Posted on 11/19/2002 5:54:56 AM PST by KLT
Burning the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret court OKs government spying on Americans
By REUTERS
Nov 19, 2002, 07:32
In a victory for the Bush administration, a secretive appeals court Monday ruled the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The ruling was a blow to civil libertarians who say the expanded powers, which allow greater leeway in conducting electronic surveillance and in using information obtained from the wiretaps and searches, jeopardize constitutional rights.
In a 56-page ruling overturning a May opinion by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals court panel said the Patriot Act gave the government the right to expanded powers.
Sweeping anti-terror legislation, called the USA Patriot Act and signed into law in October last year after the hijacked plane attacks, makes it easier for investigators andprosecutors to share information obtained by surveillance and searches.
In the May ruling, the seven judges that comprise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court unanimously told the government it had gone too far in interpreting the law to allow broad information sharing.
The Justice Department appealed, saying the order limited the kind of coordination needed to protect national security.
Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed Monday's ruling and said he was immediately implementing new regulations and working to expedite the surveillance process.
"The court of review's action revolutionizes our ability to investigate terrorists and prosecute terrorist acts," he said. "This decision does allow law enforcement officials to learn from intelligence officials and vice versa."
FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES
Civil liberties groups, which had urged the appeals court -- comprised of three appeals court judges named by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- to uphold the court's order, slammed the ruling.
"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubber-stamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," said Ann Beeson of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The groups had argued that broader government surveillance powers would violate the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
But the appeals court said the procedures as required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were reasonable.
"We think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close," the judges wrote in their ruling, which was partially declassified and published.
"We, therefore, believe firmly ... that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."
Ashcroft said the government would uphold the Constitution. "We have no desire whatever to, in any way, erode or undermine the constitutional liberties here," he said.
The appeal is the first since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court and appeals court were created in 1978 to authorize wiretap requests in foreign intelligence investigations. Under the procedures, all hearings and decisions of the courts are conducted in secret.
The appeal hearing was not public, and only the Justice Department's top appellate lawyer, Theodore Olson, presented arguments.
Although the court allowed "friend of the court" briefs to be filed by civil liberties groups and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, since the Justice Department was the only party the ruling can likely not be appealed.
"This is a major Constitutional decision that will affect every American's privacy rights, yet there is no way anyone but the government can automatically appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court," Beeson said.
© Copyright 2002 by Capitol Hill Blue
Since we cannot convince one another as to whether or not Ben's quote is anachronistic, perhaps you can offer some scenario which addresses the terror threat while safeguarding 'liberties.'
The same arguement could be made for firearms. "If the average citizen does not commit crimes, then they should not fear registration". Of course, it never stops at registration.
At best, it is a slippery slope.
Also, have you EVER seen a government agency SHRINK? In truth, most agencies expand to meet the need, and when the need has been met and the threat removed or reduced, the agency then goes out and finds or expands their charter. This is to protect their budgets and the number of workers within their organizations. The organization becomes self serving.
Without some kinds of checks and balances, the organization that starts out investigating terrorists starts going after drug lords, then all smuggling, then all organized crime, then all crime. And when they run out of crimes to work on, they start creating crimes either by falsification of evidence or by going after 'hate' speach or something else.
I like the idea that LEO must FIRST obtain a warrent. Not because a denial of facts or truth but because such additional steps create an environment that acts against the abuses of Law Enforcement. It makes them take the extra effort to make a solid case. It also creates a gate that must pass the "smell test".
Granted the system is not perfect - nothing created by man or operated by man will ever be perfect. However, it does provide a limit to the powers of the police. Though I have never lived in a police state, I have seen it's effect on the people.
While stationed in West Germany with the Army, I had the opportuity to travel to East Berlin, which was their "showcase" city. The people there were very closed, quite noticiably oppressed. That is because the domestic intelligence agency could spy on anyone at any time. That is NOT what I wish for the US.
Also, do not forget that at some time in the future, Clinton's cronies (or someone of their ilk) will be back in power. We have already seen their unwillingness to obey law and further, the unwillingness of their friends to uphold the law. I do not want rules in place that create furtile ground for missuse.
Ok, I'll try to bring Ben back in later.
For each human, there is a continuum of exercised liberty (from freedom to slavery), and then there is death.
The question for Patrick Henry was submission to British "slavery" and oppression. He favoured full freedom and liberty, then death, then slavery and submission, in that order.
Whatever happened to "Better dead than Red?" Why aren't we willing to accept death over slavery of fear? If we went to the extreme and we reliquished all freedom and we all retired to the Federal Prisons, under military guard, would we be safe from terror? NO! The terrorists could nuke our prisons, or poison our food, etc. So what good is some half measure, again? Give up the right to property. Give up the right to not bear witness against yourself. Give up the right to criticise the government. And where will you be? Safer? No.
There is a fallacy propagated in the name "War on Terror." The terrorists are fighting the US government. The US government is fighting the terrorists. Well if the US Government is "Of and By the people," then the war should be returned from the people to the terrorists. Instead, we throw our concerns over the wall and expect "the government" to protect us.
I don't promote inaction. I'd just like to see less focus on handing over liberties to the government, and more focus on "Neighborhood Terrorist Watch." Let the Military chase ragheads in Yemen. Arm the people at home and distribute the power more through increased liberty. The terrorists on 9/11 could not be stopped by F-16's and Executive Orders...the only terrorists stopped effectively on 9/11 were those stopped by citizens armed with pots of hot water and a sense of duty to fellow citizens. Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry would've been very proud of them.
A serious reality check is needed here.
I think that anyone who believes that US policies abroad have no consequences (or should have no consequences) are those who are the "tooth fairy" types.
No one's freedom will be worth anything in a secular fascist state and that is where we are heading. We need to fear that much more.
The Islamic nuts have to win a war to get control. The government in power already has control. If they get the rule of law weakened enough, they have us. It will cost blood to un-do what is happening internally right now.
August 6 and 9 of 1945 persuaded a fanatical culture to reevaluate their options. The Cold War strategy of MAD, in retrospect, was pretty damned scary. September 11, 2001 may well be the precursor event to a whole new way of life.
LOL.
I want to to see this!...mask what is personal but for christs sakes post this! If you need a place to host an image of the document just freep mail me...an actual copy(image) would be way cool...I really want to see this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.