Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door

Why Congress should not renew the PATRIOT Act's "lone wolf" provision

Julian Sanchez | October 5, 2009

The USA PATRIOT Act, a vast expansion of the American intelligence community's search and surveillance powers, was passed in haste in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Now a new administration may finally have given Congress the leisure to repent. Last month, lawmakers on both sides of Capitol Hill held hearings to consider three important surveillance provisions slated to "sunset" at the end of the year. The Obama administration has requested that all three be renewed, but also announced its willingness to consider "modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans."  Some prominent Democrats see the coming legislative tussle over whether and how to renew those provisions as an opportunity to finally halt the runaway expansion of executive snooping authority, from National Security Letters to secret "sneak-and-peek" searches.

Competing reform proposals have been offered up by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis). While Feingold's bill is by far the more sweeping; like Leahy's it provides for the renewal of roving wiretap authority and expansive powers to acquire business records and other "tangible things," albeit with extensive modifications to strengthen oversight. But unlike Leahy's bill, Feingold's wisely allows the PATRIOT Act's so-called "lone wolf" authority to expire entirely.

The extraordinary tools available to investigators under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed over 30 years ago in response to revelations of endemic executive abuse of spying powers, were originally designed to cover only "agents of foreign powers." The PATRIOT Act's "lone wolf" provision severed that necessary link for the first time, authorizing FISA spying within the United States on any "non-U.S. person" who "engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor," and allowing the statute's definition of an "agent of a foreign power" to apply to suspects who, well, aren't. Justice Department officials say they've never used that power, but they'd like to keep it the arsenal just in case.

As with so many of the post-9/11 intelligence reforms, the lone wolf provision has its genesis in the misguided assumption that every intelligence failure is evidence that investigators need more power. In the aftermath of the attacks, it was initially alleged that FBI investigators who had wanted to obtain a warrant to search the belongings of so-called "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui were unable to do so because FISA lacked a "lone wolf" provision. But a blistering 2003 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee tells a very different story. It notes that on 9/11, investigators were able to obtain a conventional warrant using the exact same evidence that had previously been considered insufficient. Worse, the Committee found that supervisors at FBI Headquarters had failed to link related reports from different field offices, or to pass those reports on to the lawyers tasked with determining when a FISA warrant should be sought. Officials in charge, the Senate discovered, fundamentally misunderstood such crucial legal standards as "probable cause" and falsely believed that they could not seek a FISA order unless a target could specifically be tied to a particular, already-recognized terror group.

"In performing this fairly straightforward task," the report concludes, "FBI headquarters personnel failed miserably." They didn't need new "lone wolf" powers; they needed to understand the powers they already had. Nevertheless, new powers were what they were granted, in an ill-considered reform that undermines the vital distinction American law has traditionally observed between domestic national security concerns and foreign intelligence.

Courts have generally been extraordinarily deferential to the executive in the realm of foreign intelligence, and have suggested that the Fourth Amendment's protections against warrantless searches apply only weakly, if at all, in this context. But when it comes to domestic national security investigations, a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that the usual restrictions remain largely intact. The court clearly saw the involvement of a "foreign power" as providing the distinction between the world of the criminal law's Fourth Amendment protections and the hazy arena where the executive enjoys far greater latitude. The "lone wolf" provision recklessly blurs that line, defying the common sense meaning of an "agent of a foreign power," and giving investigations that belong in the first world a dubious statutory foothold in the second.

To be sure, FISA's definition of "international terrorism" still requires some foreign "nexus" before a suspected lone wolf can be targeted, but the statute provides only the vague guidance that its aims or methods "transcend" national boundaries. Justice Department officials have suggested that the definition would cover a suspect who "self-radicalizes by means of information and training provided by a variety of international terrorist groups via the Internet," making a Web browser the distinction between a domestic threat and an international one. Activities "in preparation" for terrorism, according to the legislative history, may include the provision of "personnel, training, funding, or other means" for an attack.

While it's difficult to be an unwitting "member" of a terror group, nothing in the law requires that the contribution a lone wolf makes to terror activities be a knowing one. And while definitions of an "agent of a foreign power" applicable to citizens explicitly prohibit investigations conducted wholly on the basis of protected First Amendment activities, PATRIOT appears to permit "lone wolves" to be targeted merely on the basis of advocacy. Finally, while the criminal law requires "preparation" for terrorism to include a "substantial step" in the direction of carrying out an attack, the Justice Department has suggested that FISA's definition does not. Thus, not only may lone wolf suspects be monitored despite the absence of ties to a terror group, they may not even need to be engaged in criminal conduct.

Though the standard of proof needed to target a person under FISA is clearly lower than under criminal law, the surveillance powers it affords are substantially broader. Title III, the statute covering criminal wiretaps, requires evidence of a "nexus" between suspected criminal activity and each location or communications facility monitored. Even then, agents are only supposed to record conversations that are pertinent to the investigation. Once someone is designated an "agent of a foreign power," by contrast, FISA permits broad monitoring coupled with "minimization"-the purging of irrelevant communication, such as the conversations of innocent housemates-"hours, days, or weeks after collection."  Though targets of Title III surveillance are typically informed of the eavesdropping eventually, after the investigation has finished, FISA targets usually are not, enhancing the secrecy of intelligence practices, but removing a powerful check against abuses.

All of these significant differences make sense in the context of spying aimed at a member of an international terrorist conspiracy. But the lone wolf provision effectively aims a Howitzer at a gnat, allowing souped-up tools designed for Al Qaeda and the KGB to be used against people more reasonably seen as criminal suspects-and in the process, against any Americans who happen to have interactions with them.

Julian Sanchez is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor of Reason.

Comments

Pingback| 10.5.09 @ 3:10PM

Monday PATRIOT Roundup links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the PATRIOT renewal struggle, and botches the basic facts in just about every possible way. Over at Reason, I zoom in on the one expiring PATRIOT section that ought to simply expire, the so-called Lone Wolf provision. At The American Prospect I look at some of the important reforms Russ Feingold has proposed… …and at Cato, a look at the current state of play, and why things are looking grim so far.…

FrBunny|10.5.09 @ 3:33PM|#

Every Sanchez post draws my memory back to the fabled Santorum thread.

Only this time I saw that highnumber owes Jake Boone a nut-punch.

24AheadDotCom|10.5.09 @ 8:36PM|#

When I visited Washington DC, I emailed Sanchez - as I did with several others along the route - seeing if they wanted to hang out and discuss blogging. He didn't reply, as did almost everyone else. That's understandable of course, since he and the others I emailed are assholes.

Also, I left a couple comments on his post about SoniaS, and he deleted both of them; both comments linked to this page.

And, that's after I probably sent dozens or more people to see the comments I'd left on an earlier entry from him; he's since deleted those comments too:

juliansanchez.com/2008/09/30/desperately-seeking-sarah

24AheadDotCom|10.5.09 @ 8:38PM|#

I mean, seriously, how much of a poussoir does someone have to be to desperately manicure their comments so their readers don't see how flawed your arguments are?

Wat|10.6.09 @ 7:47AM|#

No one gives a fuck LoneWacko

FrBunny|10.5.09 @ 3:35PM|#

Shit. Link fail.

John Tagliaferro|10.5.09 @ 3:41PM|#

How did you make the letters orange? This isn't Sugarfreed either, you have an error of your own now!

FrBunny|10.5.09 @ 3:45PM|#

Evidently if you leave off the quotation marks before and after the URL, you get orange letters with no function. Whee.

John Tagliaferro|10.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#

The Bunny Hack!

John Tagliaferro|10.5.09 @ 3:55PM|#

The Bunny Hack

FrBunny|10.5.09 @ 4:01PM|#

The Bunny Hack!

This is the happiest day of my life.

FrBunny|10.5.09 @ 3:43PM|#

Santorum thread.

Jake Boone.

John Tagliaferro|10.5.09 @ 3:54PM|#

You unbunnied that one.

VikingMoose|10.9.09 @ 10:03AM|#

"unbunnied" - awesome!!! :)

and nut punches come immediately after taint witherings!

|10.5.09 @ 4:21PM|#

All's fair in love, war, and the Salty Ham Tears Thread!

I regret nothing!

Paul|10.5.09 @ 3:55PM|#

"modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans.

I know. How about some law or wording which says that all Americans should be free from unreasonable search... you know, maybe in their homes... or even personal effects? And maybe searches that do take place will have to be authorized by warrant. And only if there's probable cause. Oh! Oh! And a reasonable description of what's to be searched and the stuff they're looking for.

|10.5.09 @ 4:11PM|#

What is this probable cause you speak of? They never mentioned that in my Criminal Procedure class.

Paul|10.5.09 @ 4:18PM|#

That's because your class was a Criminal Procedure.

|10.5.09 @ 4:20PM|#

It wasn't as bad as Con Law, where the Commerce Clause is taught as a quaint history lesson.

J.|10.5.09 @ 4:57PM|#

At first, I thought that said "Keeping Lone Wacko from the Door"...

|10.5.09 @ 5:00PM|#

That would be worth supporting!

|10.5.09 @ 5:56PM|#

In this age of insurgency and terrorism, what the hell does "foreign power" mean? Al Qaida, Taliban, ??? This kind of trash commentary doesn't belong in a publication calling itself Reason.

|10.5.09 @ 6:05PM|#

This kind of trash commentary doesn't belong in a publication calling itself Reason.

Ooh! Ooh!

Drink!

|10.5.09 @ 7:45PM|#

Did you make a wrong turn? Were you looking for Daily Kos or Glenn Beck?

|10.5.09 @ 6:41PM|#

The Obama administration has requested that all three be renewed

Yet again, Obama shows his nutjob liberal agenda by promoting Republican ideas.

Pingback| 10.5.09 @ 7:32PM

Sex and the Single Wolf | GSA Schedule Services links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…to a foreign terrorist group in order to obtain a warrant. In response, the “lone wolf” theory — together with section 6001(b) of the Patriot Act — was born. But in 2003, as Julian Sanchez writes in Reason magazine, the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that in fact, the FBI’s failure to get a warrant wasn’t because Congress hadn’t believed in and adequately prepared for lone wolves, but…

huangzhixian07|10.6.09 @ 8:25AM|#

http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE======

BIKINI $25. OUR COMMITMENT,CUSTOMER IS GOD.

All the products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price: (Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16

http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE=====

I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!

Pingback| 10.6.09 @ 12:24PM

Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…in the process, against any Americans who happen to have interactions with them. Julian Sanchez is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor of Reason. http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/0...ot-act-keep-lo __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Make Aliyah Today To view links or images in signatures…

Pingback| 10.6.09 @ 11:25PM

http://antiwar.com/ – 10/6/2009 | The Ruthless Truth blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…the Assumptions About a Nuclear Iran   by H.D.S. Greenway McChrystal’s Ultimatum   by Jeff Huber The Tropes of ‘Jewish Anti-Semitism’   by Antony Lerman Keeping Lone Wolves From the Door   by Julian Sanchez More Viewpoints Spotlight Generals Open New Front in Washington by Patrick J. Buchanan Students to Protest Afghan War on 25 Campuses (Oct. 7) FBI Supervisor Calls…

Pingback| 10.8.09 @ 3:39PM

The World According to Nick - Sensenbrenner Demands 72 Hours to Review Every Bill But links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…been used to go after drug dealers and gamblers rather than terrorists. In fact, the Justice Department had the power it needed to get warrants against terrorists prior to the Patriot Act... they just didn't realize it.  Imagine what 72 hours worth of debate could have highlighted. Example 2: Real ID As I have blogged about numerous times in the past, Real ID has been one of Sensenbrenner's pet projects.…

Pingback| 10.10.09 @ 6:59AM

Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest October 11, 2009 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Should Follow Eisenhower  by Steve Clemons Israel vs Human Rights  by Adam Horowitz & Philip Weiss All Muslim Politics Is Local  by Charles Tripp Iran, Iran So Far Away  by Jack Hunter Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door  by Julian Sanchez McChrystal’s Ultimatum  by Jeff Huber Invalidate Federal Gun Laws  by Declan McCullagh Ten Lies About Iran  by Juan Cole Stuff  White People Like  by Scott Locklin…

links of london Bracelets|10.22.09 @ 2:00AM|#

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.