By John Leyden for The Register.
This story has been reproduced with permission.
The unanimous ruling by three judges ruling sitting in the 6th
US Circuit Court of Appeals means the Bush Administration can
continue to monitor the international email and telephone
communications of Americans without interception warrants during a
legal review, which might take months, AP reports.
However the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the
lawsuit, is hopeful of a decision by the end of the year.
The practice of so-called warrantless wiretapping came to light
after the New York Times reported that the president had
authorised the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept
communications. The Bush Administration argues that the program
provides crucial helping in preventing terrorist attacks. Critics,
such as the ACLU, describe it as "massive and illegal program" to
wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications that is an abuse of
executive powers and in violation of constitutional protection for
free speech and privacy. The ACLU argues that the 1978 Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act gives government sufficient powers to
monitor suspected terrorists. The government argues that the
changing dynamics of terrorism mean waiting for a court to take
action might hinder investigations.
In August, US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor sided with
critics in declaring
warrantless wiretapping as unconstitutional. She declined to
postpone her order prohibiting warrantless wiretapping pending
appeal, but gave the government the option of asking the appeal
court to review this decision. In reaching their decision to allow
warrantless surveillance to continue (at least temporarily), appeal
court judges said they considered the likely success of an appeal
balanced against the potential harm a decision would have on either
side of the argument with the public interest.
Other groups aside from the ACLU has mounted lawsuits
challenging warrantless wiretapping. Judge Taylor, however, is only
the only judge to rule them unconstitutional. The issue seems
destined to eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court.
© The Register
2006
