| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| Supreme Court rejects ACLU appeal of Privacy Law | |
| 2003-03-25 | |
| Heavily Edited The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a preliminary challenge to the government's expanded powers to wiretap and search people who are suspected of having links to foreign terrorists. The justices refused to allow the American Civil Liberties Union to appeal on behalf of Arab Americans and others who believe they may be being secretly monitored. just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you're not a terrorist Last year, in an unusual court hearing behind closed doors at the Justice Department, Attorney General John Ashcroft won the legal authority to merge the FBI's crime-fighting and spying units to track suspected terrorists. Before last year, the FBI had maintained a "wall" between spying and criminal probes, a legacy of the Watergate era. "FISA was supposed to apply to a narrow category of intelligence investigations. Under Ashcroft's interpretation, they can use FISA in ordinary criminal cases," said Beeson. Justice Department lawyers deny that charge. They say they use FISA warrants only against foreigners who are believed to have ties to terrorist organizations. That counts me out...too bad for Mohhamed. Secondly, civil libertarians also object to the closed-door legal hearings on FISA. Since these intelligence probes must be kept secret, the Justice Department was authorized to seek warrants in secret hearings within its building. When one FISA judge said Ashcroft was exceeding his legal authority, a special appeals court met to review the dispute and to rule on the matter. Outside attorneys, including the ACLU, were barred. I don't like that, but .... what else can you do when there are people like Lynn Stewart in this world? Still, the civil liberties advocates believe they will have a chance to challenge the sweep of Ashcroft's order in a future case. "At some point, the government will introduce evidence in a criminal case that came from a FISA wiretap. The lawyers can challenge that as illegal, and the issue can be appealed," Beeson said. But that will offer a remedy only for people who are indicted for crimes, she noted. How can we create class actions? "We are most concerned about innocent victims of this surveillance," Beeson said. "Since they won't be charged with anything, they will have no opportunity to challenge it." hmm...What you don't know...
| |
| Posted by:Becky |
| #2 Ummmm, Lynn Stewart was barred? Why isn't that communist hag behind bars? After all, she was busted for helping that blind sheeeeek/islamofascist pass info to his operatives. Probably got off the hook courtesy of.......the ACLU. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-03-25 13:54:58 |
| #1 sorry about the highlite - must have re-edited a few spaces too many :-( |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-25 13:35:13 |