/>" style="float: left; margin: 10px 20px 20px 0px;" width="150" />

The Bush administration has dropped its claim of ultimate authority to listen in on Americans' telephone and internet communications without first seeking a warrant, switching its strategy one day before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to testify before Congress. It now says a secret surveillance court will judge the plan's legality.

Last year, the ACLU successfully challenged the National Security Agency's five-year-old warrantless wiretapping program.

The ACLU questioned the administration's motives and its timing, which also came two weeks before a Jan. 31 court date. "The NSA program was operating illegally, and this is an attempt to avoid public oversight by negotiating secret rules with a secret court," said ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston.

The ACLU sued on behalf of journalists, academics and advocacy groups, and last year a federal judge dismissed the Bush administration's claim that it, not the courts and Congress, could write the wiretapping rules. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution," she wrote. The ACLU will continue to press its lawsuit.

By acknowledging that a special court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act can decide the program's legality, the Bush administration apparently still hopes to hide the program from Americans and members of Congress.

"Without a court order that prohibits warrantless wiretapping, Americans can't be sure that their private calls and e-mails are safe from unchecked government intrusion," said Ann Beeson, lead counsel in ACLU v. NSA.

The Constitution's 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a court-issued warrant "describing the place to be searched." This principle also applies to telephone and internet communication.

Date

Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Privacy and Surveillance

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Jan. 19, 1948: The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to a 1920 California law aimed at preventing land ownership by Asian immigrants.

The Alien Land Law prevented Asian immigrants from owning land in their own name. ACLU plaintiff and U.S. citizen Fred Oyama, then 16, sued after the state attempted to take eight acres his family farmed in present-day Chula Vista. Like other Japanese Americans, the Oyama family was forced into federal camps in 1942. In 1944, while the family was still interned, the state moved to seize the land.

Future Secretary of State Dean Acheson joined ACLU/SC counsel Abraham Wirin in arguing Oyama's case before the Supreme Court, which upheld his ownership rights on Jan. 19, 1948. "The State has discriminated against Fred Oyama," the court wrote. "The discrimination is based solely on his parents' country of origin." Justice Hugo Black forcefully added, "by this Alien Land Law California puts all Japanese aliens within its boundaries on the lowest possible economic level."

The Alien Land Law stayed in effect until 1952, when the California Supreme Court struck it down. It was repealed by voters in 1956.

Photo: Farmer Richard Kobayashi with cabbages at the Manzanar Relocation Center in 1943, photographed by Ansel Adams (National Archives)

Date

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

style="float: left; margin: 10px 20px 20px 0px;" width="300" />

Jan. 19, 1948: The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to a 1920 California law aimed at preventing land ownership by Asian immigrants.

The Alien Land Law prevented Asian immigrants from owning land in their own name. ACLU plaintiff and U.S. citizen Fred Oyama, then 16, sued after the state attempted to take eight acres his family farmed in present-day Chula Vista. Like other Japanese Americans, the Oyama family was forced into federal camps in 1942. In 1944, while the family was still interned, the state moved to seize the land.

Future Secretary of State Dean Acheson joined ACLU/SC counsel Abraham Wirin in arguing Oyama's case before the Supreme Court, which upheld his ownership rights on Jan. 19, 1948. "The State has discriminated against Fred Oyama," the court wrote. "The discrimination is based solely on his parents' country of origin." Justice Hugo Black forcefully added, "by this Alien Land Law California puts all Japanese aliens within its boundaries on the lowest possible economic level."

The Alien Land Law stayed in effect until 1952, when the California Supreme Court struck it down. It was repealed by voters in 1956.

Photo: Farmer Richard Kobayashi with cabbages at the Manzanar Relocation Center in 1943, photographed by Ansel Adams (National Archives)

Date

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 12:00am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

68

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of Southern California RSS