Supreme Court Disallows FISA Challenges

New submitter ThatsNotPudding writes "The U.S. Supreme court has rejected pleas to allow any challenges to the FISA wiretapping law unless someone can prove they've been harmed by it. 'The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was originally designed to allow spying on the communications of foreign powers. But after the September 11 attacks, FISA courts were authorized to target a wide array of international communications, including communications between Americans and foreigners. ... In this case, the plaintiffs' groups said their communications were likely being scooped up by the government's expanded spying powers in violation of their constitutional rights. Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case. In an opinion (PDF) by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that these groups don't have the right to sue at all, because they can't prove they were being spied on.'" Further coverage at SCOTUSblog.

FOIA, anyone?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.

Can prove it? Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you found yourself in Gitmo you could prove you were harmed.

If you could ever get in front of a judge.

Oh well.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[amRadioHed]

You can't just sue over the constitutionality of a law, you still need to have standing which based on the result of this case the majority believes they lack.

Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

If you must be harmed by it to complain, then the only test cases would come from terrorists, thus the "people" would either have to root for draconian government or terrorists. That will let the judges officially allow it against those with standing to sue, not enough will be annoyed to end the tyranny of the government. Note, it allows for people to sue, they just must have proof they were harmed, and only someone arrested after government spying will have a case. Any other attempts (FOIA and such) will be met with "national security" defense, which is still iron clad.

Re:Recap

[amorsen]

I am afraid you got the last line wrong.

Gov: We spy on Americans in secret.
Me: Stop spying on me
Gov: You can't prove that we did
Gov: *middle finger*

Dissenters were all progressives

[hugg]

Hopefully the President will still get the chance to appoint more progressives to the Supreme Court to protect us from his policies.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

But to prove your rights were violated by a FISA investigation is impossible under the grounds of national security. Catch 22 writ large enough for anyone to see.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[cusco]

Are you of the opinion that the Democratic party is not conservative? Obama is far to the right of even Richard Nixon, there aren't more than a handful of congresscritters who would qualify as 'liberal'.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Repubmocrat Tyranny

"Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case."

"In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito ... The majority opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts ... [Breyer] is joined in a dissent by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan."

False equivalence is false.

Re:When the chips are down...

[Anonymous Coward]

In america is it. And perhaps sweden now.

Not so for the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD. Note america is slipping from civilized to simply a bunch of backwaters with hi tech.

Stop. Think.

Wait a little longer.

OK. Explain in small words for me what's so special about where you live vs. the US that makes it impossible to happen there.

Is it your Constitution or other founding document or your principles of rule of law?

Is it because your people have a history of defending liberty and justice?

Is it because your country is the exception to the rule? It can't happen here?

Because we had that stuff in the US. And it happened here.

Do you want to know the secret to letting it happen to you? I'll tell you. Just go on spouting off about how special you are and how dumb someone else is and how it'll never happen to you because you wouldn't let that happen there like that other stupid country with those stupid, arrogant people did.

Because, ya. We had all that, too.

But don't worry. Maybe everything will be fine. I didn't mean to alarm you.

Tresspassing is legal

[hottoh]

What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Example. A neighbor sneaks in to Judge Alito's unlocked home. Judge cannot prosecute the neighbor's trespass, because Judge Alito cannot prove the neighbor had trespassed because it is legal to trespass secretly. Even though the neighbor has records to each and every trespassing, the records seem to be off limits as well.

That is effed up.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

Ever wonder why every speech case is from pornographers and such? The government picks edge cases to get a general ruling against a right. Like pornographers, terrorists make convenient targets. When they came for the pornographers, I didn't speak up, for I didn't want my wife to know. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak up for I wasn't a murdering nutcase. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up.

The names are changing, but the plan hasn't. and it isn't party related. The Dems are Reps both follow the plan together. Nothing can stop it now, the people seem happy with the plan and the results.

Re:It's not big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

Absurd.

The insignificant fleas that ride on the back of the state are just that: tiny. To understand reality, one must understand its rules, the relevant one to this discussion being the axiom of identity. Blaming those with no armies, no courts, no bombs, no police, no jails, and no permission from the ruled is a sort of blindness that can only be the result of a lifetime of propaganda and cultural pressure. This is big brother in its full glory. Not in plain view and direct, but so infused with society that there are actually people who would condemn benefactors of this violent intrusion rather than the violent actor.

To even mention things like the 'Koch brothers' in the face of such an enormous monstrosity like the state is an admission of psychological defense. It would be like blaming the shop keeper who pays off the local mafia to keep himself safe, or blaming the more sinister man who bribes them to kill a competitor. These actions are an effect of the violence that infests such a community, not the cause. To understand the world, one must call things by their proper name; the actor responsible for waving guns around, terrorizing innocent people is the one responsible for the evil. The state, like the mafia, is the institution that contains this group of actors.

another step towards tyrany

[evanism]

the USA is utterly doomed.

It is in its death spiral.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

When both sides who pretend publicly to hate each other agree on 99% of everything, what am I suppose do think? Just focus on abortion and gay marriage like they want me to? Oh yes, there are a handful of "moral" issues they have all sorts of press about to focus on the differences, rather than the similarities, but they are more similar than dissimilar. In most other countries, they'd be so close together that they'd be the coalition government. From an outside perspective, where you don't hear political talk radio or which Republican anti-gay activist slept with his male page today, you end up seeing them as essentially the same.

Re:another step towards tyrany

[Zontar The Mindless]

Dude.

America has no "Left".

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rakarra]

The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?

Not a libertarian, but I can answer that easily enough -- your situation is anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence. It's one of the very few things a libertarian thinks government is necessary for.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Classless societies, treating everyone equally, etc. is not what Locke wrote about. Created equal, yes. But once you're past creation, and especially once you've created a system of money, all bets are off. Anyone who acquires money is free to acquire as much money as they want, and do damn near whatever they want with it. Classes very much emerge in a system like this -- the people with lots of money, and the people without. It's not the sort of class system that Britain had (and still retains elements of), or the caste system of India, but it's a class system nonetheless -- the sort of class system that we have under capitalism (which only emerged some time after Locke's death).

Oh, yeah, and you can have slaves, as long as you decided to be merciful and not kill them (such as prisoners of war). If you were in a position to 'legitimately' kill someone and decide not to, then by all means they're your slave according to Locke. Roughly "Good night, I'll probably kill you in the morning.".

And modern Libertarians? They're really just anarchists who still believe in money.