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 previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-159 next last
To: eleni121
I trust Ashcroft, not the ACLU

So do I...I pray you're right...let's hope this new law isn't misconstrued, or misused...

81 posted on 11/19/2002 8:34:19 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: sauropod; hellinahandcart; stand watie; foghorn; Hillary's Folly
Ping Y'all
82 posted on 11/19/2002 8:40:52 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: KLT
YES you are right....this is completely wrong...we are loaded with illegals and foreigners with criminal backgrounds...remember the Clintooon/Gore Citizenship USA Program....What a SCAM!

Not only that, but THOUSANDS of foreign nationals are working as scientists and engineers at such places as Raytheon, Lockheed, and many other defense contractors. Who knows how many are relaying anything of interest to their native land or "others"?

But yes, there is WIDESPREAD fraud in the H1-B program, where many companies apply for more visas than they actually need. I wonder what happens to all of those "extra" visas.....

Still, there are NO steps being taken to curb these abuses that I can see, and our "representatives" are all for allowing these people in.

83 posted on 11/19/2002 8:42:51 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: KLT
I agree with you FL on every point you've made....while we are busy with Iraq...China is sharpening its claws....

I wonder what we would do if while we're busy in Iraq, China decides to attack Taiwan. What if North Korea decided to attack South Korea at the same time? It could turn ugly REALLY quick.

84 posted on 11/19/2002 8:45:22 AM PST by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: verity
Ah, yes, the new movement in Conservatism called 'Living Forefathers." The liberals and their living Consitution have ruined your ability to see that the wisdom of the forefathes is timeless...that is what makes us Americans and you a Tory.
85 posted on 11/19/2002 8:46:50 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: garyb
"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?

I think it means that on your cash where it says "THIS NOT EIS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" is now null and void.

So, is all my cash now worthless due to the Patriot Act? We crossed on major threshold by implement the Federal Reserve and fiat money, seems like another Rubicon is getting swum here.

86 posted on 11/19/2002 8:58:58 AM PST by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FormerLurker
YES, more then UGLY and real quick....I agree...not to mention all the other rogue countries out there....What a MESS!
87 posted on 11/19/2002 9:04:19 AM PST by KLT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: Hank Kerchief
Me and the terrorists agree on one thing: We're happy you are not in charge.
89 posted on 11/19/2002 9:18:54 AM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: All
Let us assume, just for the sake of example, that the federal government decided to {pick a few of these} -
* do random searches of homes, looking for suspicious items or activities.
* do a search on each citizens' bank account that purchased any type of firearm or ammuniition and then search their homes.
* outlaw any private ownership of firearms.
* do traffic blockades with searches of any vehicle deemed "suspicious."
* arrest citizens and not give them due process of law, but put them into makeshift "camps" until the "truth" could be sorted out.

What would the citizens of America do? I don't mean what you'd like to see happen. How do you think America would react and what would be the steps that would be taken, and by whom? Not pretty, in my opinion.

90 posted on 11/19/2002 9:22:05 AM PST by Gig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Gig
I'm afraid that those that would "do" anything, sure wouldn't say it here. Maybe you should ask how we would "feel"

Anger? Fear? Disgust? Or maybe - just maybe .... RECOIL!
91 posted on 11/19/2002 9:35:20 AM PST by disgustedvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Me and the terrorists agree on one thing: We're happy you are not in charge.

I'm going to make you and the other terrorists unhappy I'm afraid. I am in charge.

Hank

92 posted on 11/19/2002 9:46:04 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Gig
What would the citizens of America do?

They would sadly do what they have done so far, and what all the liberal repblicans on these threads are recommending, they will submit, and they will submit to any tyranny so long as it will make them feel safe.

Oh, they only want to save America from terrorists. But when all the freedoms are gone, what is there to save.

Here's an interesting link to one of today's posts, oddly ignored: Milksop Nation

It explains why Americans have and will simply fall over to tryanny. It is very sad.

Hank

93 posted on 11/19/2002 9:59:26 AM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: HELLRAISER II
Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War? The last time I checked we still have this right. Name one civil or constitutional right that was taken away from us and not returned. In fact new "rights" are being created almost daily.
94 posted on 11/19/2002 10:06:22 AM PST by PolishProud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
An interesting point, but it's one that misses the target, I'm afraid.

Despite my disagreement with the founders on this subject, the Constitution authorizes the President to suspend Habeas Corpus in cases of rebellion...etc. In fact, the Constitution speaks writ large on the subject by defining habeas corpus as a "privilege," not a "right." The former means it can clearly be taken away, and that is with the legitimate power of government. Of course, I think the founders erred on this subject, but it is what it is.

The 4th Amendment, though, is more clear.

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.

Notice the terms "shall not be violated" and "but upon probable cause." It doesn't say "no warrants shall be issued but upon the government thinking it would be a good idea to search a person's house." It further goes on to narrow the government's power even more--it is clear that there is NO power but what is given to the government in the text of the amendment.

But what really disturbed me is a quote from the article that implies the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment, but it was upheld anyway.

"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.

I find this the most disturbing quote in the whole article. Apparently the judicial system is now playing horseshoes with our constitutional rights; close enough is good enough? You've got to be kidding.
95 posted on 11/19/2002 10:25:44 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: KLT
Except for some certain hot-button issues, the Right to Privacy implied in the Constitution was already a dead issue by 1964. Maybe this would go down better if some fleeting reference to War Powers were made. Instead, monitoring seems to have become permanent.
96 posted on 11/19/2002 10:29:41 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
"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?"

That is a valid question. I don't know the text of what the Justice department is proposing, nor do I know of the text of the Homeland security bill either. If it is as you refer to it an "open ended search" allowance to the Justice department or any other department, then it is wrong and is going too far. As such it needs to be opposed.

I would like to find out more on the details of these bills or rulings. What I don't like from some comments I read is an automatic assumption of evil without evidence to support it. I've seen way too much conspiratorial thinking and not enough rational deliberation.

Still researching...

97 posted on 11/19/2002 10:45:47 AM PST by el_texicano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: el_texicano
What I don't like from some comments I read is an automatic assumption of evil without evidence to support it. I've seen way too much conspiratorial thinking and not enough rational deliberation.

Welcome to FR!

98 posted on 11/19/2002 10:55:12 AM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Gee, what a great quote. We have never seen it around here.
Except every time that actions are taken to disable and resist our enemies. Then some brainless bozo pops it up as though it has any bearing on this issue WHICH IT DOES NOT.

You have lost no "essential Liberty" as a result of the implementation of this Act. But you may very well not lose your life because of its protections against the Islamaniacs who want to kill you.

Benjamin Franklin never recommended not defending the nation nor did he recommend allowing our enemies to attack us because of refusal of the government to protect us. Why don't you do a little review of the history of the American Revolution. Then you might understand that during times of war people cannot exercise all the rights they have in peace time.
99 posted on 11/19/2002 11:31:30 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KLT
If Osama hadn't existed, the government would have had to invent him....
100 posted on 11/19/2002 12:07:12 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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