SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 19: A special US federal appeals court ruled on Monday that the government was justified in using unlimited powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law enacted last year.
The decision is seen as a clear legal triumph for Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has aggressively attempted to implement new procedures governing wiretaps and search warrants, which are never revealed to suspects and are approved by a special court that meets in secret at Justice Department headquarters.
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced immediately that he would use it to expand the use of the special intelligence court by prosecutors to obtain wiretaps of people suspected of involvement with terrorists.
Civil libertarians and defence attorneys argued that the ruling would allow the government to aggressively spy on innocent US citizens with few restrictions and little oversight.
Ms Ann Beeson, who heads the American Civil Liberties Union’s Technology and Liberty programme, said she was “deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubber-stamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants”.
Agencies add: 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 and prosecutors 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.
