EFF Sues NSA, President Bush, and VP Cheney 267
VisualE writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies today on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.
The five individual plaintiffs are also suing President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance."
Big (Score:2, Interesting)
How many trial did the EFF lose ? IIRC, they are usually fierce and study their cases carefully before going to court, am I wrong ?
Re:Big (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How can you sue? (Score:5, Interesting)
All raise their had for turning this into a .... (Score:3, Interesting)
...class action suit. /me Raises hand.
Isn't this where... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How can you sue? (Score:5, Interesting)
People complain about government surveillance sponsored by telecoms
Telecoms say "Government made us do it!"
Everyone looks at government and says "You can't do that."
Government passes a law that says "Now we can, and we're adding in a provision to say you can't complain about when we did before we passed the law!"
I've said it before and I'll say it a thousand times if I must: The constitution was written by, for, and in behalf of terrorists, traitors, and criminals of their time. Possible terrorism is not an excuse to violate the constitution, as that is what it was written to protect. The illegal surveillance and retroactive immunity both violate the constitution.
This is like calling the police about a shooting, and when they get there, they find the dead body burned to ashes. When they ask "Why did you burn the body?" you say "Because if I burn the body, you can't arrest me for shooting him! You have no evidence!"
FISA's telco immunities might actually help! (Score:5, Interesting)
Recall that the telco immunities in the latest FISA passage only affect the telcos, not the government. If they're bold enough, the telcos may be able to help push this forward (since they're no longer able to be held liable, all this does it make their customers more comfortable by earning back their trust). Telcos likely have tons of documents they could publish (without invading customer privacy), teasing the courts with what must be loads more that could be secured with the appropriate warrants.
As to suing the government, I believe you actually have to petition for the right to sue ... which may be problematic when there's such obvious intent to keep this under wraps. I'm sticking with my pessimistic intuition that this won't come to light until all the relevant parties have retired or been removed from office (I hope I'm wrong ... heck, there's just barely enough time for an impeachment process, too!). Since this hurdle appears to have already been passed, there must be something resembling support -- hark, did the Dems grow a backbone?
Re:Big (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh look, someone who jumps to conclusions. You seem to be disagreeing with my simple factual statement that the EFF has lost a lot of cases. Any evidence to back this up?
There's a nice long list of cases they won
First of all, that nice long list of cases does not disprove my assertion, that they lost plenty of cases. That list doesn't have their losses I notice.
Secondly, in several of those cases the EFF's role was to file an amicus curiae briefs. As an attorney I would never be so grasping as to consider a case I filed such a brief in as a "win." Who knows whether the judge even read them.
Thirdly I am unfamiliar with this Andrew Orlowsky person you mention. All I'm sure of on the subject is that I am not him.
Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How can you sue? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully something will come out in discovery though. . . . Although I wouldn't put it by this administration to argue that even though the illegal program is now public knowledge it is still a state secret because they say so.
I'd say that this suit had potential as an election issue that would set people against the administration, except:
Frankly, this issue is a bigger loser for Democrats than for Republicans.
Re:DONUT??? (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been meaning to donnate to the EFF for some time now, but this finally made me get off my ass and do it.
In the field asking why I was donating I wrote, "fear".
Re:FISA's telco immunities might actually help! (Score:5, Interesting)
The U.S. government tends to be one of the telco's largest customers. Attacking one of your largest customers is usually not a good idea, and is unlikely to happen. I think they know I doubt it will gain them even a perceptible blip in good will with their home and small business customers. Home and small business customers mostly care how much their phone bills are and what kind of service they get for it.
If you recall Qwest pushed backed on participating in this surveillance program when it first started because of their concerns about its legality. Shortly there after the suddenly lost a huge classified telecommunications deal with the government, it caused a huge miss in their quarterly results and they couldn't talk about why because it was classified, their CEO was accused of misleading shareholders and eventually ended up in Federal prison. He may have been doing so fishy stuff for which he deserved some punishment but there was a huge signal sent from the Bush administration about playing ball.
Morale of the story is trying to fuck with the Federal government, especially the Bush administration, was and probably still is incredibly dangerous. They are, after all, people who think its OK to thrown black hoods over peoples heads and send them away to be tortured.
I doubt they will retaliate against the EFF like they did Qwest because they will probably opt to just stone wall the case and will probably succeed. Maybe a President Obama will be different but I doubt he will want all the bad people in the Bush administration perp walked because it sets a dangerous precedent for when he leaves office and a Republican President takes over.
Re:Big [waste of time] (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Big [waste of time] (Score:2, Interesting)
If it was impossible, then if when prohibition was repealed, those convicted under it would still face jail.
You can ex-post-facto make something more lenient, and essentially give people a "Get out of jail free" card. You can not make a law that specifies a harsher punishment for a existing crime, and have it apply to those already conviceted.
Re:It will be interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but the EFF will care, no matter who winds up being President in 09. They will continue to press the matter regardless.
And GW is going to tell them to stuff it. I know that. I just want to know what perverse reasoning he's going to use to do it. What will he tell the EFF to make them stop? Executive privilege? War on terror? Because I'm emperor in all but title and you can't stop me?
I know it will be Orwellian and bizarre. I'm certain of that. But *what* will it be?
Can't wait. I'm sure it will raise my loathing to new heights.
Re:even if they win... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, he could. The only exception to the American president's pardon power is "in matters
of impeachment". Anyone in the Executive or Judicial branch may be impeached (accused)
and removed from office (convicted). I'm not sure about impeaching Congressmen and Senators,
but those two bodies do get to write their own rules about how they run themselves.
So, whether the voiding of the pardon power applies narrowly to just this specific impeachment
plus removal process, or whether it means that any crime relating in some way to someone's
impeachment, would be decided by the Supreme Court. I suspect the narrower interpretation
was the "original intent", that is, that the presidential pardon power cannot override
the Congress's impeach and remove from office power.
My inner cynic tells me to expect Bush to issue a blanket pardon for everyone that ever did anything
in or with this administration, for any crime they committed or may have committed. (I should have
listened to it and bought oil and weapons stocks when Bush got in.)
I'm not sure if a presidential pardon prevents prosecution by the States.
If it does, then the only option left would be an International Tribunal. I don't think
wiretapping would be an international issue, but violations of the Geneva Convention (torture,
no due process when determining whether or not someone is an "Enemy Combatant") could.