US Wins appeal on Domestic Spy Powers

Associated Press | 3/24/2003 | Annie Gearan

[sinkspur]

WASHINGTON (AP) -

The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into a dispute over the boundaries of a law giving the government broader surveillance authority after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations wanted the justices to consider when the government should be allowed to monitor someone's telephone conversations and e-mail, then use the information to prosecute them.

The Bush administration has argued the surveillance, and a special court that oversees sensitive domestic espionage tactics, are indispensable tools in the war on terror.

The ACLU used an unusual maneuver to get the case to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal on behalf of people who don't even know they're being monitored. The justices would have had to give special permission to allow it. They refused, without comment.

The action was not a ruling on the merits of the ACLU's challenge, and the issue is expected to return to the high court later.

The administration has aggressively defended its use of wiretaps approved by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or "spy court," which deals with intelligence requests involving suspected spies, terrorists and foreign agents.

Even the spy court had reservations about that aggressiveness. Last May, the court ruled that the USA Patriot Act passed by Congress after the terrorist attacks did not justify the use of certain investigative techniques proposed by the administration.

Attorney General John Ashcroft appealed to a review court which had never met or issued a decision during the spy court's 25-year existence. That court sided with the administration and said government officials did not have to limit their monitoring to foreign intelligence. That means law enforcement officers can use the information to build cases for prosecution.

Ashcroft cheered the court action. "It is vitally important that the government's intelligence and law enforcement officials coordinate their efforts to protect America from foreign threats to our national security," he said.

The review court decision "opens the door to surveillance abuses that seriously threatened our democracy in the past," justices were told in the filing by the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services.

To get a warrant from the spy court, the government must show that a suspect probably is a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Law enforcement must meet a higher standard - probable cause that a crime was committed - to get an ordinary criminal warrant for wiretapping or other electronic intrusion.

The administration did not respond to the ACLU's appeal. Any of the nine justices could have demanded a response, but none did.

The spy court has approved thousands of warrants since it was established by Congress in 1978, and it only rarely turns down the government.

The case is one of two at the Supreme Court involving issues related to the terrorist attacks. The other challenges the government's holding of closed deportation hearings after the attacks.

Ashcroft has approved more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants, triple the number used in the previous 23 years.

The emergency warrants, which are authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, permit authorities to tap telephones and fax numbers and conduct physical searches for up to 72 hours before they are subject to review by the special, secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In testimony to Congress earlier this month, Ashcroft said there were more than 1,000 applications for FISA warrants in 2002, including the emergency warrants.

The ACLU had filed challenges in Michigan and New Jersey, on behalf of media organizations seeking access to hearings involving foreigners swept up in the terrorism probes.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the attorney general has the right to close the hearings for reasons of national security. The ACLU appealed the decision. The government has until next month to appeal an appeals court decision that went the other way.

"The courts continue to have a critical role in ensuring that the government's efforts to protect national security are done in a manner that is consistent with protecting civil liberties," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's legal director.

[Poohbah]

Good call.

What the traitorous scumbags screaming about this don't want to admit is that the FISA court was created by a TRULY bipartisan group of lawmakers that sought to balance the questions of individual civil liberties on the one hand and the need to keep from tipping off surveillance suspects on the other hand.

[B Knotts]

Ah...but will we be cheering this when Hillary! is the one in control of
surveillance? Something to consider, anyhow...

[riversarewet]

There has not been another major attack in the United States since 9/11 - Could this aggressive use of wiretaps be one of the reasons?

[Poohbah]

She WAS in charge of making those requests for eight years, remember?

FISA was created way back in 1978.

[Asclepius]

Ah...but will we be cheering this when Hillary! is the one in control of surveillance? Something to consider, anyhow...

When Hillary is the one in control?

[B Knotts]

I don't wish it to happen, but, remember: her husband won, twice. The voters are fickle. I fear '08. It could happen. Obviously, we must do everything we can to prevent it, though.

[Lysander]

The President and Congress are simply not capable of preventing terrorist attacks from occurring by legislation or by curtailing our rights. The solution is prevention of the cause of terrorism, our failed intervention into the Israel-Palestinian fight.

They should stop pretending and focus their attention on combating terrorism within the framework of a free society, unless the real goal is a militaristic police state.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Good - despite what some droolers on this thread may say, this is an excellent decision.

[George W. Bush]

The court was wise. They have left the door open to curb this potentially dangerous law at a later date. In other words, they told the ACLU to come back later. Exactly right.

[sinkspur]

In other words, they told the ACLU to come back later.

Yea. They'll have to find one of those secretly-arrested terrorists, then get him to file suit.

Then find a judge who'll agree in public with a terrorist.

I can hardly wait.

[sinkspur]

unless the real goal is a militaristic police state.

You've got the libertarian mantra down, don't you?

[tpaine]

"What the traitorous scumbags screaming about this don't want to admit is that the FISA court was created by a TRULY bipartisan group of lawmakers that sought to balance the questions of individual civil liberties on the one hand and the need to keep from tipping off surveillance suspects on the other hand."
2 -poo-


What the overwrought scumbags screaming ~for~ this don't want to admit is that the FISA court was created by a TRULY irrational bipartisan group of lawmakers that sought to balance the questions of individual civil liberties on the one hand and the need to keep from tipping off surveillance suspects on the other hand, -- and failed.

--- They have the insane idea that constitutional liberties can be defended by allowing a 'small amount' of infringement.
For close to 100 years now, one bit of infringement has built on another, and our free republic is dying the death of a thousand cuts.
- When the wrong political demagogue finds the right crisis to use as an excuse to ~really~ exercise these powers, we can kiss our freedom goodby.

Bet on it.

[sinkspur]

Lookey here! If it isn't the terrorists' best friend! What rights have you lost, you, tpaine, as a result of the government being able to lock up terrorists without telling anybody?

Does it piss you off that FISA's been around since 1978, and, horror of horrors, we've managed to survive?

[tpaine]

Good - despite what some droolers on this thread may say, this is an excellent decision.
9 -cp- salivating over the 'power'

What makes you imagine you'll be on the 'winning side' of using such power, palp?

[tpaine]

Lookey here! If it isn't big brothers best friend, sinky!
What imagined safeties have you gained my boy, as a result of the government being able to lock up terrorists without telling anybody?
Does it tick you off that the constitutions been around since 1787, and, horror of horrors, we've managed to survive without such obvious infringments?

[sinkspur]

What imagined safeties have you gained my boy, as a result of the government being able to lock up terrorists without telling anybody?

You answer your own question. They're behind bars, lunkhead. One of the Buffalo Six just pled guilty, today, to being al-Qaeda.

They're here. And I don't give a damn what has to happen to get 'em outta here.

[tpaine]

What imagined safeties have been gained as a result of the government being able to lock up terrorists without telling anybody?


You answer your own question. They're behind bars, lunkhead.
-sinky-

How weird that you would claim to to know, if they don't "tell anybody" ... Psychic?

BTW, -- take your silly personal asides to the backroom. They make you appear to be even more of a lunkhead.

[sinkspur]

How weird that you would claim to to know, if they don't "tell anybody" ... Psychic?

I don't know. But, if they're not locking them up, then you don't have a thing to worry about, do you?

[WoofDog123]

"I don't know. But, if they're not locking them up, then you don't have a thing to worry about, do you?"

If this is expanded to allow information not involving terrorism gained from secret wiretaps/email survelliance to be passed onto other law enforcement agencies, what will your position be? Do you think that isn't going to be proposed later on (or sooner?), if only for the children??