ACLU asks New York judge to halt NSA surveillance

The U.S. government's interpretation of its authority under the Patriot Act is so broad that it could justify mass collection of financial, health and even library records of innocent Americans without their knowledge, a civil liberties lawyer warned on Friday at a hearing on a lawsuit challenging a federal phone-tracking program.

"If you accept the government's theory here, you are creating a dramatic expansion of the government's investigative power," Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told a judge in federal court in Manhattan.

A government lawyer, Stuart Delery, insisted that counterterrorism investigators would not find most personal information useful. Analysis of phone records, however, has become an essential — and legal — tool to "find connections between known and unknown terrorists," he argued.

U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley reserved a decision on an ACLU request to halt National Security Agency surveillance programs pending the outcome of the organization's suit against the administration of President Barack Obama.

The ACLU sued earlier this year after former NSA analyst Edward Snowden leaked details of the secret programs that critics say violate privacy rights. The NSA-run programs pick up millions of pieces of telephone and Internet information that is routed through U.S. networks each day.

Intelligence officials say that they have helped disrupt dozens of terrorist attacks, and that they target only foreign suspects outside the United States while taking close care not to look at the content of conversations or messages of U.S. citizens.

The ACLU has asked Pauley to declare the program unconstitutional, arguing that it exceeds the congressional authority provided by the Patriot Act, which Congress passed after 9/11 and reauthorized in 2005 and 2010. Obama has defended the program and said privacy must be balanced with security.

On Friday, Jaffer argued that to protect innocent Americans' constitutional rights, the courts should require the collection of phone data to be much more narrow and focused.

"You don't need all call records in order to do what the government says it wants to do," he said.

Delery countered that the phone-record dragnet should be distinguished from ordinary forms of surveillance because it was designed to detect and disrupt ongoing terror plots.

"These investigations are different from ordinary criminal investigations," he said.

Pauley questioned Delery about how much Congress knew about the phone-tracking programs when it voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He cited a brief filed on behalf of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., that "vehemently disputes" that Congress intended to authorize the program challenged by the ACLU suit.

Delery insisted that the program was spelled out to lawmakers before they voted. "The record establishes that oversight committees of both houses were briefed," he said.

The Associated Press