PDA

View Full Version : ACLU beat down....


Wabash
02-20-2008, 02:15 AM
....and that's a good thing!

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
Feb 19 05:49 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UTLREO0&show_article=1

Ringo
02-20-2008, 12:30 PM
Thats good, as some Judges are still American, and haven't fallen for their Commie Cloaked Agenda!

nixon
02-20-2008, 12:35 PM
Thats good, as some Judges are still American, and haven't fallen for their Commie Cloaked Agenda! How can listening in on phone conversations be anything but a "Commie Cloaked Agenda"?

jim
02-20-2008, 12:45 PM
How can listening in on phone conversations be anything but a "Commie Cloaked Agenda"?

It can't:godzilla

toxic
02-20-2008, 01:07 PM
Clearly, Wabby and Bingo do not have interesting phone conversations.

This is probably the same Judge who was unimpressed by the fact that New York Police were using federally funded night vision equipment in helicopers to watch citizens having sex in their bedrooms on the night shift.

Wabash
02-20-2008, 04:38 PM
How can listening in on phone conversations be anything but a "Commie Cloaked Agenda"?
They've been doing it for yearssssss nix....you just found out did you? It's just one cog in the wheel of securing our nation. I never talk about anything of a sensitive nature on the phone...my conversations are very interesting at times...just not on the phone.

Clearly, Wabby and Bingo do not have interesting phone conversations.
Clearly! We aren't that dumb. What are YOU hiding?

This is probably the same Judge who was unimpressed by the fact that New York Police were using federally funded night vision equipment in helicopers to watch citizens having sex in their bedrooms on the night shift.
Tip of the iceberg tox...did you see my post on the Drones being purchased in Miami...it's not gonna be the Feds, it's gonna be YOUR town! Baw-Haaaaaaaaaaa!

Ringo
02-20-2008, 05:30 PM
Clearly, Wabby and Bingo do not have interesting phone conversations.

This is probably the same Judge who was unimpressed by the fact that New York Police were using federally funded night vision equipment in helicopers to watch citizens having sex in their bedrooms on the night shift.


What INTERESTING Phone Calls do any LAW ABIDING AMERICANS actually have Toxic? Don't worry your long list of 900 calls will not be impeded, and heavy breathing is still Constitutional?

If by some chance this impedes your calls to Syria or Iran, go tell your local FBI agent, he will stick up for you!

nixon
02-20-2008, 06:22 PM
They've been doing it for yearssssss nix....you just found out did you? It's just one cog in the wheel of securing our nation. I never talk about anything of a sensitive nature on the phone...my conversations are very interesting at times...just not on the phone.


Tip of the iceberg tox...did you see my post on the Drones being purchased in Miami...it's not gonna be the Feds, it's gonna be YOUR town! Baw-Haaaaaaaaaaa!They have been listening in for years, but it couldn't be used against you. But that has changed. Why even listen in on conversations? Bush makes a big deal over it to give everyone a false sense of security. We go about security in the wrong direction, "Why do we have trouble?" The CIA uses a term "Blowback". Why did McVeigh go on a rampage? Blow back. And alQueda, what is their trip with us? They hate us for our freedoms? I really don't think that's the case, do you? The government wants you to beleive that, that is why that is bullshit thrown out there in the first place. Instead of negotiating with those who wish to do us harm, our government breaks the balls of the law-abiding ass-kissing tax payer. Let me say this much, from where I'm sitting right now, we are losing the war on terror. Created more enemies here and abroad, Mr. Bush. Good Job.

Trueblue
02-20-2008, 07:59 PM
You privacy haters, is there a door on your bathroom?

Wabash
02-20-2008, 08:07 PM
You privacy haters, is there a door on your bathroom?

CCTV TB....do you want I live feed?:rofl:rofl:rofl I can even pack some aroma for you in a seal a meal and mail it off to you to go with the video....

Trueblue
02-20-2008, 08:16 PM
:yuck

The point is that you don't have to be doing something wrong to want privacy.

Wabash
02-20-2008, 08:34 PM
:yuck

The point is that you don't have to be doing something wrong to want privacy.

The real point is that you most likely will not be bothered by any of this, because we are not important players ...at least....I'm not!:D

Trueblue
02-20-2008, 08:42 PM
The real point is that you most likely will not be bothered by any of this, because we are not important players ...at least....I'm not!:D

Fine, you can live in the USSR, but I like the BOR and freedom.

It is possible for ordinary people to get caught up in government mistakes, btw, you are being naive.

nixon
02-20-2008, 08:53 PM
Fine, you can live in the USSR, but I like the BOR and freedom.

It is possible for ordinary people to get caught up in government mistakes, btw, you are being naive.
Not just that, but if you buckle here, what is NEXT??? What if listening devices were mandatory in your home? Is that a stretch? They were at a previous employeer that I had. Did the German people let the Nazis come to power overnight? Of course not, but little by little what happened? 6 million of Nixon's people got the oven. Nixon the Jew.