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
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...
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.
That's a very big downside.
Didn't Pat write a book about this?
Very well said!
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.
Maybe it is already too late!
NO! V's wife.
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.
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.