Court Orders Dismissal of US Wiretapping Lawsuit

jcatcw writes with a link to a ComputerWorld article about the dismissal of a case against the NSA over the wiretapping program revealed last year. The case was brought by the ACLU. A three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit has sent the case back down to District court for ultimate dismissal. "The appeals court decision leaves opponents of the NSA program in a difficult position, said Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has opposed the program. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue because they can't prove they were affected by the program, and at the same time, ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets."

This is not EFF -vs- AT&T

[MobyDisk]

Last paragraph of the article:

The appeals court decision does not affect another lawsuit still pending in California, in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued AT&T Inc., which allegedly participated in the NSA program.

If this ruling makes you angry, support the EFF [eff.org]!

Not a complete loss

[jack455]

IANAL I assume that the loss on appeal essentially erases the Michigan courts finding of the progral to be illegal, but at least it was overturned on the grounds of the ACLU not being harmed. I figure that's better than saying it is actually ok. or am I missing something?

Re:5 O'Clock News

[mroberts47]

I dunno, I am just glad that someone is finally telling those stupid liberal groups to STFU.

Defined: Liberal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this word tossed around like a pejorative. Learn the definition! [wikipedia.org].

Here's a snippet:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. A liberal society is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy, free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

You might think twice before you start trash talking a philosophy whose principle tenets promote the very "freedoms" you conservatives claim to love, yet consistently take away.

Re:The thing that really bugs me...

[MaceyHW]

I am a law student, not a lawyer, and standing is dealt with in upper level courses that I haven't taken yet, but Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] provides the following nugget that seems to answer your question

The Court developed a two-part test to determine whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. First, because a taxpayer alleges injury only by virtue of his liability for taxes, the Court held that "a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, 8, of the Constitution." *479 Id., at 102, 88 S.Ct., at 1954. Second, the Court required the taxpayer to "show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations upon the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8." Id., at 102-103, 88 S.Ct., at 1954."

(note, the article is about Flast v. Cohen but the case quoted is Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)).

It would seem to me that the reasoning goes something like this "you're claiming harm via the payment of taxes, so the harm has to be directly related to the payment of taxes. This means that the violation you're claiming has to be a violation of Congress's constitional authority to tax or to spend. Sorry, any old violation of the Constitution won't do."

Now is that sane? Maybe not, but you asked for a legal argument, not a sane one.

Re:Our era's reverse catch 22.

[MadMidnightBomber]

"No reason," wailed the old woman. "No reason."
        "What right did they have?"
        "Catch-22. [...] Catch-22 says they have a right to do
          anything we can't stop them from doing. [...]"
        "Didn't they show it to you?" Yossarian demanded, stamping
          about in anger and distress. "Didn't you even make them read
          it?"
        "They don't have to show us Catch-22," the old woman
          answered. "The law says they don't have to."
        "What law says they don't have to?"
        "Catch-22."

Re:Better yet...

[Valdrax]

The NRA tends to support politicians that supported the illegal wiretapping.

Re:Fir Pos?

[wsherman]

This really isn't anything to do with Bush,...

From an article in the New York Times [nytimes.com]:

Judge Batchelder was appointed by President George Bush, Judge Gibbons by President George W. Bush and Judge Gilman by President Bill Clinton. Judge Taylor, the district court judge, was appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

Judge Batchelder (George Bush) wrote the majority opinion, Judge Gibbons (George W. Bush) concurred with the majority, and Judge Gilman (Bill Clinton) dissented. Judge Taylor (Jimmy Carter) was the district court judge who was over-ruled.

Re:Fir Pos?

[aplusjimages]

The fact that every post primary debate only has TWO parties represented and doesn't include ANY of the viable third party candidates is of great concern . . .

I believe the third parties were at the 2004 debates, so lets not make it seem like they don't participate. Weren't the Green party and Libertarian party [worldnetdaily.com] candidates in the back of a police car outside the building holding the debates. The two parties have locked all the other parties out. Welcome to America says the sign.

Re:None of you understand any of this, do you?

[frank_adrian314159]

Clinton did this.

Only with the oversight of the FISA court. And that's what the big deal is - will there be checks on who is being listened to or not. Given that the FISA court could be asked for wiretap privilege up to three days retroactively and that it had turned down a total of three (out of thousands of) requests during the Clinton years, this does not seem to be an overly harsh hurdle to overcome. Unless, of course, you're a couple of assholes like Bush and Cheney who think that the law need not apply to them.