Hubbry Logo
Terrorist Surveillance ProgramTerrorist Surveillance ProgramMain
Open search
Terrorist Surveillance Program
Community hub
Terrorist Surveillance Program
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Terrorist Surveillance Program
Terrorist Surveillance Program
Terrorist Surveillance Program
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

National Security Agency surveillance
Map of global NSA data collection as of 2007, with countries subject to the most data collection shown in red
Programs
Pre-1978
Since 1978
Since 1990
Since 1998
Since 2001
Since 2007
Databases, tools etc.
GCHQ collaboration
Legislation
Institutions
Lawsuits
Whistleblowers
Publication
Related
Concepts
Collaboration
United States
Five Eyes
Other

The Terrorist Surveillance Program was an electronic surveillance program implemented by the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.[1] It was part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was in turn conducted under the overall umbrella of the War on Terrorism.[2] The NSA, a signals intelligence agency, implemented the program to intercept al Qaeda communications overseas where at least one party is not a U.S. person. In 2005, The New York Times disclosed that technical glitches resulted in some of the intercepts including communications which were "purely domestic" in nature, igniting the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.[3] Later works, such as James Bamford's The Shadow Factory, described how the nature of the domestic surveillance was much, much more widespread than initially disclosed. In a 2011 New Yorker article, former NSA employee Bill Binney said that his colleagues told him that the NSA had begun storing billing and phone records from "everyone in the country."[4]

The program was named the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the George W. Bush administration[5] in response to the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy following disclosure of the program. It is claimed that this program operated without the judicial oversight mandated by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and legal challenges to the program are currently undergoing judicial review. Because the technical specifics of the program have not been disclosed, it is unclear if the program is subject to FISA. It is unknown if this is the original name of the program; the term was first used publicly by President Bush in a speech on January 23, 2006.[6]

On August 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the program unconstitutional and illegal. On appeal, the decision was overturned on procedural grounds and the lawsuit was dismissed without addressing the merits of the claims,[7] although one further challenge is still pending in the courts. On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informed U.S. Senate leaders by letter[8] that the program would not be reauthorized by the president, but would be subjected to judicial oversight. "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court", according to his letter.[9]

On June 6, 2013, it was revealed that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was replaced by a new NSA program, referred to by its codeword, PRISM.[10]

Description

[edit]

While no specific information has been offered, the Bush Administration has indicated that the wiretapping program targets communications where at least one party is outside the United States, and where it asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more parties involved in the communication have ties to al Qaeda. However, anonymous sources have come forward stating a small number of instances where purely domestic calls were intercepted. These sources said the NSA accidentally intercepted these calls, apparently caused by technical glitches in determining whether a communication was in fact "international", probably due to the use of international cell phones.[3]

The complete details of the program are not known, as the Bush Administration contended that security concerns did not allow it to release details, and limit judicial authorization and review.[citation needed] Implemented sometime after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the existence of the program was not made public until a 2005 The New York Times article. Additional details came to light in a May 2006 USA Today article.[11]

President Bush stated that he had reviewed and reauthorized the program approximately every 45 days since it was implemented. The leadership of the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and Senate were briefed a number of times since initiation of the program.[12] They were not, however, allowed to make notes or confer with others to determine the legal ramifications, or even to mention the existence of the program to the full membership of the intelligence committees. Further, the administration even refused to identify to the public which members of the committees were briefed; it has, however, provided a complete list of these members to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[13]

Pen register tap

[edit]
Main article: Pen register

Prominent legal scholar and blogger Orin Kerr has argued that the program is probably not a wiretap or call database, but more likely to be a pen register (or tap-and-trace) tap.[14] Unlike wiretaps, where the actual content of the call is monitored, or listened to, a pen register is a limited form of wiretap where only basic call data (metadata) such as originating and receiving telephone numbers, time of call and duration are logged. Because of the limited nature of the data, frequently characterized as "outside the envelope", pen register taps have much lower legal standards than conventional wiretaps, and are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

The only physical evidence of the NSA program are documents accidentally leaked to lawyers for an al-Qaeda front group the Al-Haramain Foundation. These documents contain only logs of phone calls being placed, but not actual transcripts, suggesting the wiretapping program is merely a pen-register tap.[15]

Call database

[edit]
Main article: NSA call database

On May 10, 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA has had a separate, previously undisclosed program in place since 9/11 to build a database of information about calls placed within the United States, including both phone numbers and the date and duration of the calls.[11] According to the article, phone companies AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South disclosed the records to the NSA, while Qwest did not. The article quotes an unnamed source that "it's the largest database ever assembled in the world". Most reports indicate that this program is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The administration has not confirmed the existence of this aspect of the program.[16]

Undersea cable tapping

[edit]

Both the U.S. government and also spy organizations in the U.K. have tapped "the spine of the internet", a transatlantic Ethernet cable, using submarines to access it and put on equipment to commandeer as much information as they wish to apply special searches in order to narrow down potential terrorist activity. With current laws in the U.S. (as of 2013), a warrant is not necessary if the government's surveillance is 'reasonably believed' to be overseas.[17] "A new set of documents purportedly lifted from the U.S. National Security Agency suggests that American spies have burrowed deep into the Middle East's financial network, apparently compromising the Dubai office of the anti-money laundering and financial services firm EastNets."[18]

News reporting

[edit]

December 16, 2005

[edit]

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times printed a story asserting that following 9/11, "President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying" as part of the War on Terror.[19]

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

According to the Times:

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to comment on the story on December 16, exclaiming "there's a reason why we don't get into discussing ongoing intelligence activities, because it could compromise our efforts to prevent attacks from happening."[20] The next morning, the president gave a live eight-minute television address instead of his normal weekly radio address, during which he addressed the wiretap story directly:[21]

I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

In a radio address on December 18, President Bush implied he had approved the tracing of domestic calls originating or terminating overseas, stating the program would "make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time."

He forcefully defended his actions as "crucial to our national security" and claimed that the American people expected him to "do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties" as long as there was a "continuing threat" from al Qaeda. The president also had harsh words for those who broke the story, saying that they acted illegally. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk", he said.[22]

The following day in a press conference with the media, Bush reiterated his support for domestic spying.[23][24][25]

The FBI began an investigation into the leaks surrounding this program in 2005, with 25 agents and 5 prosecutors on the case.[26]

January 1, 2006

[edit]

On January 1, 2006, The New York Times printed a story revealing that aspects of the program were suspended for weeks in 2004. The Times story said the U.S. Attorney General's office, then headed by John Ashcroft, balked in 2004 when asked to give approval of the program, and that then Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey "played a part in overseeing the reforms that were put in place in 2004." According to the Times, however, the oversight by the NSA shift supervisor continued to be unfettered by any pre-approval requirement. The story also pointed out that even some NSA employees thought that the warrantless surveillance program was illegal.[27]

The New York Times had withheld the article from publication for over a year. Both editor-in-chief Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. were summoned by the president and White House officials to persuade the paper not to publish the story. The Times ran the story shortly before it would have been scooped by publication of its own reporter's book. The Times ombudsman speculates that the reason the backstory isn't being revealed is to protect sources.[28] Russ Tice claims he was a source for the story.[29]

January 3, 2006

[edit]

On January 3, the news program Democracy Now! ran a story that, according to NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, the number of Americans affected by the range of NSA surveillance programs could be in the millions if the full extent of secret NSA programs is considered. The story was picked up by ABC News on January 10:[30]

Tice says the technology exists to track and sort through every domestic and international phone call as they are switched through centers, such as one in New York, and to search for key words or phrases that a terrorist might use.

"If you picked the word 'jihad' out of a conversation," Tice said, "the technology exists that you focus in on that conversation, and you pull it out of the system for processing."

According to Tice, intelligence analysts use the information to develop graphs that resemble spiderwebs linking one suspect's phone number to hundreds or even thousands more.

"That would mean for most Americans that if they conducted, or you know, placed an overseas communication, more than likely they were sucked into that vacuum," Tice said.

January 17, 2006

[edit]

On January 17, The New York Times reported that "more than a dozen current and former law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials", some of whom knew of the domestic spying program, "said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive".[31]

February 5, 2006

[edit]

On February 5, The Washington Post noted that "fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their (purely) domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause." Also in the article: "The minimum legal definition of probable cause, said a government official who has studied the program closely, is that evidence used to support eavesdropping ought to turn out to be 'right for one out of every two guys at least.' Those who devised the surveillance plan, the official said, 'knew they could never meet that standard—that's why they didn't go through'" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.[32]

Also on February 5, USA Today ran a story reporting that according to seven telecommunications executives, the NSA had secured the cooperation of the main telecommunications companies in charge of international phone calls, including AT&T, MCI, and Sprint, in its efforts to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls.[33]

May 22, 2006

[edit]

In its issue dated May 22, 2006, Newsweek put the controversy on the cover of its magazine and ran several stories inside summarizing what is known and speculations about it.[34]

On May 22, 2006, Wired Magazine released the text of AT&T documents, currently under court seal in the EFF case, that allegedly describe NSA wiretap arrangements.[35]

Legality of the program

[edit]
Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The NSA's electronic surveillance operations are governed primarily by four legal sources: the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); Executive Order 12333; and United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18.[36] The primary legal challenge to the program currently in US courts is the suit brought by the Al-Haramain Foundation.[37] All other challenges to the program have been dismissed by U.S. courts.

Critics of the Bush administration have regularly compared the current NSA surveillance program to those of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War (i.e., Project Shamrock, Project Minaret, Church committee).[38] However, these programs occurred prior to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was passed into law in response to widespread concern over these abuses of domestic surveillance activities. According to opponents of this program that is exactly what the current program is doing and why FISA was enacted.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the program in 2006 on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers. In the initial trial, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on August 17, 2006, ruled the program was unconstitutional and imposed an injunction against it.[39] The Justice Department filed an appeal within hours of the ruling and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal. While opposing the stay, the ACLU agreed to delay implementation of the injunction until September 7 to allow time for the judge to hear the appeal.[40] On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case without addressing the merits of the claims, holding 2–1 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit.[7]

Controversy

[edit]
Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

When classified details were leaked to the press at some point in 2005, critics began to question the legality of the program. The crux of the debate over legality is twofold, the main issues being

  1. Are the parameters of this program subject to FISA and
  2. If so, did the president have authority, inherent or otherwise, to bypass FISA.

FISA explicitly covers "electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence information" performed within the United States, and there is no court decision supporting the theory that the president's constitutional authority allows him to override statutory law. This was emphasized by fourteen constitutional law scholars, including the dean of Yale Law School and the former deans of Stanford Law School and the University of Chicago Law School:

The argument that conduct undertaken by the commander in chief that has some relevance to 'engaging the enemy' is immune from congressional regulation finds no support in, and is directly contradicted by, both case law and historical precedent. Every time the Supreme Court has confronted a statute limiting the commander in chief's authority, it has upheld the statute. No precedent holds that the president, when acting as commander in chief, is free to disregard an Act of Congress, much less a criminal statute enacted by Congress, that was designed specifically to restrain the president as such.(Emphasis in original.)[41]

The American Bar Association, the Congressional Research Service, former congressional representative of New York Elizabeth Holtzman, former White House Counsel John Dean, and lawyer/author Jennifer van Bergen have also criticized the administration's justification for conducting electronic surveillance within the U.S. without first obtaining warrants as contrary to current U.S. law.[38][42][43] [44][45][46] President Bush's former Assistant Deputy Attorney General for national security issues, David Kris, and five former FISC judges, one of whom resigned in protest, have also voiced their doubts as to the legality of a program bypassing FISA [47] Stanford's Chip Pitts has usefully distinguished between the core NSA eavesdropping program, the data mining program, and the use of National Security Letters to clarify that each continues to present serious legal problems despite the government's supposedly bringing them within the relevant laws.[48]

See also

[edit]
Whistleblowers

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Terrorist Surveillance Program

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) was a warrantless electronic surveillance operation authorized by President George W. Bush on October 4, 2001, directing the (NSA) to intercept the contents of international telephone calls and electronic communications into or out of the where a party to the communication was reasonably believed to be associated with or related terrorist organizations. This initiative bypassed the traditional warrant requirements of the (FISA) of 1978, relying instead on the President's Article II constitutional powers as and the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force passed three days after the . The program's primary objective was to detect and disrupt terrorist plots by enabling rapid intelligence collection in the urgent post-9/11 environment, where delays from FISA court processes were deemed potentially catastrophic. Administration officials described it as a critical tool that contributed to by identifying threats without the procedural hurdles that could compromise operational timeliness. However, the TSP sparked intense controversy over its legality and implications for , with critics arguing it infringed on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, while supporters emphasized its necessity in an asymmetric war against non-state actors who exploited modern communication technologies. Reauthorized periodically by the President, the program operated in secrecy until its public disclosure in December 2005, prompting , legal challenges, and eventual legislative adjustments including the 2007 Protect America Act and 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which formalized similar bulk collection authorities under judicial supervision. The TSP exemplified the post-9/11 tension between enhanced executive surveillance powers for and safeguards against domestic overreach, influencing subsequent debates on intelligence reforms and privacy protections.

Post-9/11 Establishment

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks orchestrated by resulted in 2,977 deaths, marking the deadliest incident of terrorism in U.S. history excluding the perpetrators themselves. These coordinated hijackings of four commercial airliners targeted symbols of American economic, military, and political power, exposing critical vulnerabilities in . Pre-attack intelligence efforts revealed significant shortcomings, including the National Security Agency's (NSA) interception of communications that failed to connect key dots due to interagency "walls" restricting information sharing between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement. The highlighted systemic failures in imagination, policy, capabilities, and management that prevented anticipation of such an assault, despite warnings about 's intent to strike within U.S. borders. In response to these lapses and the urgent need to prevent further attacks, NSA Director Lieutenant General Michael V. Hayden proposed expanding surveillance authorities to monitor international communications linked to without requiring traditional (FISA) warrants for cases demanding rapid action. On October 4, 2001, President verbally authorized the initiation of what became known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), directing the NSA to target international calls to or from the involving persons reasonably believed to be members or affiliates. This authorization aimed to establish an early-warning system against imminent threats, bypassing standard FISA procedures to enable faster intelligence collection amid heightened post-9/11 risks. The program represented an immediate executive adaptation to the transformed threat landscape, prioritizing operational agility over peacetime legal constraints.

Presidential Authorizations and AUMF Basis

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, President signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001, which empowered him "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." The Bush administration maintained that this congressional authorization, interpreted alongside the President's Article II powers as , provided statutory and constitutional grounds for warrantless electronic surveillance targeting affiliates, framing such intelligence collection as an integral component of military operations against a non-state enemy rather than routine domestic . The initial presidential authorization for the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) occurred on October 4, 2001, directing the (NSA) to intercept international communications involving suspects without prior (FISA) warrants. This directive was reauthorized by President Bush more than 30 times through early 2007, typically on an approximately 45-day cycle to incorporate updated intelligence assessments of evolving threats. Each reauthorization involved review by senior executive officials, including the Attorney General and Advisor, to confirm compliance with targeting limits focused on foreign-to-foreign or foreign-to-U.S. communications linked to terrorism. Department of Justice (OLC) memoranda, including those drafted in late and reviewed in , asserted that Article II inherent authority permitted warrantless surveillance during wartime, independent of FISA's statutory framework, which the administration viewed as supplemental rather than restrictive for foreign intelligence in armed conflict. These opinions emphasized that the AUMF implicitly endorsed executive flexibility in to disrupt operations, overriding FISA's requirements where targets exhibited rapid adaptability in communications patterns. The administration argued that even FISA's emergency provision—allowing surveillance for up to 72 hours before warrant application—imposed delays incompatible with the real-time nature of terrorist plotting, necessitating immediate interception to prevent imminent attacks. This position drew on historical precedents of presidential warrantless surveillance during conflicts, such as , to underscore the program's alignment with executive war powers unbound by peacetime judicial oversight.

Program Mechanics and Operations

Targeting Criteria and Scope

The Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) conducted by the (NSA) focused on intercepting international communications in which the agency possessed a reasonable basis to conclude that one party was a member of , affiliated with , or a member of an organization affiliated with . This criterion derived from presidential authorizations emphasizing targeted interception of threats linked to the post-9/11 network, prioritizing derived from known terrorist operatives over broad data acquisition. The program's scope was confined to communications with at least one endpoint outside the , thereby excluding purely domestic calls lacking a foreign . Targeting selectors, such as specific telephone numbers or email addresses associated with suspected figures, were seeded from intelligence obtained via battlefield captures, detainee interrogations, and other counterterrorism operations in regions like . This approach limited surveillance to an estimated several hundred known or suspected terrorist-associated identifiers at inception, underscoring its directed nature against validated threats rather than mass collection of American communications. Initial operations did not encompass routine acquisition of content involving U.S. persons without a determination of linking them to , with any incidental collection subject to separate review thresholds. The emphasis remained on foreign al Qaeda-directed plots infiltrating U.S. borders, reflecting empirical prioritization of actionable intelligence from post-9/11 captures over speculative domestic monitoring.

Surveillance Techniques Employed

The Terrorist Surveillance Program enabled the (NSA) to conduct targeted interception of the content of international telephone and electronic communications entering or exiting the , limited to instances where there existed a reasonable basis to conclude that one party was a member of , affiliated with , or part of an organization affiliated with or supporting activities. These interceptions utilized NSA's established infrastructure to capture voice and data streams associated with specific selectors, such as telephone numbers or addresses derived from prior intelligence on terrorist operatives. Metadata collection complemented content interception through methods akin to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, acquiring non-content details like dialed numbers, timestamps, durations, and routing information for international calls involving suspected terrorists. This facilitated network analysis to detect patterns indicative of terrorist activity, such as contact chaining between known foreign targets and U.S. persons, while applying analytic filters to exclude and discard metadata from purely domestic U.S.-to-U.S. communications lacking a probable foreign terrorist nexus. The program's technical implementation drew on NSA's access to international communication pathways, including undersea fiber-optic cables handling transoceanic traffic, to intercept signals where indicated a link to foreign terrorist entities; this upstream-style collection targeted transient international flows rather than endpoint provider queries characteristic of later programs like . Limitations inherent to these techniques included dependence on accurate selector validation to avoid overreach and challenges in real-time decryption of encrypted , ensuring focus on feasible, intelligence-driven targets rather than indiscriminate vacuuming.

Data Handling and Minimization Procedures

The implemented minimization procedures in the Terrorist Surveillance Program to limit the retention and dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons, applying safeguards analogous to those under the . These rules required the destruction of communications content acquired incidentally involving U.S. persons if it lacked foreign intelligence value, ensuring such data was not stored or analyzed beyond initial processing unless pertinent to al Qaeda-related threats or other authorized purposes. Metadata associated with U.S. persons was retained only to the extent it evidenced links to foreign targets, with broader retention prohibited to prevent incidental domestic focus. Internal NSA protocols mandated pre-collection targeting reviews by agency lawyers to confirm reasonable belief in a foreign nexus, coupled with post-collection audits by the NSA and to verify compliance and detect any deviations. The Department of Justice's conducted formal reassessments approximately every 45 days, certifying the program's adherence to presidential authorizations and constitutional limits prior to renewals. These measures aimed to constrain data handling to operational necessities, informed by historical precedents of unchecked expansion, such as the program from 1945 to 1975, where absent retention limits enabled unwarranted domestic overreach. Congressional oversight was restricted to briefings for the "Gang of Eight"—comprising the and leadership and intelligence committee heads—who received periodic updates on program parameters and safeguards, though without full operational details due to classification constraints. This layered review process balanced rapid threat response with retention boundaries, minimizing risks of data proliferation observed in prior intelligence efforts lacking comparable checks.

Public Disclosure and Immediate Aftermath

New York Times Revelation (December 2005)

On December 16, 2005, published an article by reporters and Eric Lichtblau revealing the existence of the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program, which involved warrantless of international telephone calls and electronic communications involving persons inside the linked to or related terrorist organizations. The report detailed that President had secretly authorized the NSA shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's warrant requirements for such surveillance targeting suspected terrorists. Publication of the story had been delayed for over a year from its initial reporting in , following requests from Bush administration officials who argued that disclosure would jeopardize amid active terrorist threats. later explained the hold as resulting from extensive consultations with sources emphasizing potential harm to operations, though critics questioned the timing of the release given persistent activities and plots against the U.S. In immediate response, President Bush defended the program on December 17, 2005, stating it was a vital, lawful tool to detect and disrupt terrorist plots, and accused the New York Times of compromising national security by publicizing classified methods during wartime. Initial polls reflected significant support for the when framed as targeted at international terrorist communications, with a Washington Post-ABC News survey indicating 63% approval for NSA monitoring of calls between suspected foreign terrorists and Americans. This revelation occurred against the backdrop of intensifying debates over the and U.S. strategies, heightening partisan divisions as Democrats criticized the program while Republicans emphasized its necessity in preventing attacks. The Times, an outlet with documented left-leaning institutional bias, faced accusations of selective timing that prioritized political impact over security imperatives in an era of elevated terror risks.

Government Response and Congressional Hearings

Following the disclosure on December 16, 2005, publicly confirmed the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in a radio address on December 17, 2005, defending it as a critical tool authorized shortly after the to intercept international communications involving members or affiliates where one party was in the United States. emphasized that the program operated under his constitutional authority as and the congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), asserting it had saved lives by enabling rapid monitoring without the delays of traditional court warrants, and he vowed its continuation to protect against terrorist threats. The administration also released a legal from the Department of Justice on January 19, 2006, arguing the program's compliance with statutory and constitutional limits, while selectively declassifying memoranda to support claims of inherent executive wartime powers. Congressional scrutiny intensified in early 2006, with the Senate Judiciary Committee holding hearings on February 6, 2006, titled "Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Surveillance Authority," where Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified on the program's targeted nature and internal safeguards, including oversight by the Department of Justice and congressional intelligence committees. General Michael Hayden, then principal deputy director of national intelligence and former NSA director, appeared in multiple sessions, including his May 18, 2006, confirmation hearing for CIA director, where he detailed operational protocols limiting surveillance to foreign intelligence targets linked to terrorism and affirmed the program's legality under Article II powers, rejecting claims of unchecked domestic spying. Bipartisan senators, including Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), pressed for greater transparency and FISA compliance, leading to calls for independent review, yet no legislation halted the program during these debates. The TSP exhibited operational continuity throughout 2006, with no documented interruptions despite ongoing hearings and public debate, as evidenced by continued presidential reauthorizations and administration defenses underscoring its perceived indispensability for timely threat detection in an evolving terrorist landscape. This persistence reflected a prioritization of efficacy over immediate procedural reforms, with officials citing the program's role in disrupting plots without broader erosions through minimization procedures.

Arguments for Inherent Executive Authority

The Bush administration contended that the President possesses inherent constitutional authority under Article II to conduct warrantless surveillance of international communications involving or affiliated terrorists, as part of his role as and sole organ of the nation in . This authority, derived from the Vesting Clause and Clause, enables the executive to gather foreign intelligence necessary to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the , without prior judicial approval, particularly when targeting foreign powers or their agents. Courts have recognized this in foreign intelligence contexts, distinguishing it from domestic criminal investigations by emphasizing the President's superior position and expertise in matters. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on September 18, 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224), reinforced this inherent authority by explicitly authorizing the President to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for the and associated forces, including . Administration officials argued that the AUMF functions as a functional equivalent to a congressional , placing the President at the "zenith of his powers" under the framework established in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952), where executive action aligns with express or implied congressional approval. This interpretation draws analogies to , 542 U.S. 507 (2004), where the upheld the AUMF's broad scope to authorize military detention of enemy combatants, extending similarly to intelligence operations essential to wartime force deployment. Historical precedents underscore the longstanding executive practice of warrantless surveillance during armed conflicts. President authorized intercepts of telegraph communications without warrants during the Civil War to counter Confederate threats, providing early validation for executive initiative in amid existential national peril. Similarly, President directed warrantless monitoring of foreign agents' communications prior to and during , including through No. 8985 in 1941, which facilitated collection without judicial oversight to safeguard against Axis espionage. These actions, upheld implicitly by subsequent congressional acquiescence and judicial deference, affirm that such measures fall within the President's core war powers rather than requiring statutory warrants. Fundamentally, foreign intelligence surveillance targets threats from non-U.S. actors abroad, necessitating a standard distinct from the for crime required under domestic , as the executive must act with speed and secrecy against fluid terrorist networks like . The (FISA) of 1978 was designed to regulate peacetime intelligence gathering, not to constrain wartime operations against declared enemies, and its requirement for foreign agents—lower than criminal standards—reflects recognition of this operational divergence. The Fourth Amendment accommodates this through a "special need" exception for foreign intelligence, as affirmed in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002), prioritizing collective security over individualized warrants in contexts involving foreign powers.

Challenges Under FISA and Fourth Amendment

The (FISA), enacted in 1978, established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes when U.S. persons or facilities were involved, requiring determinations even for targets reasonably believed to be foreign agents or powers. Critics of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), including members of and organizations, contended that the program's warrantless interception of international communications—where at least one party was reasonably believed to be linked to —violated FISA's statutory framework, as the Act was intended to serve as the exclusive means for such surveillance conducted within the . They argued that FISA's amendments, particularly after 1978, eliminated prior executive discretion for warrantless foreign agent surveillance involving U.S. communications facilities, rendering the Bush administration's bypass of FISC approvals unlawful regardless of exigencies. Under the Fourth Amendment, challengers asserted that the TSP's warrantless searches were presumptively unreasonable, lacking the neutral judicial oversight mandated for intrusions into interests in telephonic communications. In ACLU v. NSA (2006), plaintiffs including the (ACLU) and journalists claimed the program enabled dragnet-like overbreadth, capturing domestic communications incidentally and chilling First Amendment activities through fear of , thereby violating core protections against unreasonable searches. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan initially granted an injunction, ruling the TSP unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment grounds due to its absence of individualized warrants and potential for abuse, though the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on standing grounds in 2007, holding plaintiffs lacked sufficient injury to sue without confirming harm. These suits highlighted allegations of systemic overreach, with critics positing that certifications by executive officials alone failed to mitigate risks of erroneous targeting or retention of U.S. person data. Empirical assessments of privacy impacts, however, revealed limited incidental collection of U.S. persons' communications, confined by targeting protocols to specific affiliates abroad and subject to internal minimization procedures that discarded non-relevant domestic content unless it demonstrated foreign intelligence value or criminal activity warranting dissemination. Government disclosures indicated the program focused on a narrow set of international calls—estimated in the low thousands of targets over its duration—rather than indiscriminate bulk acquisition, with U.S. person intercepts occurring only incidentally and rarely disseminated, undermining claims of pervasive erosion. Such data, drawn from declassified overviews, suggested that assertions of "mass" surveillance overstated the program's scope, as safeguards like certifications and NSA compliance reviews constrained overcollection, though critics dismissed these as inadequate self-regulation prone to error.

Judicial Rulings and Legislative Adjustments

In early 2007, compliance issues with the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) surfaced, including overcollection of communications, leading the (NSA) to voluntarily suspend warrantless acquisitions on January 17 and notify the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The FISC reviewed these deficiencies and issued orders directing procedural corrections, while authorizing continued surveillance under (FISA) warrants for specific targets, thereby transitioning elements of the TSP to statutory compliance without issuing a program-wide . To address gaps in legal authority as FISA orders expired and amid heightened needs, passed the Protect America Act (P.L. 110-55) on August 5, 2007, amending FISA to allow the Attorney General and to authorize warrantless of foreign targets reasonably believed to be located outside the for up to one year, subject to internal guidelines and FISC oversight of directives to providers. This temporary measure, effective for 180 days, facilitated bulk acquisition of international communications transiting U.S. facilities while mandating minimization of U.S. person data. Building on the Protect America Act, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-261), signed into law on July 10, 2008, established Section 702 as a permanent framework for targeting non-U.S. persons abroad for foreign intelligence purposes, requiring annual certifications and FISC approval of targeting and minimization procedures but eliminating individual warrants for foreign targets. The Act also provided retroactive civil liability protection for telecommunications carriers that had assisted government surveillance efforts prior to its enactment, upon presidential determination of good-faith assistance, effectively shielding companies like from ongoing lawsuits related to TSP participation. Federal courts handling challenges to the TSP, including ACLU v. NSA (493 F.3d 644, 6th Cir. 2007), dismissed cases primarily on lack of standing or invocation of the , avoiding substantive rulings that could have enjoined the program entirely. These outcomes, coupled with legislative codifications, preserved operational continuity through targeted judicial and statutory adjustments rather than absolutist prohibitions.

Effectiveness and National Security Outcomes

Thwarted Terrorist Activities

The Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) played a role in detecting operative , who conspired to the in 2003 by using a to sever its suspension cables, aiming to disrupt U.S. . Intercepts of Faris's overseas communications with facilitators under the TSP prompted FBI investigation, culminating in his arrest and guilty plea on October 28, 2003, to charges of providing material support to terrorists and plotting to destroy government property; he received a 20-year sentence. TSP intelligence similarly aided in confirming the al-Qaeda affiliations of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on May 8, 2002, at Chicago's O'Hare Airport for plotting to detonate a radiological "" in a U.S. city and to blow up high-rise buildings with . Warrantless intercepts of Padilla's international calls traced his operational ties to senior figures, including , enabling his designation as an and subsequent material support conviction in 2007, for which he was resentenced to 21 years in 2014. Beyond these cases, TSP-generated leads supported CIA efforts to locate and capture high-value targets, with NSA officials reporting dozens of actionable tips that advanced operations against the network in the U.S. and abroad. The program's warrantless framework enabled intercepts within minutes to hours of identifying al-Qaeda-linked numbers, in contrast to the (FISA) process, which often required 24 hours or more for approval and risked missing transient terrorist communications.

Empirical Assessments of Program Value

The 9/11 Commission Report highlighted pre-9/11 legal barriers that constrained NSA surveillance, including FISA's requirement for probable cause warrants even when targeting foreign powers if U.S. persons might be incidentally involved, and "wall" policies that impeded information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These restrictions, rooted in 1990s court rulings and executive orders emphasizing domestic privacy protections, limited the agency's ability to monitor al Qaeda's international communications proactively, contributing to missed opportunities before the September 11 attacks. The TSP addressed this by authorizing warrantless interception of international calls involving suspected terrorists, enabling faster collection against time-sensitive threats without the delays of FISA applications, which averaged 200 applications per year pre-9/11 for similar targets. Official evaluations, including Department of Justice reviews and congressional testimonies, assessed the TSP as generating actionable leads disseminated to partners, with NSA reporting contributions to broader tip flows that supported ongoing operations against networks. Declassified ODNI analyses of program efficacy note that like the TSP facilitated early detection in asymmetric conflicts, where adversaries employ encrypted and routed communications to evade traditional predicates, yielding metrics such as validated foreign reports that informed tactical responses. While exact attribution remains challenging due to operational secrecy, these assessments counter claims of by linking the program's structure to enhanced tip generation and reduced collection lags compared to pre-9/11 baselines. Oversight findings on compliance underscore low misuse rates under the TSP's internal safeguards, including NSA minimization procedures and recertifications every 45 days, with no documented instances of widespread domestic targeting beyond authorized foreign links. Successor programs under FISA amendments, reviewed by the PCLOB, report analogous low error rates—such as NSA compliance incidents below 0.1% in targeting procedures—affirming that structured warrantless foreign maintains high operational value with circumscribed risks to U.S. persons' . In an environment of persistent, low-signature threats, such metrics support the program's net contribution to deterrence, as reactive warrant regimes alone prove insufficient for preempting decentralized networks operating across borders.

Comparisons to Pre- and Post-Program Threats

Prior to the initiation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in the immediate aftermath of the , 2001, attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies suffered from significant silos that hindered the detection of plots, as documented in the , which detailed failures in information sharing between the CIA, FBI, and NSA regarding hijacker activities and prior warnings. These lapses contributed to 's successful execution of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in 2,977 fatalities, the deadliest terrorist incident in U.S. history. Earlier operations, such as the (6 deaths) and the 2000 USS Cole attack (17 U.S. deaths), highlighted a pattern of escalating threats that pre-TSP structures failed to preempt comprehensively. During the TSP's operation from 2001 to 2007, 's operational tempo against U.S. targets declined markedly, with no successful large-scale attacks on U.S. soil matching 9/11's scope, correlating with enhanced NSA monitoring of international communications linked to suspected terrorists. Data from the (GTD) indicate a sharp drop in U.S.-based terrorist incidents and fatalities post-2001 compared to the pre-9/11 era's vulnerabilities, though multifaceted efforts, including military operations, contributed to al-Qaeda core's weakening in the mid-2000s. For instance, GTD records fewer than 100 domestic terrorist attacks annually in the U.S. through the mid-2000s, with jihadist fatalities totaling under 50 excluding 9/11, reflecting disrupted plots rather than unchecked escalation. Following TSP's termination in January 2007 and the transition to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant requirements—later eased by the 2008 FISA Amendments Act—threat levels from al-Qaeda affiliates persisted at a subdued level, with GTD showing continued low U.S. incident rates but a rise in smaller-scale or inspired attacks by the 2010s, such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing (3 deaths). NSA Director Michael Hayden testified that FISA's pre-TSP procedural delays, often spanning days for warrants, risked operational lags in fast-moving threats, a concern echoed in post-shift compliance challenges under Section 702 that occasionally hampered timely collections despite overall efficacy. Empirical assessments, including reduced al-Qaeda spectaculars globally by the late 2000s, suggest TSP-era surveillance bolstered a baseline of threat mitigation that FISA frameworks sustained amid evolving procedural burdens.

Criticisms and Defenses

Civil Liberties Objections

Civil liberties advocates, including the (ACLU), argued that the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), initiated in 2001, unlawfully circumvented the (FISA) by authorizing warrantless interception of international communications where at least one party was reasonably believed to be affiliated with . The ACLU contended in federal lawsuits that this approach violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches, as it lacked prior judicial approval for surveillance implicating U.S. persons, even in cases of incidental collection. Critics highlighted the program's potential for overreach, asserting that warrantless surveillance eroded privacy protections and risked a slippery slope to unchecked domestic monitoring, drawing parallels to intelligence agency excesses exposed by the in 1975, such as warrantless of anti-war activists. Under TSP protocols, communications of U.S. persons were incidentally captured without individualized warrants or notification, raising concerns over minimized but unconsented and querying by analysts. Despite these claims, Department of Justice assessments of the program's four-year operation through 2005 identified no verified abuses, with safeguards like internal reviews intended to prevent misuse. Judicial challenges, including ACLU v. NSA, were dismissed on standing grounds, as plaintiffs could not demonstrate they were directly targeted, limiting evidentiary findings of harm. Subsequent FISA Court oversight after TSP's partial integration in 2007 revealed isolated procedural errors, such as improper querying, but no systemic violations attributable to the original program's design.

Security Necessity and Overstated Privacy Risks

The initiation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) responded directly to the , 2001, attacks, which killed 2,977 people and demonstrated al-Qaeda's capacity for coordinated mass-casualty operations on U.S. soil, necessitating rapid adaptations in to address non-state actors' decentralized tactics. Pre-9/11 intelligence failures, including siloed data and slow interagency sharing, had contributed to the attacks' success, underscoring the need for streamlined surveillance against imminent threats where traditional processes lagged. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) requirement for individualized warrants, often involving determinations and court reviews that could span days amid voluminous international traffic, proved cumbersome for intercepting fleeting terrorist communications in a post-9/11 environment of heightened global jihadist activity. NSA officials contended that TSP's targeted, warrantless monitoring of overseas links reasonably believed to involve affiliates enabled proactive disruption, bypassing bureaucratic delays that risked missing time-sensitive plots in an era when adversaries exploited disposable technology and couriers. Proponents highlighted TSP's role in broader NSA efforts that officials credited with disrupting over 50 potential terrorist attacks worldwide since , including plots against U.S. financial targets, by providing actionable on foreign operatives' networks. While some assessments questioned direct attributions to specific bulk tools, the program's focus on international, terrorism-specific intercepts aligned with empirical imperatives to prioritize prevention over procedural hurdles, given the state's core obligation to mitigate existential risks to civilian populations. Privacy concerns were overstated, as TSP applied minimization rules to discard or mask incidentally collected U.S. persons' unless foreign value warranted retention, with no declassified of systematic hoarding of domestic content or deviation into non-terrorism . The program's scope—limited to calls with one endpoint abroad and a reasonable basis for linkage—contrasted sharply with narratives of unfettered mass collection, and former NSA Director Michael Hayden affirmed the absence of abuse or unlawfulness in its execution. Absent verified domestic harms, such risks paled against the tangible costs of shortfalls, as by 9/11's death toll and subsequent thwarted attempts that underscored 's deterrent value in a threat landscape where inaction invited repetition.

Political and Media Influences on Perception

The revelation of the Terrorist Surveillance Program by on December 16, 2005, followed a delay of over a year from initial reporting in late 2004, during which Bush administration officials repeatedly urged the newspaper to withhold publication on grounds. Executive Editor later stated that the paper weighed assurances of presidential legal authority and potential risks to methods before proceeding, a decision critics attributed to prioritizing journalistic impact over ongoing efficacy, as the disclosure prompted affiliates to modify communication tactics. polls immediately after the story reflected framing effects: a January 2006 survey found 53 percent of Americans approved of warrantless wiretaps when described as a measure "in order to reduce the threat of ," yet support eroded in polls emphasizing "warrantless" aspects without context, with 56 percent favoring warrants in an AP-Ipsos poll. Partisan political responses diverged sharply post-revelation, despite prior bipartisan briefings to the Gang of Eight congressional leaders—comprising both Republicans and Democrats such as and —on the program's existence and operations starting in 2002, with at least a dozen such sessions documented by administration records. , vice chairman of the , privately conveyed concerns in a 2003 handwritten to Cheney, questioning the program's scope and while noting his inability to consult colleagues or act due to classification rules, yet he did not publicly dissent at the time. Following the Times disclosure, Democratic leaders amplified calls for mandatory FISA warrants and , framing the program as executive overreach, which contrasted with their earlier silence during briefings and aligned with broader post-9/11 war authorizations they had supported. Media and political narratives, predominantly from left-leaning outlets, emphasized violations under the "warrantless " label, correlating temporally with peaking anti-Iraq War sentiment and declining Bush approval ratings rather than substantiated findings of program misuse; leaks yielded no empirical evidence of widespread abuses, as subsequent investigations confirmed the program's targeting adhered to linkages, yet coverage often minimized disclosed security benefits like thwarted plots in favor of privacy alarmism. This selective framing, amplified by outlets with documented institutional biases toward critiquing Republican-led security measures, fostered perceptions prioritizing theoretical risks over causal trade-offs in terrorism prevention, where empirical assessments later validated the program's role in disrupting threats without domestic overreach.

Termination and Broader Legacy

Transition to FISA Amendments Act

In early 2007, amid ongoing legal and internal challenges exposed during congressional briefings by , the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) underwent a significant operational shift. The last presidential authorization for the TSP expired on February 1, 2007, prompting a brief pause in certain warrantless activities as the (NSA) transitioned select collection efforts to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) under existing FISA provisions. This change followed revelations of prior internal dissent, including the 2004 hospital bedside confrontation involving then-Acting and , where officials refused to reauthorize unmodified aspects of the program, leading to modifications to secure Justice Department approval. To resolve perceived limitations in FISC procedures for targeting foreign threats, enacted the Protect America Act (PAA) on August 5, 2007, as a temporary six-month measure authorizing warrantless of foreign targets reasonably believed to be outside the . The PAA effectively resumed core TSP-like capabilities by directing intelligence agencies to acquire foreign intelligence without individual warrants, while requiring high-level certifications of compliance and targeting procedures. This interim legislation bridged the gap until the more permanent FISA Amendments Act (FAA), signed into law on July 10, 2008, which codified warrantless acquisition of communications to and from foreign targets, including provisions for bulk collection under Section 702. The FAA's framework phased out the TSP's executive-only authorizations but preserved operational continuity in NSA practices, such as targeting international terrorism-related communications, by integrating them into statutory processes with and DNI approvals rather than solely presidential directives. It also provided retroactive to telecommunications providers that had assisted the government, shielding them from civil liability for prior TSP-related cooperation and incentivizing future participation. This evolution addressed constitutional and statutory concerns raised by Justice Department officials and courts—without substantially curtailing surveillance efficacy against overseas threats—by formalizing executive actions into legislative authority tailored to post-9/11 intelligence needs.

Influence on Section 702 and Subsequent Surveillance

The Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), initiated in 2001, provided a foundational operational model for warrantless electronic surveillance of international communications linked to terrorism, influencing the development of statutory authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Following legal challenges and congressional scrutiny, TSP's practices informed the Protect America Act of 2007 and, subsequently, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) enacted on July 10, 2008, which authorized the targeting of non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located abroad for foreign intelligence purposes, including counterterrorism. This framework institutionalized TSP-like upstream collection from communication infrastructure and downstream acquisition from providers, while imposing targeting procedures, minimization rules to protect U.S. persons, and annual certifications reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Section 702 has been reauthorized three times since 2008—in 2012 for six years, in 2018 for six years, and most recently on , 2024, for two years via the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act—despite ongoing debates over requiring warrants for queries of incidentally collected U.S. persons' data (known as "backdoor searches"). Proponents, including officials, argued that warrant requirements would hinder timely foreign gathering, citing the program's role in disrupting terrorist plots without significant privacy intrusions on Americans. The 2024 reauthorization incorporated reforms like enhanced penalties for FISA misuse and expanded reporting on compliance incidents, but rejected broader warrant mandates pushed by advocates. Revelations from Edward Snowden's 2013 leaks highlighted Section 702's implementation through programs like (downstream collection from U.S. tech firms) and Upstream (direct taps on cables), positioning TSP as a conceptual precursor that normalized such bulk foreign targeting despite incidental U.S. data capture. Empirical assessments from oversight bodies affirm Section 702's value for , with of the (ODNI) statistics showing U.S. persons are never directly targeted and represent a minimal fraction of collections— for instance, in 2016, NSA and CIA queried Section 702 repositories using only about 5,288 U.S. person identifiers amid vast foreign-targeted volumes. Annual transparency reports indicate that disseminations of incidentally acquired U.S. person information remain tightly controlled, with compliance reviews documenting rare incidents relative to the scale of operations, underscoring the program's targeted efficacy over broad domestic impact.

References

  1. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/report_on_the_presidents_surveillance_program.pdf
  2. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/nsa_myth_v_reality.pdf
  3. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060817-2.html
  4. https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/054417e4-9d20-427a-9850-862a6f29ac42/2023%2520PCLOB%2520702%2520Report%2520%28002%29.pdf
  5. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/department-justice-releases-additional-documents-concerning-collection-activities-authorized
  6. https://govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf
  7. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.htm
  8. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/NSA%2520IG%2520Report.pdf
  9. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2006/01/31/nsa-white-paper.pdf
  10. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
  11. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051217.html
  12. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060206.html
  13. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/torturingdemocracy//documents/20090115.pdf
  14. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060122.html
  15. https://documents.pclob.gov/prod/Documents/OversightReport/ec542143-1079-424a-84b3-acc354698560/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Records_Program.pdf
  16. https://www.nsa.gov/portals/75/documents/about/civil-liberties/resources/pclob_section_702_report.pdf
  17. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/424/2009%2520Joint%2520IG%2520Report%2520on%2520the%2520PSP_Annex%2520Vol.%2520II-C.pdf
  18. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2007/01/11/surveillance20.pdf
  19. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/behind-the-eavesdropping-story-a-loud-silence.html
  21. https://www.npr.org/2005/12/20/5063326/behind-the-times-publication-of-u-s-spying-story
  22. https://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
  23. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/bush-says-he-ordered-domestic-spying.html
  24. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/312486719
  25. https://www.npr.org/2005/12/17/5060093/bush-defends-domestic-spying-program
  26. https://irp.fas.org/congress/2006_hr/index.html
  27. https://www.npr.org/2006/05/18/5411958/hayden-tells-senate-panel-nsa-monitoring-is-legal
  28. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg27443/html/CHRG-109shrg27443.htm
  29. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/hayden_testimony_07_26_06.pdf
  30. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/fisa
  31. https://www.hnn.us/article/was-gonzaless-historical-defense-of-eavesdropping-
  32. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file542_24074.pdf
  33. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2175&context=facultypub
  34. https://www.aclu.org/documents/testimony-gregory-t-nojeim-associate-director-aclu-washington-legislative-office-united-states
  35. https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf
  36. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/american-civil-liberties-union-v-national-security-agency-central-security-service-e-d-mich/
  37. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2007/01/11/surveillance21.pdf
  38. https://www.scotusblog.com/2007/01/nsa-spying-now-done-under-secret-court-order/
  39. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2327&context=facpub
  40. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1927
  41. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html
  42. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/6304
  43. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34600.html
  44. https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/aclu-v-nsa-opposition
  45. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2003/October/03_crm_589.htm
  46. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2006/06/06/gabriel-schoenfeld-testimony-060606?download=1
  47. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/jose-padilla-re-sentenced-21-years-prison-conspiracy-murder-individuals-overseas
  48. https://www.intel.gov/assets/documents/702-documents/declassified/NSA%2520Alexander%25202007%2520Declassified%2520Verizon%2520Declaration.pdf
  49. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf
  50. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Processes_for_Assessing_the_Efficacy_and_Value_of_Intelligence_Programs.pdf
  51. https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm
  52. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP_TEVUS_Terrorist-Attacks-US_1970-2013_Overview-508.pdf
  53. https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf
  54. https://www.dni.gov/nctc/timeline.html
  55. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-state-of-al-qaida-central/
  56. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-slams-senate-judiciary-committees-approval-nsa-spying-bills
  57. https://irp.fas.org/agency/doj/fisa/aclu-doj-resp083107.pdf
  58. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/archive.htm
  59. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113shrg28112/html/CHRG-113shrg28112.htm
  60. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/themes/fisa.html
  61. https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/listening-terrorists-surveillance-programslessons-learned-and-the-way
  62. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-chief-says-surveillance-programs-helped-thwart-dozens-of-plots/2013/06/27/e97ab0a2-df70-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story.html
  63. https://newamerica.org/future-security/policy-papers/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programs-stop-terrorists/
  64. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/07/administration-concedes-open-secret-nsa-spying-broader-previously-admitted
  65. https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2013/12/hayden-nsa-programs-not-abused-179654
  66. https://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/16/nytimes.statement/
  67. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/news/poll-finds-53-in-us-accept-wiretaps-to-fight-terror.html
  68. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/poll-finds-opposition-to-wiretaps-without-court-warrant/
  69. https://rockefeller.lib.wvu.edu/pdf/138751/0.pdf
  70. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/nsa.html
  71. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1672/
  72. https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/15/ashcroft.nsa/index.html
  73. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/washington/16nsa.html
  74. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/index.html
  75. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/110th-congress/senate-report/258/1
  76. https://www.dni.gov/files/icotr/Section702-Basics-Infographic.pdf
  77. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/20/1246076114/senate-passes-reauthorization-surveillance-program-fisa
  78. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/fisa-section-702-reauthorized-for-two-years
  79. https://www.justice.gov/nsd/section-702
  80. https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702-documents/statistical-transparency-report/ASTR_CY24.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.