Should you have to prove you were acted upon illegaly to uphold civil liberties in the United States?

Question

Aides to Bush have asserted that the president retains the authority to conduct surveillance without court permission.

Lawsuit Against Wiretaps Rejected
Case's Plaintiffs Have No Standing, Appeals Court Rules

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 7, 2007; Page A01

A federal appeals court removed a serious legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program yesterday, overruling the only judge who held that a controversial surveillance effort by the National Security Agency was unconstitutional.

Two members of a three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ordered the dismissal of a major lawsuit that challenged the wiretapping, which President Bush authorized secretly to eavesdrop on communications involving potential terrorists shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Avant News - Deadpan satire from plausible futures - Avant News
KEELER POLITICAL REPORT
Coffee House Poetry


Full List of Blogs (60 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook




The court did not rule on the spying program's legality. Instead, it declared that the American Civil Liberties Union and the others who brought the case -- including academics, lawyers and journalists -- did not have the standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they had been direct targets of the clandestine surveillance.

The decision vacates a ruling in the case made last August by a U.S. District Court judge in Detroit, who ruled that the administration's program to monitor private communications violated the Bill of Rights and a 1970s federal law.

Yesterday's action in the 6th Circuit means that the principal remaining legal challenge to the NSA surveillance program is a group of cases pending before a U.S. District Court judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California. The primary issue before that appeals court, differing somewhat from that in the Michigan case, is whether the administration may claim that a privilege covering state secrets precludes the litigation.

The eavesdropping program -- first revealed by news accounts in late 2005 and the subject of intense political wrangling since then -- is one aspect of a broad assertion of presidential power by Bush in the past six years to justify policies meant to deter terrorism here and abroad.

As first devised, the program allowed the NSA to intercept telephone calls and e-mail between the United States and overseas in which at least one party was suspected to be affiliated with al-Qaeda or related groups, without the court approval typically required for government wiretaps, administration officials said.

The program prompted vehement objections from privacy advocates and many Democrats, who contended that it was illegal because it bypassed a secret court, created under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.

In January, after Democrats gained control of Congress, the administration abruptly shifted its position. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales announced that the surveillance program would be overseen by the FISA court. But administration officials have not described critical details of the new approach, including whether a separate warrant would be required for each instance of monitoring. Aides to Bush have asserted that the president retains the authority to conduct surveillance without court permission.

With the change in the program, the administration argued before the 6th Circuit that the case is moot. The two judges who made up the majority, both Republican appointees, did not address that issue. Judge Alice M. Batchelder, who wrote the 35-page main opinion, focused her lengthy analysis on why she concluded that the plaintiffs -- many of whom have professional ties with people and organizations suspected of terrorism -- do not have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit. She said the plaintiffs could not show that they had been injured directly by the surveillance.

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, a Democratic appointee, disagreed. In a dissenting opinion, he concluded that the plaintiffs are entitled to sue because they felt a need to alter their communications after the program was disclosed. Gilman also wrote that the case is not moot because "the president maintains that he has the authority to 'opt out' of the FISA framework at any time." And he agreed with the lower-court judge that the program violates federal law.

Administration officials lauded the 6th Circuit's decision. Deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto called the lower court's finding that the program was unconstitutional "wrongly decided." Fratto said the appellate court "properly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to show their claims were entitled to review in federal court."

Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's legal director, said: "As a result of today's decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance." He said the ACLU is examining its options, including the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) called the court decision "a disappointing one that was not made on the merits of the case, yet closes the courthouse door to resolving it." The panel has been conducting an investigation into the warrantless wiretapping program. Last month, it issued subpoenas to the administration, seeking documents related to the program's "authorization and legal justification."

The two lawsuits pending before the 9th Circuit include Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. Bush, in which the plaintiffs, an Oregon branch of a Saudi charity that has been investigated for alleged terrorist ties and others, contend that they have a document proving they were a direct target of NSA surveillance. The other case, Hepting v. AT&T Corp., has been brought on behalf of a group of AT&T customers who allege that the company intercepted their phone calls and e-mails and disclosed them to the NSA.

The two cases are scheduled to be heard Aug. 15.

Staff writer Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Answer 1

Your rant was to long to read. The case in question has NOTHING to do with civil liberties. Even if the parties in question WERE subjects of the FOREIGN terrorist surveillance program, they were NOT prevented from DOING anything. As such, they suffered NO harm. That said, the communications that were being monitored were no more secure than a radio transmission. There is little more privacy in them than the contents of a billboard.

YOUR reading the blogs you cited is as much an invasion of privacy as the program in question.

The 4th amendment does NOT prohibit searches without a warrant. It only prohibits "unreasonable" searches. If your number has been connected to that of a terrorist in another country, it is NOT unreasonable to monitor your number. The 4th amendment also never states a COURT is required to issue a warrant. If, as claimed by the administration, each wiretap was individually approved by senior officials, the 'searches' were NOT conducted without warrants.

Answer 2

Democrats and Republicans are a similar. at the back of close doorways Dems and Reps are continuously in contract. To the the remainder of the international, they act like they're against one yet another. This creates the phantasm there are 2 factors of ever situation. incredibly, they're a similar situation. The needed government, run with the help of bureaucratic servants talked approximately as Democrats and Republicans, comprehend that there is a 11% approval fee of the government with the help of the U. S. voters. it incredibly is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. they elect away to coach there power. So coming up a terror ecosystem, gets the voters interest. this will additionally enable them to portray they're doing some thing for the voters which could't be refrained from the government. I't is a forced acceptance of power in all its tyranny. between the policies of conflict whilst dealing with a more desirable enemy is to divide and conquer, incredibly then to attack your enemies stress as an entire. understanding that voters and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments appropriate enemy, coming up a diversionary tactic inclusive of Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "voters + constitutional freedoms/rights" as quickly as divided, the enemy is a lot much less annoying to beat. in this occasion, as quickly as we are divided, the needed government can get rid of freedoms/rights, and enforce tyrannous regulations a lot much less annoying than if we've been united. Vote for anybody else as properly Democrats or Republicans. I't would be anybody commencing from a third celebration candidate to Mickey Mouse. do exactly no longer vote for Democrats or Republicans. They have been bought and paid for an prolonged time in the past with the help of bureaucrats. whilst Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the hobbies of transnational firms that paid for them to get elected, no longer the voters. I't is the main suitable appearing out of a "stable cop undesirable cop" state of affairs in historic previous. in basic terms bear in mind; Ron Paul and The Tea celebration are the Republican celebration. "I'f your a multi-billion greenback transnational corporation and you pay for, a million President + 435 Congressmen + a hundred Senators + 9 very maximum suitable court Justices, then you definately've comprehensive power over 350,000,000+ voters and all there components." I'f you do no longer trust any of this, you have self belief precisely what they wan't you to have self belief.

Answer 3

Isn't evidence, clear proof required to prove any case. Anything else is hearsay. And unadmissible in Court.

Answer 4

Too much text. Learn to be concise.

Answer 5

but don't tell a Bush joke = prison

Answer 6

Yep.... no harm, no foul.....