So the ACLU case challenging the warrantless wiretapping got throw out

WickedLou9 · 07-10-2007, 10:09 PM

Court rejects ACLU domestic spying suit - Yahoo! News

CINCINNATI - A divided federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit Friday challenging President Bush's domestic spying program without ruling on the issue of whether warrantless wiretapping is legal.
In a 2-1 decision with Republican-appointed judges in the majority, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs had no standing to sue because they couldn't prove their communications had been monitored by the government.
The decision underscored the difficulty of challenging the anti-terrorism program in court because its secret nature prevents plaintiffs from obtaining surveillance information. The National Security Agency had refused to turn over information about the warrantless wiretapping that would have bolstered the court case.

So let me get this straight... Our government violates our constitutionally protected rights. We then try and challenge this act in court, but we can't. Why? The government decided that they won't provide us the information we need to sue. So we can't challenge it unless we can obtain top secret government documents, which is impossible. So thier decision was essentially that you can't challenge this.

Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

ballz2wallz · 07-10-2007, 10:18 PM

What did the ACLU expect? That our government would happily hand over classified materials?

WickedLou9 · 07-10-2007, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

What did the ACLU expect? That our government would happily hand over classified materials?

Same old Ballz. tsk tsk. No. I would expect the court not to place a burden that is simply an impossibility in order for the plaintiff to proceed with a case. Don't we all have an interest in ensuring that our government isn't violating our rights? Even if you personally were not spied upon, doesn't the fact that the government could, at any time, place a wire tap on your phone without a warrant, and without oversight, doesn't that make you angry? And to top it off they tell you that you can't challenge it, despite the fact that it is blatantly unconstititional by any test. The court might as well have asked them to jump over a tall building in a single bound or some other such nonsense. They threw the case out by placing an impossible burden of proof on them.
So no, I don't expect the government to simply hand over top secret documents. I do expect that the court should recognize the impossibility of doing such a thing and not make it a prerequisite to file a lawsuit.

WickedLou9 · 07-10-2007, 11:13 PM

There is still hope aparently

NSA Snooped on Lawyers Knowing Spying Was Illegal, Suit Charges

The government's surveillance of two attorneys challenging the NSA's warrantless wiretapping of Americans took place partly during a period in which the top secret program operated without the approval of the Bush administration's own Justice Department, according to a newly filed court document.
The lawsuit, known as al-Haramain vs. United States, is the only one of more than 50 challenges to the program where the plaintiffs claim to have proof that they were the targets of the warrantless spying, based on a top secret document that had been briefly provided to them in a government paperwork snafu.

ballz2wallz · 07-11-2007, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So no, I don't expect the government to simply hand over top secret documents. I do expect that the court should recognize the impossibility of doing such a thing and not make it a prerequisite to file a lawsuit.

And without proof, what would the ACLU base their accusations on?

edit: MAYBE there is proof without it, as you showed in the next post, but it's going to be a tough battle.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And without proof, what would the ACLU base their accusations on?

edit: MAYBE there is proof without it, as you showed in the next post, but it's going to be a tough battle.

There is always the open admission of the administration that they are doing it?

ballz2wallz · 07-11-2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There is always the open admission of the administration that they are doing it?

The illegality of the issue is not the act of doing it, but under what circumstances they did it and how they went about doing it. That information is classified, and won't be available.

Wiretaps are not illegal if done properly.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The illegality of the issue is not the act of doing it, but under what circumstances they did it and how they went about doing it. That information is classified, and won't be available.

Wiretaps are not illegal if done properly.

Right, they are legal if they comply with the law. The law says that they have to comply with FISA, which means getting a warrant, even if it's retroactive. The current wire taps do not comply with FISA and are clearly illegal, but the Bush admin has used the dictum that the president has expanded powers in times of war so he can do this if it's a matter of national security.

http://www.abanet.org/op/greco/memos...se302-0206.pdf

If you can find a better authority on the law than the American BAR association, let me know.

ballz2wallz · 07-11-2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Right, if they are legal if they comply with the law. The law says that they have to comply with FISA, which means getting a warrant, even if it's retroactive. The current wire taps do not comply with FISA and are clearly illegal, but the Bush admin has used the dictum that the president has expanded powers in times of war so he can do this if it's a matter of national security.

http://www.abanet.org/op/greco/memos...se302-0206.pdf

If you can find a better authority on the law than the American BAR association, let me know.

Now all you have to do is get the classified material from the government as proof

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Now all you have to do is get the classified material from the government as proof

You don't have a problem with the government violating the constitution and refusing to allow us, the people, to challenge it?

Ardentfrost · 07-11-2007, 10:13 AM

So, they're saying the warrants themselves are classified? I thought warrants were public record.

Or is it they can't bring anyone on the stand who was illegally wiretapped because then the gov't would just deny ever doing it, and without some classified documents that it did happen, they can't prove it did?

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, they're saying the warrants themselves are classified? I thought warrants were public record.

Or is it they can't bring anyone on the stand who was illegally wiretapped because then the gov't would just deny ever doing it, and without some classified documents that it did happen, they can't prove it did?

There are no warrants and that's the problem. The records of the wiretapped conversations are classified. This court is saying that in order to file a suit over the illegal wiretaps, you would need to prove that you personally have been the subject of the illegal wiretaps. The only way to do this is to obtain classified records of the recorded conversations themselves... which is impossible.

Kytro · 07-11-2007, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Now all you have to do is get the classified material from the government as proof

The courts *should* have forced them to hand it over, even if it was behind closed doors - the government shouldn't be able to hide behind national secuirty to cover up thier actions espically if those actions are of doubtfull legality.

ballz2wallz · 07-11-2007, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You don't have a problem with the government violating the constitution and refusing to allow us, the people, to challenge it?

Methinks it's not quite as bad as you think it is.

To answer this question and your previous, no, I have no problem with the way they've conducted these wiretaps. Is there room for abuse? Perhaps...do I think they abused them? No.

You have to realize that there is room for abuse in every aspect of the government. It's the fact that they don't really abuse their rights that keeps them in good favor.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Methinks it's not quite as bad as you think it is.

To answer this question and your previous, no, I have no problem with the way they've conducted these wiretaps. Is there room for abuse? Perhaps...do I think they abused them? No.

You have to realize that there is room for abuse in every aspect of the government. It's the fact that they don't really abuse their rights that keeps them in good favor.

I do agree with you in that they are probably not abusing the wiretaps. But I don't feel comfortable allowing this as it sets precedant, and as there is no oversight to the taps it would be very easy for some subsequent admin or even the present one to use them for watergate like purposes and they could never be caught.

When Nixon tried this the courts held him responsible and made him turn over the records. What if this same precedant had been in place then? What if it happens again in the future?

DosEquis · 07-11-2007, 10:56 AM

Its very convenient really. No warrant is needed for the spying. Then they classify everything related to that spying whether it gained any terrorism/beneficial information or not, or whether the spying was legitimately justified or not. Then claim executive privilege with it all to prevent any oversight what so ever.

How fucked up is that, seriously? Doesn't that seem just a little bit unconstitutional, or at least very likely that the constitution can be abused? I guess that is what we get when they vote on the PATRIOT act without even reading it. I mean it is probably unamerican to even vote against something called PATRIOT.

WickedLou9 · 07-11-2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Its very convenient really. No warrant is needed for the spying. Then they classify everything related to that spying whether it gained any terrorism/beneficial information or not, or whether the spying was legitimately justified or not. Then claim executive privilege with it all to prevent any oversight what so ever.

How fucked up is that, seriously? Doesn't that seem just a little bit unconstitutional, or at least very likely that the constitution can be abused? I guess that is what we get when they vote on the PATRIOT act without even reading it. I mean it is probably unamerican to even vote against something called PATRIOT.

The good thing is that the use of executive privilege is something that probably will be challenged, and the admin will probably lose the case, just as Nixon did. The problem is it will take years to complete such a lawsuit and Bush will be out of office before it's conclusion.

So unless they want to try and impeach Bush, which won't happen...yeah. nothing will happen.

DosEquis · 07-11-2007, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The good thing is that the use of executive privilege is something that probably will be challenged, and the admin will probably lose the case, just as Nixon did. The problem is it will take years to complete such a lawsuit and Bush will be out of office before it's conclusion. So unless they want to try and impeach Bush, which won't happen...yeah. nothing will happen.

Can they hold a president responsible for illegal actions after he leaves the office? Say, send him to prison for ordering violations of 'the law of the land' aka constitution?

I mean, China just executed a corrupt political official. I am not saying we should execute the man but I would not object to a prison sentence for him either.