WASHINGTON, Aug 17: A US federal judge ruled on Thursday that the Bush administration’s decision to wire-tap private citizens without a judicial warrant was unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to the practice
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s programme, which she said violated the rights to free speech and privacy.
She said the NSA was violating the “privacy and free speech rights” of US residents by carrying out the programme.
“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Judge Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.
The defendants “are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilising the Terrorist Surveillance Programme in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III”, she wrote.
She declared that the surveillance programme “violates the Separation of Powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III”. She said that “the President of the United States... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders”.
The fourth amendment stipulates that “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”.
The first amendment guarantees that the US “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the programme made it difficult for them to do their jobs.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant.
