Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BURNING THE CONSTITUTION: SECRET COURT OKS SPYING ON AMERICANS
CAPITOLBLUE.COM ^ | 11-19-02 | REUTERS

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


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last
Living in NY....and seeing that big hole where the WTC once stood, I have mixed feelings on this ruling...

I agree we should be vigilant in our fight to remove the terrorists from our shores, and keep them from entering our country....but at what cost?

I rarely agree with the ACLU, they are a bunch of twits...but at this time, I'm not sure how I feel about this sweeping new law...I need input...help me out here guys...

1 posted on 11/19/2002 5:54:56 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KLT
I have a loan outstanding on my retirement account. The company included a note "Due to the US Patriot Act, we are not able to accept money orders or traveler's checks for payment, we can only accept personal checks or automatic transfers"

So, what's the scoop with this?

2 posted on 11/19/2002 6:00:54 AM PST by garyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
O.K. Here's the up and down as I see it. Without knowing the express wording, and legal intents of said act, it is possible that most Americans are precluded in some way, absent some finding or proof.

However, with all of this new War and Terror legislation, the nature of the war must be taken into consideration. This is not a war with a one month, two year or five year time span. This war is likely to last for a generation, if not longer. I trust John Ashcroft, and George Bush. Both have proved themselves over timeto be decent honorable men. But this legislation does not die with their terms in office.

Can we trust legislation like this in the hands of a Bill or Hillary!ous Clinton ?!?!?!?!

That's a very big downside.

3 posted on 11/19/2002 6:01:11 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
The problem with this is that when the Terrorists are gone, we'll still be living here and they won't revoke this law once they've gotten their hands on it. It's good for the war, but it's devastating for our rights after the fact.
4 posted on 11/19/2002 6:01:43 AM PST by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
5 posted on 11/19/2002 6:02:45 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyb
It's so you leave a paper trail of who & where & when you spent your money.
6 posted on 11/19/2002 6:03:50 AM PST by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KLT
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson
7 posted on 11/19/2002 6:04:40 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
The unintended consequences of this act are going to be very painful.
8 posted on 11/19/2002 6:06:45 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
Well, that's the $64 question, isn't it? Are we going to be just another empire like the Romans? And, are we giong to turn our back on the laws that took thousands of years to develop into The Constitution?

Didn't Pat write a book about this?

9 posted on 11/19/2002 6:07:10 AM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
You nailed it. Depends on a future admin's defintion of terrorist.
10 posted on 11/19/2002 6:08:25 AM PST by banjo joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
#3

Very well said!

11 posted on 11/19/2002 6:09:22 AM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KLT
This is infringment is simply wrong.

We all saw the results of the clintons having 2000+ FBI files.....

Just wait until this pressure is put on US.
12 posted on 11/19/2002 6:11:06 AM PST by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KLT
The text of the fourth amendment is such:

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can agree with everyone's concern about the intrusion of the government into our private lives and activities. Yet, how are we supposed to deal with those who would use our freedoms against us as a means to destroy us?? Herein is the key issue.

I am interested in hearing other minds discourse on this.

13 posted on 11/19/2002 6:12:50 AM PST by el_texicano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
George Bush has been President for two years, that's not enough time to trust the man or not. John Ashcroft I have mixed feelings on, but my initial is to not trust him. Not that I don't LIKE either men, I just don't TRUST them
14 posted on 11/19/2002 6:14:51 AM PST by bc2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
Right! I don't remember anyone actually doing anything about the Clintons.

Maybe it is already too late!

15 posted on 11/19/2002 6:16:13 AM PST by Bogie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
The act has no untended consequences.
16 posted on 11/19/2002 6:16:55 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Can we trust legislation like this in the hands of a Bill or Hillary!ous Clinton ?!?!?!?!

NO! V's wife.

17 posted on 11/19/2002 6:16:57 AM PST by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
Godd point hobbes...but, here's the beauty of our constitution. Trust does not enter the equation because of the check-and-balances provided by the founders.

My take on this new law is that if the issue of "trust" comes into play then I'm not for it. Plain and simple. A few adminstrations from now, some of us (God forbid) could be on the receiving end of this law.

18 posted on 11/19/2002 6:27:54 AM PST by USMMA_83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
Sorry about that: Good not Godd....
19 posted on 11/19/2002 6:28:28 AM PST by USMMA_83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KLT
Read the Constitution is the best input I can offer. Does it allow this law without contorting the Constitution? Does this law make any sense considering our open borders/immigration policy? Why would these powers be granted without sunset or renewal provisions? Why would we allow 50% ownership of security companies going to foreign countries that may allow for spying?
20 posted on 11/19/2002 6:29:21 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-159 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson