handle the most pressing sur-
veillance cases should obviate the need to conduct electronic surveillance
outside statutory boundaries.
Congress should also ensure any surveillance is subject to thorough
review and oversight. It might consider creating an interagency advisory
commission to review and update guidelines for the NSA operational
workforce and develop general data-mining protocols.137 Such a commis-
sion could also conduct its own separate reviews of the terrorist surveil-
lance program to determine its efªcacy and the need for any improve-
ments.138
In 1963, the Supreme Court remarked that “[i]t would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subver-
sion of . . . those liberties . . . which make[ ] the defense of the Nation
worthwhile.”139 This remains true today; the freedoms the government
seeks to protect through the War on Terror are those most threatened by
its prosecution.140 This Recent Development readily acknowledges that
America faces a novel enemy; however, it questions the process chosen
to secure ourselves from that enemy. While perhaps less horrifying than
other tactics in the War on Terror, the terrorist surveillance program repre-
sents a more insidious attack on the basic governmental framework. The
harshest critics claim that the administration kept the terrorist surveil-
rorist activity. See Heymann & Kayyem, supra note 130, at 79–80.
136 Ideally, such applications would be for incrementally more information. For example,
the ªrst application could seek meta-data (including a communication’s origin, destination,
and the identity of the individuals), while subsequent applications would be required to
delve into the content of the communications. See id.
137 Cf. Tech. and Privacy Advisory Comm., supra note 134, at 52–55.
138 Cf. id.
139 United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 264 (1967).
140 “America will always stand ªrm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity:
the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; . . . free speech; equal justice; and reli-
gious tolerance.” President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address (Jan. 29, 2002),
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html#.
534 Harvard Journal on Legislation [Vol. 43
lance program clandestine for political ends.141 Others assert that the ter-
rorist surveillance program is simply unconstitutional.142
Protecting the United States from future terrorist attacks poses unique
challenges to constitutional rights. While a perfect balance between na-
tional security and constitutional rights may remain elusive, Congress can
reconcile these two interests more objectively and democratically with
amendments to FISA than can the enforcement-oriented Executive Branch
acting unilaterally. Congress should modernize the safeguards for war-
rantless electronic surveillance, and the administration should comply
with and respect Congress’s judgment.
—Katherine Wong∗
141 S. Rep. No. 95-604 (I), at 7–8 (1978), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3904,
3908.
142 See Letter from Laurence H. Tribe to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., supra note 68;
CRS Memo, supra note 67; Nolan et al., supra note 68.
∗ J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, Class of 2008; M. Phil., University of Cam-
bridge, 2005; B.S., University of California, Berkeley, 2004. The author would particularly
like to thank Eric Haren and Michael Fluhr for their excellent assistance in the editing of
the Recent Development.