BURNING THE CONSTITUTION: SECRET COURT OKS SPYING ON AMERICANS

Burning the Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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."

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.

It should be flushed into the cesspool of history ASAP. Along with the politicans who support it,imo. Re-electing people who vote for this kind of thing only encourages them.

The only problem is every damn Senator voted for it, without reading the thing. It's an obscenity which highlights the despicable state of government in modern America.

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.

Hey Texican, ask yerself this question: If this is merely anti-terrorist searching-and-seizing, hence "reasonable" in time of war, are provisions made explicitly in the law to keep from using the fruits of such searches for prosecution of non-terrorist related crimes? If the goverment's new powers are not explicitly restrained to terrorism, then they WILL be used for other means.

Are you a terrorist? No. But perhaps you are an illegal homophobe, religious zealot, gun hoarder or sales tax cheat?

It will take a hundred years, and 300 million pissed off people to undue the abuses of government legislation that is unconstitutional on its face.

If they will remember the original ideas of Founding Fathers. Where will they learn them?

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in and the West in general into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

---Osama bin Laden October 2001 tape

You ACLU wannabes need to bear in mind that this is about information sharing. It's a question of giving the Feds permission to look at information that's already in the public domain, information to which state and local governments (and even private individuals) have access. This isn't a license to place a microphone under everybody's bed. Don't any of you understand the term reasonable expectation of privacy"? If you think that your communications are protected (or that you're covered by some secret codicil of the Fourth Ammendment) when you put something out on the Internet or apply for a home loan or rent a video tape at Blockbuster, you're nuts! If the average lurker or hacker or foreign intelligence service or IRS agent can figure out what you're up to, why can't someone in the FBI or the Office of Homeland Security access the same information?

Speaking of the FBI files Clinton purloined, where were all the ACLU (and arch-Libertarian Conservative wannabe) lawsuits over that caper? I don't even remember St. Patrick Buchanan symbolically self-immolating over that (probably because he secretly wished he'd thought of the idea back in the Nixon Whitehouse).

If the feds use this to easedrop and catch terrorists... then they will be doing exactly what they intended. If they use this to easedrop on my phone calls and emails... or to sit outside my home with listening devices. They are going to be really bored.

The deceased Ben Franklin certainly had no concept of WMD. Thus 'a little temporary Safety' is not applicable!

That's an interesting posit, but I wonder if it's strictly true. In the dark ages, siege engines catapulted plague ridden corpses into fortified cities in an effort to infect the defenders. Obviously, the history of biological warfare predates Mr. Franklin, and as an educated man, either he or his military compatriots such as Washington would've at the very least, "had some concept of WMD." Maybe not nuclear weapons, but certainly I would be interested in researching his thoughts on the subject of civilian oppression during wartime.

"The only problem is every damn Senator voted for it, without reading the thing. It's an obscenity which highlights the despicable state of government in modern America."

If I remember my history lessons correctly, they passed the Emergency War Powers Act the same way. Look what that little beauty has done for us: executive orders, alphabet agencies, etc. As well as all the abuses that have gone along with them. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. I also think that those that place 100% faith in our current leaders, just because they are Repulicans, are gonna be crying in their oatmeal, sooner rather than later. We will never win the war on terrorism with an open border policy. Never.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubber-stamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants,"

Exactly. That's why I have no hope that Bush will apoint Judges to the Supreme Court that would contradict the legislation he has been asking for and signing. Gone are the checks.

Time to grow up, kiddies. The terrorists, not the government, is trying to kill us by the thousands.

In the twentieth century, thousands of times more people were imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by their own governments than by any foreign or invading forces.

The same excuse is always used by those governments that, by design or by default, tyrannize its people, the excuse of some threat to the country, which is mostly a threat to the government.

The wise will be much more afaid of their own government than any other threat. Who, after all, has the most WMD, and more of every other kind of weapon? Who else can track and know everything there is to know about every citizen? Who else can declare an "emergency" and force any large number of people they choose to give up their property, their homes, their dignity, even their lives? Its not the terrorists.

Hank

You hit the nail on the head kj.....if they are going to eavesdrop on law abiding citizens....not just those purported to be in terrorist cells here....we have a big problem...it's not that I have anything to hide...it's just my life is none of their D*mn business...Get my drift..

There has to be a line drawn in the sand.....probable cause such as giving charitable donations to terrorist organizations could be just that...but an American citizen who has given the government absolutely no reason for the wiretaps would be an absolute invasion of privacy and the Constitution....

If I'm in the FBI.... I'd rather ease drop on interesting people instead of the guy who falls asleep in the recliner at 9:30 watching Fox News. OR If I was in the FBI I'd rather read intersting emails instead of a egroup emails about which Large Condenser Studio Microphone has the best sound. But who knows... maybe they'll go after us boring people???

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. "

The threat of WMD cannot be considered an "inconvenience"!

You interpret this much differently than I do.

I would say that the "inconvenience" would be waiting in line, for more security checks, or paying more to get on an airplane, or higher taxes to provide for more security. These "inconveniences" are the price you pay for too much liberty.

The inconveniences associated with too small an amount of liberty are things like police monitoring of all your purchases, internets sites, letters, phone conversations, etc.

I'll take the former and you take the latter, but the way I read it this quote ain't got nothin to do with WMDs

Yes, the Clintooooons would be eavedropping on anyone who is not a registered RAT, they already did thousands of IRS audits on their perceived right wing enemies...and made trouble for everyone who didn't agree with their socialist lib policies...

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.