Ashcroft can hear you

Overturning a previous decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret court of appeals ruled last Monday that the government has broader surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act. Previously, the Justice Department could only obtain wiretap warrants from a secret intelligence court when it was able to show that the sole purpose of its investigation was terrorism. Under the new ruling, the DOJ needn't show that terrorism is the sole or even primary purpose of its investigation, only that it is somehow significantly related -- a restriction that lends itself to loose interpretation. \nThe court that originally heard the case ruled that "these procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not." According to www.courts.net, this was both the first time that the FISC had released its rulings to the public and the first time the court had refused a surveillance request by the DOJ. The court also released details about the 75 instances in which the DOJ admitted to providing false or misleading information in order to obtain surveillance authority. That is, on 75 occasions, the government lied to the court so that it could spy on people on whom they probably should not have been spying. \nObviously the court had good reason to be concerned about the DOJ's latest request. Its May ruling helped to safeguard the Fourth Amendment which states, "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." Attorney General John Ashcroft appealed the ruling in the first ever FISC appeal.\nWhat is particularly troubling about last Thursday's overturning is the apparent reluctance with which even the court that made the ruling defends the decision. On page 56 of the court's 56-page report, the judges write, "… we think the procedures and government showings required under the FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close." Shouldn't laws uphold constitutional amendments, and not simply "come close?"\nTrumpeting the need for homeland security does not justify plain breaches of our right to privacy, just as quoting Edmund Burke does not justify a war. Expanding the government's surveillance powers is dangerous, and while the government needs to be given the authority to combat terrorism, we must take extreme care in delegating that authority. It is excessive to allow wiretap warrants in cases where terrorism is not the central issue. The court of appeals ruling flouts our right to privacy and should be challenged.\nUnfortunately, that might not be so easy. Due to the secrecy of FISC court proceedings, no third party was allowed to participate in the oral discussions preceding the court's decision, and no one can automatically appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the May ruling, but that might be all they can do. Congress can also issue a clarification of its wording of the USA Patriot Act in order to highlight how the DOJ might have misinterpreted the law. So write your representatives -- it might be the only way in which the public can stop the government from slowly swallowing our civil liberties.