« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
ACLU: Wiretap Suit Is Not Over
After the 6th District Court of Appeals dealt the ACLU a loss in its suit against the National Security Agency, Legal Director Stephen R. Shapiro indicated that the civil-liberties organization may seek to have the Supreme Court rule on the president's stated authority to issue wiretaps without a court order:
"We are deeply disappointed by today's decision that insulates the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. As a result of today's decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance."It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful.
"We are currently reviewing all of our legal options, including taking this challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime it is now more important than ever for Congress to engage in meaningful oversight."
Comments (19)
Anonymous wrote on July 6, 2007 1:38 PM:I like Leahy, I think he's a good man, but I'm just not sure he senses the magnitude of the threat faced by the country. This is nothing short of a fascist takeover. Bush said the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." Actually it's Bush/Cheney/Rover who hate you for your freedom!
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 1:47 PM:Yeah, good luck with the U.S. Supreme Court, ACLU.
Eric Ferguson wrote on July 6, 2007 2:10 PM:The application of the requirement for standing in the is case is nuts. The whole point is anybody could be spyed on and there's no way to know. All of us have standing.
jawbone wrote on July 6, 2007 2:38 PM:Yeah, good luck with the Roberts' Supreme Court!
But, is there something about working with the NeoCons and their minions which dulls the fgiht-or-flight response?
Is that what happens to so many MCMers*?
*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media
(Security code word is "where," as in "Where, oh, where is our salvation?")
jawbone wrote on July 6, 2007 2:39 PM:Yeah, good luck with the Roberts' Supreme Court!
But, is there something about working with the NeoCons and their minions which dulls the fgiht-or-flight response?
Is that what happens to so many MCMers*?
*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media
(Security code word is "where," as in "Where, oh, where is our salvation?")
jawbone wrote on July 6, 2007 2:40 PM:Huh? Two tries--no comment appears.
Yeah, good luck with the Roberts' Supreme Court!
But, is there something about working with the NeoCons and their minions which dulls the fgiht-or-flight response?
Is that what happens to so many MCMers*?
*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media
(Security code word is "where," as in "Where, oh, where is our salvation?")
jawbone wrote on July 6, 2007 2:42 PM:Third try--comment just not appearing--apologies if they all show up at once!
Yeah, good luck with the Roberts' Supreme Court!
But, is there something about working with the NeoCons and their minions which dulls the fgiht-or-flight response?
Is that what happens to so many MCMers*?
*MCMers--Members of the Mainstream Corporate Media
(Security code word is "where," as in "Where, oh, where is our salvation?")
Eric Gallon wrote on July 6, 2007 2:44 PM:You mean Sixth CIRCUIT Court of Appeals (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/newopn.pl?puid=0), not Sixth District.
dixiegrl wrote on July 6, 2007 3:08 PM:from a Timothy Leary rant:
"All governments are mafias. The American mafia is the best because it gives more for our money, but both political parties are families of that same mafia. On one hand you have the Democrats, who are genuinely stupid. They think America's problems can all be solved from Washington, DC. At the same time, Democrats tend to be kind of nice people. But the Republicans understand mafia power is about fear. They are a bunch of mean repressive motherfuckers and always have been."
Sandy wrote on July 6, 2007 4:40 PM:Great points, and touchee Eric. So who's betting on whether ANY of the spinning heads from today through the weekend will press the point that the judge that actually mentioned Bush's spying program agreed with the unconstitutionality and illegality of that program?
Olbermann will almost definitely include that in his show, but he's the only one that I am guessing will even mention it.
JNagarya wrote on July 6, 2007 6:06 PM:I like Leahy, I think he's a good man, but I'm just not sure he senses the magnitude of the threat faced by the country. This is nothing short of a fascist takeover. Bush said the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." Actually it's Bush/Cheney/Rover who hate you for your freedom!
Posted by:
Date: July 6, 2007 1:38 PM
Ass: Leahy is a lawyer and former prosecutor. That means he's at minimum read the Constitution a few times. _Ergo_, you can be certain he's much more away of the laws, the realities, and the implications than are you.
When will you twits cease bashing Democrats because the REPUBLICANS are foot-dragging?
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 6:27 PM:JNagarya:
Are YOU a lawyer and/or former prosecutor?
johnnydoughey wrote on July 6, 2007 6:38 PM:I noticed that the ruling for the administration was based upon the concept that those bringing the case could not prove that they themselves were the victims. I continue to be amazed at just how much our governmental employees and officials have insulated themselves from the rest of the citizens of this country.
Perhaps political appointees of ANY kind have become more of a detriment than an asset to our declining democracy.
dm wrote on July 6, 2007 7:02 PM:Did anyone else notice that in Gibbons' concurrence (p. 39) he states that "where the [state secrets] privilege deprives the government of a valid defense to the plaintiff's claim, the court must also dismiss the claim." In fact, the end of his concurrence seems to rely as much on this "denial of defense" state secrets issue as it does on the "plaintiff's inability to gather evidence" state secrets issue.
Jake wrote on July 6, 2007 7:52 PM:This seems to be a tremendous expansion of the state secrets doctrine. Not only can the government avoid judicial oversight of secret activity by denying evidence to the plaintiff, but apparently (at least in the 6th Cir.) it can get a case dismissed simply by refusing to assert a particular defense. Is this shocking to anyone else?
It seems like the Supreme Court needs to take a state secrets case in order to clarify the doctrine. The lower courts have run with it all the way to absolute executive autonomy.
So, as far as today goes, the U.S. Appeals Court dismisses ACLU Challenge of Domestic Surveillance Program, Murdoch buys Dow Jones / Wall Street Journal, AND Libby Remains Free?! All and all, not bad, not bad at all.
Ferruge wrote on July 7, 2007 12:02 AM:Yep, a great day for autocrats indeed.
Dennis wrote on July 7, 2007 5:42 PM:Regarding Leahy's "understanding the magnitude of the problem" mentioned above, I think he understands it to the extend that he has time and "evidence" to deal with it.
The problem with "the problem" is the corruption of the Bush/Cheney administration is so vast that not even Bush/Cheney know it's real magnitude. These guys are crooks in a vein that makes Nixon almost look like an amature.
Sadly, for the American people, most of the Republican congress put party loyality ahead of the good of the country (not that we've not had democrats to do the same).
They, and those that support them are AMORAL.
History will show that this administration was not the beginning of the downfall of the U.S. from being the top world power, but it will show that the Bush administration accelerated that down hill slide at a faster rate than any administration before it (without Nero's fiddle).
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
TomL wrote on July 8, 2007 12:08 AM:The next step is an en banc hearing, where the whole Court of Appeals reviews the case. This is an extremely important case, so I believe it is likely that the plaintiffs will be given an en banc rehearing.
Ayla wrote on July 9, 2007 4:33 AM:Thank God for the ACLU. The outsources and off-shore spying on Americans needs to be addressed in this forum.
And the Israeli cellphone contract that allows them to spy on Congress also should be covered.