Judge rejects challenge to overseas wiretap law

NEW YORK — A judge rejected a challenge to a law letting the United States eavesdrop on overseas conversations Thursday, saying fears by Americans that their conversations will be monitored and their rights violated were “purely subjective.”

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled that the latest version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could not be challenged by attorneys, journalists and human rights organizations unless they could show their own communications had been affected.

The law, which was amended last year, authorizes surveillance of telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges involving non-U.S. citizens overseas to acquire foreign intelligence information.

The law was challenged by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, a group of international criminal defense lawyers and an organization of women, among others.

The plaintiffs said their work causes them to speak with people and organizations they believe are possible surveillance targets under the law.

Jameel Jaffer, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed because the ruling means the law “might not be subjected to judicial review at all.”

He said the requirement that an American be able to show communications were directly affected makes it virtually impossible to challenge the law.

“This statute allows the mass acquisition of Americans’ international communications,” Jaffer said.

He said the United States could theoretically “sweep up thousands or even millions of Americans’ international communications without reference to individualized suspicion.”

Jaffer said the U.S. government could decide to intercept all communications between New York and London, for instance.

He said the ruling “effectively means that Americans’ privacy rights will be left to the mercy of the political branches. That’s disturbing.”

Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for U.S. government lawyers in New York, had no comment.

The judge noted that the plaintiffs made no claim that their communications had been monitored or that the government had sought approval for such surveillance.

Koeltl said the mere fear of surveillance was not enough to bring a lawsuit. He said the chilling effect that the plaintiffs said the law had on their work was “actually the result of their purely subjective fear of surveillance.”

The judge wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to show they were subject to the law, “other than by speculation and conjecture.”

He added: “The plaintiffs in this case have made no showing that they are subject to the statute they seek to challenge, and therefore have made no showing that they face a danger of being harmed.”