9th Circuit to Hear Case Involving US Collection of Americans' International Communications
Lawyers for a U.S. citizen convicted of attempting to bomb a ceremony in Portland, Oregon, plan to argue Wednesday that warrantless surveillance of his international communications violated his constitutional rights. Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Foundation, which filed amicus briefs in U.S. v. Mohamud, were given time by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Portland to argue at the hearing -- which will be live-streamed at 2 p.m. EDT -- on broader privacy implications. It's the first time a federal appeals court will hear oral argument on a challenge of NSA warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications, the ACLU and EFF said. They will argue the government's use of Section 702 under the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, which authorizes spying only on the electronic communications of foreigners abroad, is being used to monitor any international communications, wrote the ACLU in its June 3 brief. "It also violates the reasonableness requirement. The Supreme Court has emphasized that a surveillance statute is reasonable only if it is precise and discriminate. The [FISA Amendments Act] is neither." All sides declined comment Tuesday. ACLU Staff Attorney Patrick Toomey, who will argue before the three-judge panel, said in a news release the case has privacy implications for all U.S. citizens and residents because the government has "virtually unfettered access" to all their international phone calls and emails. “It has become increasingly apparent that the NSA and FBI have implemented the law in the broadest possible way, and that the rules that supposedly protect the privacy of innocent people in fact do the opposite," he said last week. The government said evidence obtained through Section 702 "did nothing to undermine the fairness of the pretrial rulings, trial, or sentencing hearing." In targeting non-U.S. persons, the collection of communications of U.S. persons is incidental, it said. Mohamed Osman Mohamud sought a new trial because the government notified him after the trial it got evidence through Section 702 surveillance without a warrant, his lawyers argued February. They said the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies don't permit the government from retaining, querying and accessing Americans' communications gotten by targeting foreigners.