On Monday, a panel of three judges ruled in favor of broader wiretapping powers for the Justice Department in the name of national security. The ruling, a major victory for the United States government and John Ashcroft, overturned a decision made in May by a lower court and gives the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a part, the ability to use information gathered by wiretap in criminal prosecutions as well as for intelligence gathering purposes, according to The New York Times. This important distinction will encourage information sharing between the FBI and the CIA, whose wiretapping restrictions have always been less stringent. Increased collaboration between these two agencies, which have often not worked well together, is one beneficial aspect to the ruling.
But by allowing the Justice Department to obtain wiretapping warrants under a lesser burden of proof, the ruling effectively knocks down a wall that has long stood between the intelligence and criminal divisions of the department. Wiretaps for intelligence gathering, used primarily by the CIA, were in the past easier to obtain than those used for criminal prosecution those that would be used by the FBI.
The ACLU has come out against this ruling, claiming it will lead to violations of citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights. Indeed, as the country has discovered since Sept. 11, any national security decision that allows increased surveillance incurs a risk of infringement upon civil liberties. It is up to the government not to fall down a slippery slope that would further endanger the personal liberties this country was founded on.
However, the Justice Department contends the increased capabilities afforded by the decision will allow intelligence personnel to do their jobs better an important consideration during shaky times for national security without overstepping the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. The government must keep close reins on the interpretation of this ruling.
Most troubling is the manner in which this ruling was conceived. The special federal appeals court was a three-judge panel chosen by Chief Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. The only party was the Justice Department, which wholeheartedly supported the ruling. Opposed parties like the ACLU were permitted to submit briefs but will not be permitted to appeal the decision, and the public had little representation in the matter. While the ruling is fundamentally acceptable, the decision, which will set a national precedent, should have been discussed more openly.
In a pre-Sept. 11 world, this issue would never have come up. But times have changed. The current national security situation calls for measures that allow the FBI and CIA to perform as effectively as possible. Sharing of intelligence and criminal information is important, but the government must remember American citizens have protected voices as well.
