The US government, through the National Security Agency, has
been tapping phone lines without court warrants since shortly after
the terrorist attacks in the US of September 2001. The till-then
secret programme was revealed by the New York Times in 2005.
The government claims that the actions were legal but has made
all details of the programme classified. This causes problems for
the ACLU since only those who have been wiretapped can sue, but the
information about who has been tapped is kept secret.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project,
said that the case raised worries about the unchecked power of the
president who, as the executive arm, is just one branch of
government.
"It’s very disturbing that the president’s actions will not be
reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn’t be left to executive
branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own
surveillance activities and whether those limits are being
honoured," he said. "Allowing the executive branch to police itself
flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and
balances.”
The ACLU had tried to appeal a verdict of a US Court of Appeal
which ruled that it could not prove that its communications had
been monitored, and so could not prove that the programme had
harmed any party to the case. It had sued on behalf of itself,
journalist and scholars.
Separate law suits are being conducted in the US against the
telecommunications companies that allowed the surveillance to
happen without court-issued warrants.
There are also political struggles over amendments to US law
that would allow warrantless wiretaps of non-US citizens in the US
who are communicating with people overseas.
A temporary measure expired over the weekend and the
Democrat-controlled Congress refused to make the law permanent.
That law included controversial immunity for telecoms companies.
Congress has proposed a law that does extend wiretapping but does
not grant telcos immunity from prosecution for their actions.
"The court’s unwillingness to act makes it even more important
that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect
civil liberties without jeopardizing national security," said
Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's legal director.
