Holder Feeling Heat From House Democrats Over Furtive Use Of FBI National Security Letters For Domestic Spying
February 21, 2014 by Ben Bullard
A pair of House Democrats is adding a bipartisan flavor to months of GOP-led protestations over the way President Barack Obamaâ€™s Department of Justice circumvents the spirit of Constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures.
Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) and David Cicilline (R.I.), both Democrats, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder this week demanding the DOJ explain its rationale for relying on the FBIâ€™s secret National Security Letters, which allow Federal law enforcement to compel banks and Internet providers to give up private customer information — without their knowledge or consent.
National Security Letters are among the Patriot Actâ€™s many freedom-choking legacies. The DOJ welcomes the FBIâ€™s interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act to include the FBIâ€™s use of National Security Letters to collect wire-based data, as the two Congressmen point out, on a â€ścase-by-case basis.â€ť
Hereâ€™s the full text of the letter:
Dear Attorney General:
Over the past several months, the media has focused on Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.Â Section 215 permits the government to obtain â€śany tangible thingâ€ť if there are â€śreasonable grounds to believeâ€ť the information sought is â€śrelevantâ€ť to an investigation â€śto obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.â€ť
Under this authority, the National Security Agency collects records on virtually every phone call made in the United States.Â We understand that the Federal Bureau of Investigation may also use Section 215 to collect telephone records on a case-by-case basis.Â Section 215, of course, requires the government to obtain the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before it may demand these records from a communications service provider.
On February 4, 2014, at a full committee hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, we questioned Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole about a different investigative toolâ€”National Security Letters, or â€śNSLs.â€ť
NSLs permit the FBI to obtain, among other things, telephone records, email subscriber information, and financial transaction records that are â€śrelevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.â€ť2 NSLs are issued by senior FBI officials.Â No judicial finding is necessary.
The Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies noted that â€śforeign intelligence investigations are especially likely to implicate highly sensitive and personal information and to have potentially severe consequences for the individuals under investigation.â€ť3 The Review Group was â€śunable to identify a principled reason why NSLs should be issued by FBI officials when section 215 orders . . . must be issued by the FISC,â€ť4 and therefore recommended that â€śall statutes authorizing the use of National Security Letters should be amended to require the use of the same oversight, minimization, retention, and dissemination standards that currently govern the use of section 215 orders.â€ť
As we consider reforms to the governmentâ€™s surveillance capabilities, it would be helpful to understand more about the interplay between Section 215 and NSLs.Â To that end, we ask the following questions:
- Presumably, anything that the government can obtain through an NSL it can also obtain through a Section 215 order from the FISA court.Â Given the overlap with Section 215, why are NSLs necessary?
- In what instances would the FBI choose to use an NSL instead of Section 215?Â In what instances would the FBI choose to use Section 215 instead of an NSL?
- In 2009, the Department of Justice reported that the FBI had made 21 applications for business records to the FISA court.Â In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205.Â In a 2011 letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, FBI Director Robert Mueller explained that â€śover the last two years, the FBI has increasingly had to rely on business records orders to obtain electronic communications transactions records that historically were obtained with NSLs.â€ť6 Why did the FBI shift from NSLs to Section 215? Does it still rely on Section 215 for these purposes?Â Does the FBIâ€™s dependence on one authority or the other shift over time?
Although the government periodically reports certain aggregate numbers to the House Judiciary Committee, we require a side-by-side comparison of (1) the FBIâ€™s use of NSLs, (2) the FBIâ€™s use of Section 215, and (3) the NSAâ€™s use of Section 215, which often generates leads for the FBI.
We therefore request that you provide, for all fiscal years from 2006 to the latest available reporting period, the following information:
- The number of NSLs issued by the FBI, the statutory authority for each such NSL, and the number of U.S. persons targeted by such NSLs;
- The number of times that the FBI has requested a Section 215 order from the FISA court, the number of such orders modified and granted, and the number of U.S. persons targeted by such orders;
- The number of â€śRAS-approvedâ€ť selectors used by the NSA to query telephone metadata; the number of searches conducted with those selectors; and the number of times these queries generated a tip to the FBI.
We ask that you provide this information as soon possible, but no later than March 7, 2014.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact John Doty from Congressman Nadlerâ€™s Office at 202.225.5635 or William Walsh from Congressman Cicillineâ€™s Office at 202.225.4911.
Jerrold NadlerÂ Â Member of Congress
David CicillineÂ Â Â Â Member of Congress
Even the NSA must go through at least a pantomime of the judicial process, via the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to obtain legal authorization to spy on everyone. But, as The Hillâ€™s Julian Hattem notes, the FBI can rely on National Security Letters without any judicial review whatsoever.
While itâ€™s obvious that this election season has plenty of Democratic Congressmen pretending to act like outraged Republicans in order to save their seats, Nadler and Cicilline have at least — perhaps unwittingly — made a bipartisan matter out of something the Obama Administration has preferred, so far, to treat as a fringe issue that draws complaint only from â€śright-wingâ€ť Constitutionalists.