Secret spying boosted
03-25-03 There’s an old adage that any halfway competent prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Secrecy cloaks the grand jury process where authorities present evidence untainted by cross examination.
To convict is an entirely different matter because trial juries benefit from an airing of all admissible facts in an open court.
There’s a parallel between the secret grand jury process and that of the federal spy court that Attorney General John Ashcroft has turned to in an unfettered zeal to seek out terrorists. But the parallel stops in that even grand juries must be convinced that a crime has occurred, and that once the indictment is unsealed the target knows the government’s allegations.
The super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court isn’t bound by such concerns. The government, under the blanket of protecting national interests, can turn to the spy court for approval to intercept phone calls and e-mail from anyone authorities believe might have a tie to terrorists. This is a far lower standard than law enforcement needs to engage in electronic eavesdropping, in which they must convince a judge that a crime has been committed.
The spy court isn’t new. It has existed in theory for 25 years but was hardly ever used. Since 9-11, Ashcroft has used this vehicle to apply for more than 1,000 warrants. And he has approved more than 170 emergency domestic spying warrants – that can be executed up to 72 hours before a review by the spy court.
Since this is all so secret, people don’t even know if they are a target; the American Civil Liberties Union attempted on behalf of people who don’t even know they are being monitored to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine how far the government can go in monitoring the lives of Americans.
The court on Monday refused the case. This is merely a temporary win for unchecked secrecy.
Eventually the Supremes will be called upon to determine where civil liberties end and national security interests begin. There is little room for argument that the government needs surveillance tools to crack terrorist networks on U.S. soil. But surely there is a better way to do this than by granting Ashcroft unlimited power to listen in on conversations and intercept mail of anyone he believes is a threat, with no proof required.