Way To Go SCOTUS!!
Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.
The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.
ACLU officials described the situation as a "Catch-22" because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.
A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court.
The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it.
The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late after the New York Times published an article about it.
The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government's eavesdropping authority.
Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.
Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue.
Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants.
The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now can we get back to the business of totally screwing up terrorist plots and plans against America and her allies? This is why it's so important to have Conservative Judges on the bench, so we can protect ourselves instead of turning fighting Terrorism like the Democrats want to do back into a "Police Action"!
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."
The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.
The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.
A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.
The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.
ACLU officials described the situation as a "Catch-22" because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.
A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
A separate lawsuit against telecommunications companies that have cooperated with the government is pending in the San Francisco-based appeals court. A U.S. district court also is examining whether the warrantless surveillance of people in the United States violates the law that regulates the wiretapping of suspected terrorists and requires the approval of a secret court.
The administration announced in January 2007 that it would put intercepts of communications on U.S. soil under the oversight of that court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The ACLU, in urging the justices to consider its case, said that because the administration voluntarily ended the warrantless wiretapping, it could easily restart it.
The administration acknowledged the existence of the program in late after the New York Times published an article about it.
The White House said the monitoring was necessary because the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act left dangerous gaps in the government's eavesdropping authority.
Last August, Congress made temporary changes to FISA that made the warrantless wiretapping legal in some instances and also extended immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that help with the intercepts.
Those changes expired over the weekend, amid disagreements between congressional Democrats and President Bush over the immunity issue.
Existing wiretaps can continue and any new surveillance the government wants to institute has to follow the FISA rules, which could require court warrants.
The case is ACLU v. NSA, 07-468.
Story Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now can we get back to the business of totally screwing up terrorist plots and plans against America and her allies? This is why it's so important to have Conservative Judges on the bench, so we can protect ourselves instead of turning fighting Terrorism like the Democrats want to do back into a "Police Action"!
Labels: ACLU, SCOTUS, Wiretapping
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 3:11 PM
13 Comments:
Great post! You are right! Love your passion here!
Great post, Marie, too bad the wiretap program they filed the lawsuit over no longer exists.
This had more to do with the lawsuit than it had to do with warrantless wiretapping.
But hey, screw them liberals anyway!
Probably should have read a little closer before commenting.
Bush's SCOTUS picks have made a difference. And I love seeing the ACLU lose.
Rivka,
Thank You :-)
Federalist,
Why should I have read a little closer before commenting. The ACLU got smashed on this one!
If the suit filed no longer existed then why didnt they pull it off the docket? Instead of tying up our court system with frivilous lawsuits like so many Liberals seem to do?
NOTHING seems to be warrantless anymore or we would have gotten MORE Al-Qeada than we could have.
But NO!!! The Democrats dont seem to give a rats ass if we catch the Damn terrorists or not, well I DO!!
That's what I am about Federalist, I am all for the Troops, Defending America and taking the fight to the terrorists and holding those bastards somewhere besides America so they cant tie up our court system too.
I am to the point where I really dont give a rats ass about anything but our Soldiers, and they are NOT going to come home like Viet Nam Vet's, they are going to come home with the honor and respect they deserve and you Liberals will make sure that does'nt happen and people like me will make SURE IT DOES!!
Try and Stop ME!!!
?????????
My post was directed at Marie and THAT particular wiretap program has not existed for over a year.
The lawsuit doesn't exist? Huh?
In case you are already silently firing the "You don't support the troops" crap at me, you can save it.
Guess what? I'm not from Texas but I'm still American. Yup. White male born in Peoria, IL. Grew up Reagan Republican. Those days of the intellectual, thoughtful and globally-aware Republican are LONG gone. The ones that fought for the middle-class Caterpillar factory worker. Gone.
In its place are the neocons, wildly and dangerously fascist who shoot first and ask questions second.
Actually, the Democrats were for catching the terrorists. They just weren't in Iraq.
Danny,
Me too!
Federalist,
?????????
My post was directed at Marie and THAT particular wiretap program has not existed for over a year.
Um....Who are you talking to?
The lawsuit doesn't exist? Huh?
In case you are already silently firing the "You don't support the troops" crap at me, you can save it.
Guess what? I'm not from Texas but I'm still American. Yup. White male born in Peoria, IL. Grew up Reagan Republican. Those days of the intellectual, thoughtful and globally-aware Republican are LONG gone. The ones that fought for the middle-class Caterpillar factory worker. Gone.
In its place are the neocons, wildly and dangerously fascist who shoot first and ask questions second.
Actually, the Democrats were for catching the terrorists. They just weren't in Iraq.
Wow cool I have relatives in DeKalb, Ill.
The Democrats are never for doing much Militarily.
That all ended with Roosevelt.
He was the last Liberal with any balls.
The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. ..Boooooooyahhhhhhhhh!..great news Marie.ty for passing this along!
The ACLU is only about filing lawsuits that establish precedent or they get paid by the government to defend. The ACLU could care less if it hurts the nation or not, that's not what they're about they are about money and power.
I haven't heard too much about the former ACLU leader that was found to have kiddie porn on his computer or the case in Massachusetts where they defended a child pornographer and molester because they think those practices are OK. I guess the liberal press is keeping that as low profile as they can.
As far as wiretapping is concerned. If you have any idea about how the world's communications systems are set up you would understand why things were done they were. If you have no knowledge than you really can't make an intelligent assessment of the situation. For example, many communications systems are routed through the US even though they are not connected to a domestic hook up which is known as a pass through. For anyone to argue that it's just like in the days when Lily Tomlin played an operator and plugs a connection into a switchboard or an FBI agent climbs a telephone pole to tap into a line while they sit in smoky room across the street with binoculars eating twinkies is almost laughable. That's what the ACLU was arguing. Buttheads, pure nonsensical buttheads.
Because the Clinton admin refused to let the intelligence agencies and the FBI communicate and share information, they not only left us open to attack in September of 2001they also left us blind to follow up finding those people responsible and preventing another follow up attack/s.
Any President that would not do everything in their power to protect the nation from further attacks immediately after an attack like 9/11 because he was worried about hurting a few people's feelings is not fit to be President. To me the scariest thing I could have heard right after the atttacks of 9/11 would have been: Ladies and Gentlemen the President is going to speak to the nation. Here is the president, algore
Thank God they still have their commen sense!
Thank God they still have their common sense! Don’t you some times get the feeling that the Libs want us to get hit again? Just so they can say, “see Bush screwed us”
And they say SCOTUS appointments are not that important and issue for this election year.
Does anyone actually think this would have happende under a SCOTUS appointed by Hillary or Obama.
Like him or not McCain at least would continue to appoint Roberts and Alitos to SCOTUS!
I love good news, and this is definitely good news, Marie. Thanks!
I can't figure out what the Fedralist is talking about either, but as long as he knows... LOL!
Angel,
This is wonderful isnt it?
Jenn,
Thank You for that explanation. I just went back in time with "Laugh In" when you made the remark about Lily Tomlin lol
That movie "Phone Booth" shows a pretty clear vision in the beinning of where OUR phone calls are roughted but I have never seen a display of how our phone calls come in from other countries. I would imagine sattelites have alot to do with that also.
DD,
I know, that would have been the first thing out of the Liberals mouths.
Ken,
That's why I'll hold my nose doing it, but I'll vote McCain for President because this kind of stuff matters.
Gayle,
You are welcome :-)
I dont think he know's half the time who he's talking to.
Boy I real them in dont I lol
Marie,
Truman dropped the atomic bomb...not sure how you get more "military" than that.
Womanhonorthyself,
You must have stopped reading at the comment you pasted.
Here's what it says two inches below:
"The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal."
Obama is for going into Pakistan to fight the terrorists responsible for 9/11, something we have yet to do under Bush. I'd classify that as "military".
Post a Comment
<< Home