Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rules Gov't. Has Broad Wiretapping Right
An anonymous reader writes: "Reuters reports that a special, secretive appeals court on Monday said the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law adopted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The ruling was seen as a setback for civil libertarians who have said 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."
Has it occurred to anyone that when Osama bin Laden vowed to destroy America, that this is what he was talking about? Anyone? Anyone?
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
It's a fundamental absurdity to say that an act of
congress grants the government rights. The
constitution reserves all rights not specifically
and explicitly granted to the federal government
for the states or the people. No act of congress
can legitimately abbrogate this fundamental
limitation.
Obviously, this decision is unconstitutional, and
void.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
2004 will be 1984. America will redefine just what a police state is, but slaves will still claim to be free, as the government propagandists will tell us we are free. Is it hard to emigrate to Russia? Over there Dmitry Sklyarov had freedom of speech.
How ya like dat?
Warning: I am not a lawyer and I may be misremembering things.
In the dawn of the telecom era--early 20th century--the Supreme Court faced a tough decision: did people have a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in their phone conversations? This was, is, a surprisingly difficult question. The Amendment is not near-absolutist, as are the First, Second and Fifth; instead, it only protects from unreasonable search and seizure, where reasonableness is determined by the courts.
There is a long-standing legal principle which guides these decisions of reasonableness. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're in your own home behind closed doors talking to a guest--then the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're talking on a city street--then the government doesn't.
At the time, telephone calls were all routed manually by operators, and operators would often listen in on phone conversations. This was known and accepted practice of the time. Therefore, the Court found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy when talking on a telephone; therefore, no warrant was required.
This caused outrage in the public, and Congress quickly passed laws requiring that warrants be issued for wiretaps. So privacy on your phone calls is purely an act of Congress; it is not, and never has been, held to be a Constitutional right.
If Congress is the one who provides you with the protection of wiretap warrants, Congress can also revoke that protection at their discretion. Don't like it? Write Congress. I have.
But don't accuse the judiciary of abrogating their most fundamental duty, when the reality is you don't know the law surrounding wiretap warrants.
The court admitted that this act violated the fourth ammendmant. Check out this quote:
At least it comes close!!!! I hope this is just a poor quote. What's next? "It is the judgement of this court that we think the defendant is innocent, but it certainly comes close."