In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
White House Appeals Wiretap Ruling
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
White House Appeals Wiretap Ruling
Fri Aug 23, 6:04 AM ET
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Setting up the next showdown over anti-terrorism powers, the Bush administration appealed a court ruling that forced Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to change new guidelines for FBI ( news - web sites) terrorism searches and wiretaps.
AP Photo
Documents released Thursday showed that the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has not publicly disclosed any of its rulings in nearly two decades, rejected some of Ashcroft's guidelines as "not reasonably designed" to safeguard the privacy of Americans. The secretive court oversees government's most sensitive surveillance efforts.
The Justice Department ( news - web sites) amended the guidelines and won the court's approval. But the Bush administration it was appealing the court's restrictions, arguing that the new limits inhibit the sharing of information between terrorism investigators and criminal investigators.
The Justice Department declined to release a copy of the appeal Thursday night to reporters. Officials said it was coincidence that the appeal was filed the same day the court's May 17 order was made public.
The court also disclosed the FBI acknowledged making more than 75 mistakes in applications for espionage and terrorism warrants under the surveillance law, including one instance in which former Director Louis Freeh gave inaccurate information to judges.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the special court said.
The court's orders, signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, were disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites), which has raised questions about the Justice Department's use of wiretap laws in espionage and terrorism cases.
The court, now headed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said it intended separately to publish the rulings and promised similarly to disclose any future unclassified orders.
Congress last year passed and President Bush ( news - web sites) signed the USA Patriot Act, which among other things loosened standards for obtaining warrants.
In March, Ashcroft, in a memorandum to FBI Director Robert Mueller and senior Justice officials, made it easier for investigators in espionage and terrorism cases to share information from searches or wiretaps with FBI criminal investigators.
But the surveillance court, which considers federal search and wiretap requests in secret under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, found that Ashcroft's rules could allow misuse of information in criminal cases. Prosecutors in criminal cases must meet higher legal standards to win approval for searches or wiretaps.
"These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not," the court wrote. In its rare public rebuke, it said the Justice Department spent "considerable effort" arguing its case, "but the court is not persuaded."
Justice spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said that the decision hampers use of the surveillance law.
"They have in our view incorrectly interpreted the Patriot Act, and the effect of that incorrect interpretation is to limit the kind of coordination that we think is very important," she said.
Ashcroft had argued that, under changes authorized by the Patriot Act, the FBI could use the 1978 surveillance law to perform searches and wiretaps "primarily for a law enforcement purpose, so long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains."
Critics of the 1978 law said it may have hampered the federal investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui now is awaiting trial on conspiracy charges in the attacks.
The Patriot Act changed the surveillance law to permit its use when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is "a significant purpose," rather than "the purpose" of an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared government might use the change to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.
"The attorney general seized authority that has not been granted to him by the Constitution or the Congress," said Marc Rotenberg, head of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In a follow-up order also disclosed Thursday, the court accepted new Justice guidelines amending Ashcroft's instructions. The court also demanded to be told about any criminal investigations of targets under the surveillance act and about discussions between the FBI and prosecutors at Justice.
"The first Ashcroft order sort of snugged up against the new line that was being drawn, and that may not have been prudent," said Stewart Baker, an expert on the law and former general counsel at the National Security Agency. "You might be able to justify it legally, but I can see why the court would have reacted badly."
Critics have worried that the surveillance court is too closely allied with the government, noting that judges have rarely denied a request under the 1978 law. But the newly disclosed court's orders indicated irritation with serious FBI blunders in 2000 and 2001.
The court said the FBI admitted in September 2000 to mistakes in 75 wiretap applications, including Freeh's erroneous statement to judges that the target of a wiretap request wasn't also under criminal investigation.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020823/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/spy_court_6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Fri Aug 23, 6:04 AM ET
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Setting up the next showdown over anti-terrorism powers, the Bush administration appealed a court ruling that forced Attorney General John Ashcroft ( news - web sites) to change new guidelines for FBI ( news - web sites) terrorism searches and wiretaps.
AP Photo
Documents released Thursday showed that the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has not publicly disclosed any of its rulings in nearly two decades, rejected some of Ashcroft's guidelines as "not reasonably designed" to safeguard the privacy of Americans. The secretive court oversees government's most sensitive surveillance efforts.
The Justice Department ( news - web sites) amended the guidelines and won the court's approval. But the Bush administration it was appealing the court's restrictions, arguing that the new limits inhibit the sharing of information between terrorism investigators and criminal investigators.
The Justice Department declined to release a copy of the appeal Thursday night to reporters. Officials said it was coincidence that the appeal was filed the same day the court's May 17 order was made public.
The court also disclosed the FBI acknowledged making more than 75 mistakes in applications for espionage and terrorism warrants under the surveillance law, including one instance in which former Director Louis Freeh gave inaccurate information to judges.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the special court said.
The court's orders, signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, were disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee ( news - web sites), which has raised questions about the Justice Department's use of wiretap laws in espionage and terrorism cases.
The court, now headed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said it intended separately to publish the rulings and promised similarly to disclose any future unclassified orders.
Congress last year passed and President Bush ( news - web sites) signed the USA Patriot Act, which among other things loosened standards for obtaining warrants.
In March, Ashcroft, in a memorandum to FBI Director Robert Mueller and senior Justice officials, made it easier for investigators in espionage and terrorism cases to share information from searches or wiretaps with FBI criminal investigators.
But the surveillance court, which considers federal search and wiretap requests in secret under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, found that Ashcroft's rules could allow misuse of information in criminal cases. Prosecutors in criminal cases must meet higher legal standards to win approval for searches or wiretaps.
"These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not," the court wrote. In its rare public rebuke, it said the Justice Department spent "considerable effort" arguing its case, "but the court is not persuaded."
Justice spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said that the decision hampers use of the surveillance law.
"They have in our view incorrectly interpreted the Patriot Act, and the effect of that incorrect interpretation is to limit the kind of coordination that we think is very important," she said.
Ashcroft had argued that, under changes authorized by the Patriot Act, the FBI could use the 1978 surveillance law to perform searches and wiretaps "primarily for a law enforcement purpose, so long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains."
Critics of the 1978 law said it may have hampered the federal investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui now is awaiting trial on conspiracy charges in the attacks.
The Patriot Act changed the surveillance law to permit its use when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is "a significant purpose," rather than "the purpose" of an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared government might use the change to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.
"The attorney general seized authority that has not been granted to him by the Constitution or the Congress," said Marc Rotenberg, head of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In a follow-up order also disclosed Thursday, the court accepted new Justice guidelines amending Ashcroft's instructions. The court also demanded to be told about any criminal investigations of targets under the surveillance act and about discussions between the FBI and prosecutors at Justice.
"The first Ashcroft order sort of snugged up against the new line that was being drawn, and that may not have been prudent," said Stewart Baker, an expert on the law and former general counsel at the National Security Agency. "You might be able to justify it legally, but I can see why the court would have reacted badly."
Critics have worried that the surveillance court is too closely allied with the government, noting that judges have rarely denied a request under the 1978 law. But the newly disclosed court's orders indicated irritation with serious FBI blunders in 2000 and 2001.
The court said the FBI admitted in September 2000 to mistakes in 75 wiretap applications, including Freeh's erroneous statement to judges that the target of a wiretap request wasn't also under criminal investigation.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020823/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/spy_court_6
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
AP
John Ashcroft
Friday, August 23, 2002
WASHINGTON - A special court with power over sensitive law enforcement surveillance misinterpreted a broad anti-terrorism law when it ordered the Justice Department to alter new guidelines for FBI terrorism searches, the agency said in an appeal made public Friday.
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled in a May 17 decision that the USA Patriot Act did not justify the use of certain investigative techniques.
In the appeal, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the court failed to acknowledge that the new law, passed in response to the Sept. 11 attacks, and altered the standard lawyers must meet when seeking to monitor a person and share information between criminal detectives and terrorism investigators.
Before the Patriot Act was signed by President Bush late last year, government officials had to prove their primary purpose for monitoring was foreign intelligence.
But under the act, Ashcroft argued, federal lawyers may share information and monitor people in cases in which law enforcement is the primary interest. Government lawyers need only show there is a significant foreign intelligence purpose related to the activity, Ashcroft said.
In its ruling, made public Thursday, the court also disclosed the FBI acknowledged making more than 75 mistakes in applications for espionage and terrorism warrants.
The mistakes were made well before September 2000, during the Clinton administration. The missteps included former FBI Director Louis Freeh's erroneous statement to judges that the target of a wiretap request wasn't also under criminal investigation.
The Ashcroft appeal was filed with a special panel that reviews decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
"How these misrepresentations occurred remains unexplained to the court," the special court said.
The court's orders, signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, were disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has raised questions about the Justice Department's use of wiretap laws in espionage and terrorism cases.
The court, now headed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, said it intended separately to publish the rulings and promised similarly to disclose any future unclassified orders.
Congress last year passed and President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, which among other things loosened standards for obtaining warrants.
In March, Ashcroft, in a memorandum to FBI Director Robert Mueller and senior Justice officials, made it easier for investigators in espionage and terrorism cases to share information from searches or wiretaps with FBI criminal investigators.
But the surveillance court, which considers federal search and wiretap requests in secret under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, found that Ashcroft's rules could allow misuse of information in criminal cases. Prosecutors in criminal cases must meet higher legal standards to win approval for searches or wiretaps.
"These procedures cannot be used by the government to amend the (surveillance) act in ways Congress has not," the court wrote. In its rare public rebuke, it said the Justice Department spent "considerable effort" arguing its case, "but the court is not persuaded."
Justice spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said that the decision hampers use of the surveillance law.
"They have in our view incorrectly interpreted the Patriot Act, and the effect of that incorrect interpretation is to limit the kind of coordination that we think is very important," she said.
Ashcroft had argued that, under changes authorized by the Patriot Act, the FBI could use the 1978 surveillance law to perform searches and wiretaps "primarily for a law enforcement purpose, so long as a significant foreign intelligence purpose remains."
Critics of the 1978 law said it may have hampered the federal investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui now is awaiting trial on conspiracy charges in the attacks.
The Patriot Act changed the surveillance law to permit its use when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is "a significant purpose," rather than "the purpose" of an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared government might use the change to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.
"The attorney general seized authority that has not been granted to him by the Constitution or the Congress," said Marc Rotenberg, head of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.
In a follow-up order also disclosed Thursday, the court accepted new Justice guidelines amending Ashcroft's instructions. The court also demanded to be told about any criminal investigations of targets under the surveillance act and about discussions between the FBI and prosecutors at Justice.
"The first Ashcroft order sort of snugged up against the new line that was being drawn, and that may not have been prudent," said Stewart Baker, an expert on the law and former general counsel at the National Security Agency. "You might be able to justify it legally, but I can see why the court would have reacted badly."
Critics have worried that the surveillance court is too closely allied with the government, noting that judges have rarely denied a request under the 1978 law. But the newly disclosed court's orders indicated irritation with serious FBI blunders in 2000 and 2001.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61112,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Madeline Bar? Diaz
Miami Bureau
Posted August 23 2002
MIAMI ? Federal and state agencies are trying to enlist boaters, fishermen and others who spend time on or around the water in anti-terrorism efforts, but some civil libertarians are concerned their efforts could create a network of spies.
Led by the U.S. Coast Guard, the multi-agency effort known as Operation On Guard will have its formal kickoff in Miami today. The operation's goal is to have people who are typically on the water keep an eye out for suspicious activity and phone it in to a hot line.
Boaters can expect to see Operation On Guard signs, with the toll-free number, along the waterways from Key West to Fort Pierce and other parts of the state.
Authorities hope vigilant boaters will deter terrorist threats.
"This is just a neighborhood watch campaign taken to the national security level," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Armin Cate, chief of intelligence for the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Miami.
But the American Civil Liberties Union says Operation On Guard amounts to spying. According to ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon, the operation is like the Justice Department's recent efforts to have mail carriers, utility workers and other people with access to people's homes call in suspected terrorist activity to authorities. Known as Operation TIPS, the Justice Department backed off the original plan after a backlash from the public and legislators.
"There is a difference between urging the public to be vigilant because we all need to be vigilant, and encouraging the public to spy on their neighbors," Simon said. "It's the difference between a vigilant American public and the kind of extensive intelligence network that characterized the former communist regimes of the eastern European countries."
Operation On Guard agencies include the FBI, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Environmental Protection. The idea is to post large metallic signs to catch boaters' attention. In addition to the hot line number, the signs list types of activities people should be reporting.
Boaters are asked to keep an eye out for: "suspicious persons conducting unusual activities; suspicious persons photographing/making sketches; suspicious person loitering for extended periods; suspicious persons renting watercraft; unknown vendors attempting to sell/deliver merchandise; unknown persons asking detailed questions."
Without an explanation of what a "suspicious person" is, Simon thinks it could lead to racial profiling.
Cate says the difference between Operation TIPS and the maritime plan is that Operation On Guard is not invasive. Authorities are just asking people in the course of what they normally do to report things that seem out of place.
"We're not asking for anybody to snoop around," Cate said, adding that they are not encouraging any kind of racial profiling. "We're just looking for people to report things that are out of the ordinary." Signs are placed near areas that are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, such as bridges and nuclear power plants, Cate said.
Operation On Guard was developed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Cate said. Some smaller, laminated signs were posted in Broward and Miami-Dade counties in October. Once the agencies pitched in more money, they bought 350 of the larger metallic signs and distributed them throughout the state. About 180 of the signs are in South Florida, including Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, Cate said. "It has the potential of going nationwide," he said.
The signs go to state parks, national parks and municipalities, as well as organizations such as the Marine Industries Association of South Florida.
The Fort Lauderdale-based group received about 40 signs and they were gone quickly, said Executive Director Frank Herhold. He said the 800-member association, which includes marinas and other businesses, backs the plan.
"Boaters can be the first line of defense," Herhold said. "The recreational boater and the marine industry are providing what I would call extra eyes on the waterfront. Everybody wants to do their part in terms of homeland security."
As the sun was setting Thursday evening at Dinner Key Marina in Coconut Grove, shrimpers were busy loading their gear and preparing to go to work. Anthony Dawson, who works on a shrimp boat, said he and other shrimpers are in a position to know if something's wrong on the water. He said sometimes people see the boat approaching and try to hide, thinking it might be law enforcement.
During the summer, Otto H. Darias, of Hialeah, goes out on his boat almost every weekend. He's willing to call authorities if he sees something suspicious, but keeping an eye out for terrorists is not the priority of pleasure boaters.
"I don't think they are going to divert their attention from what they are doing to make a phone call," he said.
Madeline Bar? Diaz can be reached at mbaro@sun-sentinel.com or 305-810-5007.
Email story
Print story
MORE HEADLINES
Work crew finds body of woman on Interstate 95 in Boca
Bus rider, 82, gets no jail time
Report: DCF mishandled abuse cases about adults
Porn filmer, 18, avoids prison
Lawsuit accuses educator of battery
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-ponguard23aug23.story?coll=sfla-news-palm
Copyright c 2002, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878