Cheryl Seal
Re: Liberties group urges court action
Sat Sep 21 20:53:04 2002
208.152.73.211

Re: Liberties group urges court action

Last May, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court categorically
stated that Ashcroft had overstepped his bounds with his interpretation of
the the Patriot Act - which, in and of itself, oversteps all bounds defined
by our constitution. Yet here we are, less than 5 months later with the court
hearing Ashcroft AGAIN, this time in total secrecy, under heavy security, and
with NO opposing viewpoints presented directly before the court. No warning
was given to the ACLU or anyone else before the hearing. And, the hearing was
timed to coincide with 9/11 anniversary week, undoubtedly in the hopes that
the hearing would go unnoticed. The fact that Ashcroft is asking for yet more
power on the eve of Bush declaring "perpetual war" is extremely disturbing,
especially since the new focus of Homeland Security is going to be on the
Internet. So, will they come round all of us activist writers up and
confiscate our computers, lock us away without due process - all in the name
of "national security." ? If they think they can get away with it, you know
damn well they will.

Cheryl Seal
HERDAV44@aol.com
=========================================================
UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html


UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(AS CORRECTED AND AMENDED)
May 17, 2002
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

ORDER

Motion having been made by the United States of America, by James A. Baker, Counsel for Intelligence Policy,
United States Department of Justice, for the Court to clarify its order of April 22, 2002 in the above captioned
matter, and full consideration having been given to the matters set forth therein, the motion to clarify is granted and
the Court's order and memorandum opinion of April 22, 2002 in this matter are amended as follows:

1. The language of the Court's order and memorandum opinion of April 22, 2002 are amended to include the
following substitute sentence in the second paragraph of the modified minimization procedures to read: "Additionally,
the FBI and the Criminal Division shall ensure that law enforcement officials do not direct or control the use of the
FISA procedures to enhance criminal prosecution, and that advice intended to preserve the option of a criminal
prosecution does not inadvertently result in the Criminal Division's directing or controlling the investigation using
FISA searches and surveillances toward law enforcement objectives."

2. The government also asks that the Court clarify whether its use of the term "law enforcement officials" in the
substitute minimization language adopted by the Court "applies to FBI agents as well as to prosecutors." The Court's
own opinion states as follows:

The Attorney General's new minimizafion procedures are designed to regulate the acquisition, retention and
dissemination of information involving the FISA (i.e., disseminating information, consulting, and providing
advice) between FBI counterintelligence and counter-terrorism officials on the one hand, and FBI criminal
investigators, trial attorneys in the Justice Department's Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices on the
other hand. (emphasis added) (Opinion, 6-7).

The Court uses, and intended to use, the term "law enforcement officials" in conjunction with the source and context
from which it originated, i.e., the recent amendment to the FISA in which Congress expressly authorized
consultations and coordination between federal officers who conduct electronic surveillances and physical searches
to acquire foreign intelligence information and "Federal law enforcement officers." (50 U.S.C. §1806(k) and
§1825(k). The new minimization procedures apply to the minimization process in FISA electronic surveillances and
physical searches, and to those involved in the process -- including both FBI agents and criminal prosecutors.

Contrary to the assumption made in the government's motion, all of the judges of this Court concurred in both the
opinion and order of April 22, 2002.

ROYCE C. LAMBERTH
Presiding Judge
United States Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court

Date: 5-17-02 6:40 p.m.