Thank goodness the courts have finally made a ruling on the constitutionality of wiretapping without a duly authorized search warrant. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were aware of the awesome power of government and the ability of government to interfere in the affairs of private citizens. That is why they made sure that government must show probable cause and obtain a search warrant before violating the privacy of ordinary people.
George Bush evidently didn't read that part of the Constitution, because he decided he didn't have to follow it. Shortly after 9/11, he (with the backing of Congress) authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on people (including U.S. citizens) without getting a search warrant. He cited national security as a concern in doing this.
Soon after, the government declared the muslim charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, to be a supporter of terrorism. They then used that declaration to wiretap the phone calls between the charity and it's two American lawyers -- without getting a search warrant. After gathering evidence of the wiretapping, the victims filed suit against the federal government in 2006.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled on the case. He ruled that the victims had shown they had been subjected to warrantless wiretapping, and that the wiretapping was illegal under U.S. constitutional law. Although his ruling was on the issue of this one case, it could have a much broader effect.
The plaintiff's attorney, Jon Eisenberg, said, "By virtue of finding what the Bush administration did to our clients was illegal, he found that the Terrorist Surveillance Program was unlawful."
Sadly, the Obama administration had asked the judge to dismiss the case by invoking the state secrets privilege. Attorney General Holder had claimed the lawsuit might expose ongoing intelligence work. I must admit that argument is troubling, because it infers that the current administration is also violating the Constitution in the same way. Fortunately the judge didn't buy that specious argument. The government has not decided whether to appeal.
The plaintiffs had asked for $1 million each in damages. The judge has decided to hear more arguments before deciding on any damages.
I applaud the judge's brave and wise decision. The requirement to get a search warrant before violating the privacy of a person is one of our most important protections (along with habeas corpus and free speech) against government tyranny.
(The picture above depicts the signing of the Constitution.)
duh!
ReplyDelete