Court Orders Dismissal of US Wiretapping Lawsuit 362
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."
Fir Pos? (Score:2, Insightful)
Tough ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Our era's reverse catch 22. (Score:5, Insightful)
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Instead, it's fear of terror that's the new catch, completely unaccountable in its all-enforcing secrecy from the people the system is supposed to represent, and completely against the constitution that gives it the charter it exists to serve.
Ryan Fenton
5 O'Clock News (Score:1, Insightful)
Before or after the American Idol/You Think You Can Dance/Duh/Paris Hilton report?
Appeal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
We are looking at an example where the checks and balances system is being undermined at the most fundamental level.
We seem to be living at the period in American history that future peoples will point to when discussing the unraveling of our Nation.
Regards.
FUCK! (Score:2, Insightful)
See no evil, hear no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course at SOME point, maybe in 20 years or so, the names of who the government was spying on will have to become a non-secret, and thus available under a FOIA request.
not really fair... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tough ground (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, a government that does not follow the rules and restrictions set for it by itself and its people is just as much of a threat as any malicious foreign party. Which leads me to my next question - can they take further action on this case, or was it pretty much shot down, and prevented from going higher? The quotes didn't seem optimistic.
Better yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because what it perfectly legal now, may not be so in the near future.
Re:The thing that really bugs me... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's like if you start bitching and moaning about how Toyota is running its company, when you only own ONE share. Yeah, good luck with that. Now if you earn a big enough chunk of the company, you might be able to get enough support to get a case, and have the board of directors changed. But as a single tax payer, the government is NOT going to listen to you. Ever. Your only chance to make a difference is at the ballot box - and even then you have to pick between processed, nicely packaged candidate (A) vs. processed, nicely packaged candidate (B).
The only way to REALLY change things is with enough AK-47's, and even then it's only temporary.
Wow, two for the price of one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know why they choose to hold the people they do, and they do not have to tell us. For all we know the Gitmo detentions are as much to change the political landscape in the Middle East as they are to fight terrorism.
We have no idea what the NSA is looking for when they are wiretapping, and more importantly, we do not know what they might find profitable to look for in the future. We only know that they are permitted to operate without oversight.
Regards.
Re:Better luck next time (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. You think that the current conservatively-biased court would vote against the Republican administration and its theories about state secrets and executive privilege?
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, Bush's approval rating is around 1/3 and probably at about 28%. So, unless you're willing to admit that most US citizens are liberal and that conservatism is loud-mouthed minority, then please stop assuming that anti-Bush means "liberal."
You've just sounded the mating call of the head-burying oppression sheep. Apparently, privacy to you only applies to those in power even when they break the law. I have to assume you respect the President and Co-President's unprecedented lack of disclosure. I suppose you have no problems with the government spying on innocent protest groups or citizens who object to public policy. I suppose you also have no problem with the government spying on the political strategies of its opponents. I suppose you have no problems with government using private details of people's lives to extort or intimidate them. I suppose you have no problems with authoritarianism as well since Big Brother knows what's best for all of us.
If Ben Franklin were here to read your ignorant post, you'd soon feel the swift kick of a brass-buckled foot to your back-side.
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to improve all the issues pointed out in the article, stop having a two party system. However, I realize that having more than two options to vote for confuses most Americans.
Lastly, I'd like a "None of the Above" option on all elections. And looking at the approval ratings of congress, and the president, I think NOTA would win most elections.
Fine, send them transcripts at your expense. (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I am concerned the NSA/CIA/FBI/??? can wiretap and monitor me to their hearts content I promise it will not only be useless but incredibly boring.
Would it be OK if a government clerk spied out your business decisions and passed them on to a competitor that could pay?
Would you mind if there was only one political party because it was able to identify and neutralize anyone who disagreed with them?
Would you mind doing some menial job for your new corporate masters for the rest of your life? Remember, though crime will result in relative economic hardships. The only thing more expensive then freedom is slavery.
I mind all of the above and resent paying for such abuse. If you want a life like that, pay for it yourself.
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News !! (Score:3, Insightful)
The only difference pre-Bush or pre-9/11 is that the information from the NSA can be used in domestic law enforcement to bring a case against you. Before the case can be expanded, they still must go the FISA court. The Washington Post confirmed this in an article that cited a FISA judge that was uncomfortable with FISA warrants being used in domestic cases. But the fact remained that the FISA court was still being used.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good News !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then do this for me:
-Record all of your phone calls and post them on the internet
-Put up all your sent/received e-mails on the internet
-Print out a copy of your bank statements showing all transactions, and put them up on the internet
-Leave your curtains/blinds open 24/7
-Stop mailing things in envelopes, send everything as a post card
-Make sure to leave your stall door open when you use the restroom at Chili's
After all, you have nothing to hide right?
You might argue that the general public having access is not the same as the government having access, and perhaps that's true. But who makes up the government? That's right, people like you and me (of/by/for the people, remember?) And when 10 years from now, your neighbor who now works for the government and has an axe to grind, pulls the complete history of your phone records and searches through it using some key words to find something to embarrass you with, you'll realize that you (and everyone else in the world) DO have something to hide, and it's not unreasonable to feel that way, even if you have committed no illegal acts. Our personal identities and our safety are centered around being able to keep some things private.
But have you REALLY committed no illegal acts? You've never traveled 1 mph over the speed limit, or downloaded a single song you didn't own, or eaten a grape you didn't pay for at the grocey store, or jaywalked, etc.?
Have you ever read Amendment #4, by the way? I'm sure some neocon lawyer type could argue that the subject of this article doesn't violate the letter of it, but it can't be argued against that it violates the SPIRIT of that amendment.
Here's an article for your further consideration:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/ns
Guess I get to be the Troll here (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but to my knowledge, in order to sue over an act (tort), you have to prove that you were not just negatively affected by that act, but affected in a specific dollar amount which the court can award you as compensation for the act. What measurable harm have these guys suffered? I don't think that the possibility that one of your conversations might be in a secret NSA database causes you any measurable harm that a court could compensate you for. If they have to ask the NSA whether they have any such records, that in and of itself serves as proof that they were not harmed in any way by the records (if they do exist), since if they were harmed in any way, they would be able to prove that in court.
I don't think it's a good idea either to seek to challenge laws in court on the grounds that you paid the taxes that support the program or somesuch. That is trying to place the courts in a role they were never meant to take - of judging the effect of laws. Passing and repealing laws is the job of our elected representatives in Congress and the President. Provided that the laws do not directly contradict the Constitution, the Courts have no say in what those laws are. (yes, I know that we seem to be steadily accumulating laws that do directly contradict the Constitution, but that's another post) If you don't like the laws, you're going to have to take it up with your elected Representatives, and you're going to have to accept that the American people do not necessarily agree with you on all issues, and they have as much right to their views as you do. If you want to change things, you have to convince your fellow Americans that you are right and they should vote your way.
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:4, Insightful)
This really isn't anything to do with Bush, though it is his actions we are concerned with; it is a shortcoming in the legal system, a loophole that arises because of the way lawsuits are qualified. The president has violated his oath to uphold the constitution; via US telecomm laws, wiretapping is linked inextricably to fourth amendment citizen immunity to unreasonable search; the president swears to uphold and defend the constitution, and he has not doe so, in fact a strong case can be made that he has directly violated it. There is a remedy for this. Recourse is via the congress, who should impeach and convict him for this violation of the presidential oath, a "high crime" if there ever was one.
The problem that we actually face is a congress that has absolutely no spine and is so corrupt itself that they find it perfectly natural to violate the constitution. After all, they have done it many times by producing blatantly unconstitutional laws. Examples abound: ex post facto gun laws, suppression of speech in public areas (most recently, the ruling on that kid's Jesus / Bong banner), the witless inversion of the commerce clause, violation of the right to keep and bear arms and so on.
We can't fix any of this because of the entrenched two party system, and because the legislators themselves are corrupt (with the exception of one or two.)
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the monkey.
My sig is inappropriate for this post.
Re:Good News !! (Score:1, Insightful)
What were you doing on the internet each night for the past month? Would you like it to be the topic of discussion on the evening news, with copies sent to all your friends and relatives? And even if you somehow lived the most boring month in history, how would you feel if a friend or family member were publicly humiliated, harassed, or embarrassed for perfectly legal conversations or activities?
Wiretapping WITH a warrant is good for catching criminals. Wiretapping WITHOUT a warrant is good for watching all of the perfectly legal stuff people do and finding ways to use it against them.
Re:Tough ground (Score:1, Insightful)
Civil court wasn't the right way to approach this, at least not while the relevant information is classified. National Security trumps civil law. Otherwise, people could sue the government, or even each other, for trivial matters and sub poena unrelated classified information.
On the other hand, Congress is in a position where they can and should investigate the NSA.
[1] Not exactly, but this is close enough. If verifiable information regarding who was tapped is leaked, the ACLU can file on behalf of those affected, with their permission.
Patriots, out of options (Score:5, Insightful)
The government no longer answers to the citizens, according the the system we set up to run it. It's a very short, swift step from where we are to where ordinary citizens disappear in the night (non-Muslims, that is). We won't know exactly when that moment arrives, because we won't be told, because no one in the government obeys or enforces the law anymore.
Let's assume for a moment that you're not someone who buries his head in the sand, saying 'As long as I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care what the government does to others?' Let's assume that your response to crisis is not to hop in your SUV, drive down to the mall, and go shopping. And let's further assume that you're a red-blooded, patriotic American who really cares about freedom and the rule of law, and about protecting the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
So ask yourself, what recourse do you have now?
Re:Good News !! (Score:1, Insightful)
That's not true. Go ask some of the people who have been released from Gitmo. Some of them were picked up in places like Pakistan by over-zealous police or people who were after some of the bounty money the US were offering for captured prisoners, then shipped off to Gitmo for four years where no evidence was found against them.
Four years in Cuba for doing nothing. They were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
The general public don't care though. Talk to someone about it and you'll hear things like "They were probably up to something anyway. What were they doing in Pakistan so close to the border with Afghanistan? There's no smoke without fire."
Re:Tough ground (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if you were a lawyer? Do you think the NSA would be bothered in the least about passing along information to the DOJ reguarding your stratagies in pursuing a $B class action case against the US for unlawful imprisonment?
The problem isn't that the NSA is tapping the phones of US citizens, it's that Nixon did it & the US govt expressly wrote laws forbidding exactly what the NSA is doing - unsupervised wiretaps. They created an entire court & post approval schemes to make sure that the approval process didn't interfier with priority/time sensative investigations. I don't care if you aren't breaking the law & don't care who listens in on your calls. I do care that the Federal Government doesn't give a shit about the very rule of law it's supposed to be upholding!
Bush & the NSA got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Like the average 2 year old, they first denied that the facts were the facts. Once they couldn't get past that point they switched to beligerant teenager & just said 'fuck off the rules don't apply to me'. That's where we stand now. Bush & the NSA acknowledge that they broke the law & then hide behind the 'state secrets' act to shield themselves from any investigation/proscecution relating to it.
Note how they are even stonewalling the security subcommity that's trying to look into exactly how bad of a legal fuckup this is. "This stuff is so super secret that we can't even show 8 members of Congress with top level security clearances what we are doing. The fact that we are legally mandated to advise them & we can only perform these operations under their oversight is irrelevant."
I think this is eventually going to fall apart into a cluster fuck that's going to make Watergate look like a well coreographed ballet. This suit was turned down because the plaintifs couldn't show direct harm with the 'chilling effect' on free speech being completely dismissed by 2 judges as a 'concoction'. Eventually there's going to be an arrest made & it'll get tied to the NSA.
The game is over once that happens, Bush has already lost almost every aspect of the 'state secrets' cover he has. As more & more information is leaked out, he's got less & less coverage. The 'unable to show cause' requirement to continue these cases is one of the last pieces of the puzzle. Once a case is tied to the project, that's gone & he's down to 'fuck off'. There's one case that's already in play because of this very fact. Parts of it were thrown out, but the judge ruled that there is enough public knowledge about the project to continue, and the fact that the party suing was accidentally provided documents showing he was under survailance is sufficient to prove cause.
The Shrub has all the pieces he needs to do the job, he just doesn't like having to play by the rules that accompany those tools. Sorry, if he can't win playing by the rules, he needs to step asside & let someone else have thier chance.
Re:Fir Pos? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all fine, but you have to understand what happened here. They didn't say that the action (wiretapping) was legal; they just said - and I think, correctly - that the complaining party couldn't show that it had been directly affected, and so they had no standing to sue. Lawsuits require that you show that harm has been done to you - the party with the objection - in order to proceed. Without standing, this was stopped. Lawsuit is probably the wrong remedy for this issue unless the party objecting knows they have been tapped; the right remedy is impeachment, because what we have here is a known, admitted crime committed by a sitting, and still-sitting, president, and no knowledge, at least that I am aware of, as to who in particular was harmed.
What I was saying is that the problem exists, a remedy is encoded into the constitution to deal with such problems, but the body entrusted with meting out that remedy has not acted, and that is the real problem, not the issue of standing being required to sue. I'm not much in favor of suits in the first place, I'd *really* object to suits without standing. That'd mean if you cheated your business partner, I could sue you, even though I'm not your business partner. That's just making a bad thing worse.
Re:Lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know this how exactly?
You have no idea who Bush is wiretapping whatsoever. No one does.
Saying 'It's just oversea calls made to suspected terrorists' is just repeating what the government says, and, more to the point, it's almost certainly wrong. Whatever the administration is doing, it is doing something that would not be allowed under FISA, or they're be using FISA. And that sort of behavior certainly would be allowed unless they have an incredibly lax definition of 'suspected terrorists'.
The US government is almost certainly wiretapping people it would not be allowed to had it used the courts, otherwise it would use the courts.
Re:Tough ground (Score:4, Insightful)
We've had them throw out the appeal by someone who, told by a judge he had 17 days to file his motion, filed his motion in 16 days, only to find out that the bureaucratic rule was 14 days (the judge took a weekend into account). If this doesn't violate the spirit of the law, I don't know what would. We've seen a new strategy in cases brought by US citizens that, where instead of saying the facts or the law were against them, the judges claimed they "didn't have standing to bring suit". What does it tell you when the citizens of a nation don't have standing to bring suit against their own government. I wonder if Clarence Thomas has ever read the Declaration of Independence as closely as he read the back cover of the latest XXX DVD by Long Dong Silver.
I've been strongly critical of the Bush administration for several years, but I've never before believed that impeachment was the best approach. That has changed. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have clearly decided that they're going to push the envelope of legality and morality as far as they possibly can, assuming that as long as they don't get a blowjob in the Oval Office, they won't be touched. I'm not sure America can move forward until these men are brought before Congress under articles of impeachment, and Americans are going to remain angrily divided until the 68 percent of us who believe this administration has been harmful to this country get some answers. It appears that more than half of Americans agree with me that impeachment is warranted, and it's time for that half to contact their congressmen with the same energy with which they defeated the Immigration Bill. Twelve million illegal immigrants can't begin to do the kind of damage to this great nation that the two men in the White House have perpetrated. Whether they are convicted and removed from office is to be determined by Congress, but it's time for them to answer for their actions.
Re:None of you understand any of this, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Clinton claim is simply wrong and dishonest and is a flat out lie, you may want to reconsider the source of that info. Clinton did use warrants, and we have a full record that used to be accessible via a FOIA request.
Re:Guess I get to be the Troll here (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you're having an affair. Maybe you're secretly gay, and don't wanna be "outed" yet. Maybe you have an unusual sexual fetish. These are all things that could be used as leverage against you, though none of these activities is illegal.
But maybe the FBI wants you to wear a wire when you talk to a friend of yours, and they'll blackmail you using that info. Maybe an organization you're a member of now will, 10 years from now, be criminalized, like what happened during McCarthy years.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
- Cardinal Richelieu
Re:Appeal? (Score:3, Insightful)
EXACLTY! Nor will there ever be that possibility so long as this ruling stands. That's the problem. Its a situation in which the Executive Branch can violate Consititional rights with impunity, and that's the exact reason why there's a Supreme Court in the first place.
Decision Just on Technical Grounds (Score:3, Insightful)
2. In view of the concurring and dissenting opinions, and the importance of the subject matter, it is likely to receive Supreme Court review.