老澳门开奖结果

This piece originally ran at .

Discussing the origins of the FBI鈥檚 Russia investigation, Attorney General William Barr recently claimed that 鈥�.鈥� He went on to say, 鈥淚 can鈥檛 imagine any world where we wouldn鈥檛 take a look and make sure that was done properly.鈥�

As some were , the comments were rich coming from an architect of our government鈥檚 modern spying apparatus: As attorney general during the George H.W. Bush administration, Barr played a key role in developing a secret program that served as the for the NSA鈥檚 mass surveillance of Americans鈥� phone records.

But the hypocrisy of Barr鈥檚 comments goes well beyond his past. On Thursday, lawyers from Barr鈥檚 Justice Department tried to block a federal court from taking a look at the government鈥檚 surveillance of Americans.

The case鈥攂rought by the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, one of the world鈥檚 most-visited websites鈥攃hallenges the constitutionality of the U.S. government鈥檚 warrantless spying on Americans鈥� international internet communications, known as 鈥淯pstream鈥� surveillance. (The 老澳门开奖结果, Knight First Amendment Institute, and Cooley LLP are representing Wikimedia in this challenge.)

With the help of companies like AT&T and Verizon, the National Security Agency conducts surveillance on U.S. soil by tapping directly into the internet鈥檚 backbone鈥攖he physical infrastructure that carries our emails, photos, personal chats, and web browsing. The agency then copies and searches a vast pool of internet communications flowing into and out of the United States. It does all of this without a warrant, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Wikimedia鈥檚 case could mark the first time a public court weighs in on the constitutionality of this decade-old spying operation. But in stark contrast to Barr鈥檚 public expressions of concern over the privacy of Americans, his Justice Department has thrown up a series of litigation roadblocks in an effort to prevent the court from ruling on the legality of this surveillance dragnet.

In fact, on Thursday, Justice Department lawyers argued that Wikimedia鈥檚 case should be dismissed outright. They contend that Wikimedia cannot prove with sufficient certainty that its communications are surveilled, and that it therefore lacks 鈥渟tanding鈥� to sue.

But Wikimedia is plainly subject to warrantless surveillance. Wikimedia engages in more than 1 trillion international internet communications per year, with users in every country on earth. Because those communications are so numerous and so broadly dispersed across the globe, they travel every path carrying internet traffic into and out of the U.S. Even if the NSA is monitoring just one of those paths, it is monitoring Wikimedia鈥檚 communications. The government鈥檚 own disclosures about the scope of its surveillance make this clear.

In response to Wikimedia鈥檚 lawsuit, the Justice Department is relying on a legal tactic called the 鈥渟tate secrets privilege鈥� to try to block the court from considering several of the government鈥檚 official disclosures. The Justice Department鈥檚 argument rests on the theory that the court鈥檚 consideration of this information would harm national security鈥攅ven though the government has already declassified and released the same information to the public.

Incredibly, the Justice Department also asserts that the court cannot even rule on Wikimedia鈥檚 standing without harming national security, despite the fact that Congress created a special procedure in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to address this concern. The procedure is designed to account for any conflict between legitimate secrecy and accountability, and it allows lawsuits like this one to go forward.

If the court in Wikimedia鈥檚 suit accepts the Justice Department鈥檚 state secrets arguments, it would have far-reaching implications. In essence, it would mean that only the executive branch can decide how and when lawsuits challenging government surveillance may proceed鈥攁nd that the government could unilaterally block courts from taking the very 鈥渓ook鈥� that Barr says is necessary. That view of executive branch power is completely at odds with what Congress intended when it enacted FISA, and it could eviscerate the possibility of meaningful accountability for unlawful spying.

Wikimedia鈥檚 communications with its users are sensitive and private. They can reveal intimate information about users鈥� political affiliations, religious beliefs, medical questions, and personal interests. Just as the government shouldn鈥檛 be monitoring the reading habits of ordinary library patrons, it shouldn鈥檛 be monitoring what Wikimedia鈥檚 users are privately reading online.

If Barr really wants to champion accountability for violations of Americans鈥� privacy, he should stop trying to shut the courthouse doors on Wikimedia. It鈥檚 past time for the public courts to review the legality of the NSA鈥檚 surveillance of our internet communications.