US Wiretapping You

It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government
agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of
a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of
your private phone calls.

You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two
months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document
back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.

By all accounts, that's what happened to Washington D.C. attorney
Wendell Belew in August 2004. And it happened at a time when no one
outside a small group of high-ranking officials and workaday spooks
knew the National Security Agency was listening in on Americans'
phone calls without warrants. Belew didn't know what to make of the
episode. But now, thanks to that government gaffe, he and a
colleague have the distinction of being the only Americans who can
prove they were specifically eavesdropped upon by the NSA's
surveillance program.

The pair are seeking $1 million each in a closely watched lawsuit
against the government, which experts say represents the greatest
chance, among over 50 different lawsuits, of convincing a key judge
to declare the program illegal.

Belew's bout with the Terrorist Surveillance Program began in 2004,
when he was representing the U.S. branch office of the prominent
Saudi Arabian charity Al-Haramain. Formerly one of the largest
charities in Saudi Arabia, Al-Haramain worked to spread a strict
view of Islam through philanthropy, missionary work and support for
mosques around the world.

Federal officials were investigating the Ashland, Oregon, branch of
the group for alleged links to terrorism, and had already frozen the
charity's U.S. assets. Belew was one of several lawyers trying to
keep Al-Haramain off a U.S. Treasury Department watch list -- an
effort that sent much paperwork flying back and forth between the
attorneys and the Treasury Department's Washington D.C.
headquarters across the street from the White House.

On Aug. 20, 2004, fellow Al-Haramain attorney Lynne Bernabei
noticed one of the documents from Treasury was marked "top secret."
Bernabei gave the document to attorneys and directors at
Al-Haramain's Saudi Arabia headquarters, and gave a copy to Belew.
The document was a log of phone conversations Belew and co-counsel
Asim Ghafoor had held with a Saudi-based director for the charity
named Soliman al-Buthi.

Al-Buthi was a Saudi government employee who volunteered as
coordinator for Al-Haramain's North American branches, including the
Oregon branch. In a telephone interview with Wired News, al-Buthi
says he's now general manager for the environmental department of
the city of Riyadh, working on an anti-bird flu project. He denied
having any links to terrorism, now or in 2004. "I feel that Islam
is best spread by wisdom not by arms or violence," al-Buthi says.

Despite al-Buthi's claims of innocence, al-Buthi and Al-Haramain's
American branch were added to the government's public list of
terrorists on Sept. 9, 2004, just weeks after the government turned
over the call log to the charity's attorneys. It's not clear when
officials realized they'd given a highly classified document to an
organization they considered terrorist, but the FBI showed up at
Belew's office in October and demanded the call log back, advising
the lawyer not to attempt to remember the document's contents.

By then, Belew had given a copy of the document to Washington Post
reporter David Ottaway, who had been writing about how the
government investigated and listed individuals and groups suspected
of funding terrorism. Ottaway did not report on the classified call
log, and when the FBI called, the Post dutifully handed over its
copy.

That might have been the end of it. But in December 2005 The New
York Times revealed that the government had been spying on
Americans' overseas communications without warrants, and
Al-Haramain's lawyers realized why the FBI had been so adamant about
getting the document back.

"I got up in the morning and read the story, and I thought, 'My god,
we had a log of a wiretap and it may or may not have been the NSA
and on further reflection it was NSA," says Thomas Nelson, who
represents Al-Haramain and Belew. "So we decided to file a
lawsuit."

The lawyers retrieved one of the remaining copies of the document --
presumably from Saudi Arabia -- and used it to file a complaint in
U.S.  District Court in Oregon in February of last year. They
sought damages from the government of $1 million each for Belew and
Ghafoor, and the unfreezing of Al-Haramain's assets, because that
action relied on the allegedly illegal spying.

The lawsuit is poised to blow a hole through a bizarre catch-22 that
has dogged other legal efforts to challenge the Bush
administration's warrantless surveillance.

Since the 2005 Times story, and subsequent acknowledgment of the
surveillance by the Bush administration, some 50-odd lawsuits have
sprung up around the NSA program, taking on the government and
various telecom companies who are allegedly cooperating in spying on
their customers, including BellSouth, Verizon and Sprint.

Justice Department and phone company lawyers have asserted that the
plaintiffs in those cases don't have legal standing to sue, because
they have no proof that they were direct victims of the
eavesdropping. At the same time, the government claims it doesn't
have to reveal if any individual was or was not wiretapped because
the "state secrets privilege" permits it to withhold information
that would endanger national security.

The tangible document makes Belew's case uniquely positioned to cut
through that thicket, says Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the
Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents individuals being
held in Guantanamo Bay. The center is also suing to stop the
surveillance, but lacks Belew's concrete evidence of monitoring --
arguing instead that the possibility of being monitored hampers its
legal work.

"The government's line is that if you don't have evidence of actual
surveillance, you lose on standing," says Kadidal. "Out of all the
cases, this is the only one with evidence of actual surveillance."

That evidence also gives the courts enough to rule immediately on
whether the president had the authority to spy on Belew and Ghafoor
without a court order, said Jon Eisenberg, one of Belew's lawyers.
"We know how many times he's been surveilled," Eisenberg told a
judge last month.  "There is nothing left for this court to do
except hear oral arguments on the legality of the program."

The Justice Department isn't ready to concede that the two attorneys
were swept into the NSA's extrajudicial surveillance. "The
government has never confirmed or denied whether plaintiffs were
surveilled, much less surveilled under the Terrorist Surveillance
Program," spokesman Dean Boyd wrote in an e-mail to Wired News.

But if the document is a harmless memo unrelated to NSA
surveillance, it's unexpectedly agitating government spooks.

Soon after the lawsuit was filed, the document was whisked out of
the courthouse and into a Justice Department-controlled secure room
known as a Secure Compartmented Information Facility in Portland,
Oregon.  According to government filings, it remains classified top
secret and contains "sensitive compartmented information" -- meaning
information that concerns or is derived from intelligence sources,
methods or analytical processes, according to the defense and
intelligence communities' own definition.

Even the lawyers who filed the document with the court are no longer
allowed to see it; instead, they've been permitted to file
declarations, under seal, based on their memory of its contents.

Other aspects of the case also support the plaintiffs'
interpretation of the document. Last year, U.S. District Judge
Garr King in Portland examined the document and read classified
briefs filed by the Justice Department. Then he ordered the
government to meet with the plaintiffs to discuss turning over more
documents in discovery. It's not likely the court would have
permitted the case to continue if the evidence didn't, in fact,
indicate that the pair had been under surveillance.

And if the surveillance had been court ordered and lawful, King
would have been obliged to dismiss the lawsuit. Under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, targets of
counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism surveillance can only sue
the government when no warrant has been issued. Lawyers for Belew
and Ghafoor seize on this point. "If there was a FISA warrant, the
whole case would have crumbled on the first day," Nelson says. "Its
pretty obvious from the government's conduct in the case, there was
no warrant."

Justice department lawyers have argued that, even if the pair of
lawyers were monitored, judging the president's authority to do so
requires looking at the specific reasons why the duo were
surveilled. And those facts would be national secrets that would
tip off terrorists, so no court can ever rule on the program.

"This is not to say there is no forum to air the weighty matters at
issue, which remains a matter of considerable public interest and
debate, but that the resolution of these issues must be left to the
political branches of government," Justice Department lawyers wrote
in a brief on the case.

But the government has a new, and not necessarily friendly, judicial
audience for its no-judges-allowed argument. In August, a special
court ordered Belew's lawsuit to be consolidated into a single
proceeding comprised of 54 other NSA-related lawsuits, before U.S.
District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco.

Walker has presided over the year-old class-action lawsuit brought
by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against AT&T for the phone
company's alleged cooperation with the NSA program. The judge made
waves in July when he issued a landmark ruling that allowed the AT&T
case to proceed, despite the government's claim that the suit must
be thrown out because it involved national secrets. Walker ruled
that the state-secrets privilege did not apply to the entirety of
the case, because the government had admitted the program existed.
(Walker recently rejected a motion filed by Wired News seeking the
unsealing of evidence in the case.)

The government has appealed that state secrets decision to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, and asked the judge to put a stop to all
55 cases pending that appeal. But Walker, a libertarian-leaning
Republican, has kept the cases moving, noting that any decision from
the appeals court is likely to wind through the court system up to
the Supreme Court -- a process that could take years.

Belew's lawsuit, his lawyers submit, is a chance to short circuit
that process entirely.

In a hearing in early February, Eisenberg told Walker that the
classified document sets the Belew case apart from the other cases,
because the judge has enough evidence to decide whether the
warrantless surveillance was illegal, without waiting for the 9th
Circuit to decide the state secrets issue.

"You need only read the statutes to decide, 'Does the president have
the right to do this without a warrant?'" Eisenberg said.

Walker is expected to rule in March on whether to stay the case or
set a hearing date, and the document will likely be moved, under
guard, from the Portland secure facility to San Francisco, where
Walker can review it.

In the meantime, the NSA program is undergoing changes.

In a separate lawsuit last August, Michigan U.S.  District Court
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found the NSA surveillance program
unconstitutional and illegal -- a decision that's now under appeal
in the 6th Circuit. Facing that ruling and growing political
pressure, in early January, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
essentially announced the end of the warrantless spying, saying the
NSA program will continue, but would begin getting "innovative"
court orders from the foreign intelligence court.

With the program now reformed, the Justice Department has asked for
several of the lawsuits against the government to be dismissed as
moot.

Al-Buthi is now a "specially designated global terrorist," according
to the Treasury Department, and he's under indictment in the United
States for failing to declare $150,000 in travelers checks raised to
help Chechnyan refugees when he last flew out of the country.  He
told Wired News that he had always declared money when entering the
United States, but wasn't aware he needed to do the same when
leaving. He says he's been interrogated twice by Saudi officials
and cleared of any wrongdoing.

The above article was written By Ryan Singel