Slashdot Mirror
Court Orders Dismissal of US Wiretapping Lawsuit
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."
Enjoy your dictatorship, America. Bush and his cronies can do no wrong, and can block and dismiss any attempt to see JUST HOW FAR they have gone. At least until after the next election. If there IS an election. You guys still have them, right?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The only way to prove you were affected is to be affected. The fact you were affected you can't prove even when you are affected because the fact that you were is to remain a state secret.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. (Lt.) Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"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
So, want to start taking bets to see if this actually makes onto the news tonight...?
Before or after the American Idol/You Think You Can Dance/Duh/Paris Hilton report?
I'd think they should be able to appeal to the Supreme Court though. How can you prove you have standing if it illegal for you to know whether you have standing or not. Even the current Court would find that one difficult I'd think.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Our government was set up on a basis of checks and balances to keep things on the straight and narrow. In a Democracy, however, the governmental checks and balances are tier 2 of the mechanism to keep things in line. The voting populace is tier 1. Without the ability to understand what the government is doing (the information is classified) we are unable to direct the government through elections.
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!
So the court has ruled that as long as the government keeps it's mouth shut about who it was spying on, no one can ever sue the government over un-constitutional spying. Great. No plaintiffs, no lawsuit, no broken laws.
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.
AccountKiller
This is a case where the only way the NSA would be found guilty is if they basically admitted to it-- but they don't have to because they can label their activities *state-secrets*. You can't win this one.
since the EFF was ineffective, support the NRA.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Because what it perfectly legal now, may not be so in the near future.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Is there a lawyer in the house that can explain why if I pay for something that doesn't give me the standing to complain about it?
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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Wow, so the appeals court upholds the violation of the fourth amendment, and at the same time pisses all over the first (petition for redress.) Truly, this is an awe-inspiring day. Surely, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, almost exactly 231 years ago would sing from the rooftops in joy at what became of the nation that they pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to create.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
If that were true then the 400+ people held at Gitmo over these many years would have resulted in more that a small handful of trials and more than a sprinkling of convictions.
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.
Which is all true. So they should have chosen a better angle under which to file a complaint. Either find someone affected, or argue convincingly that such state secrets are unconstitutional. Should be a breeze given the current make up of the supreme court.
Wait. You think that the current conservatively-biased court would vote against the Republican administration and its theories about state secrets and executive privilege?
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.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Since you don't communicate with *known* terrorists, then you will never be tapped. The NSA has been tapping international communications for ages. The question has been can they pass this information on to domestic law enforcement? After 9/11 many decided that the "wall" between the NSA and domestic law enforcement was stupid and needed to be lowered.
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.
Ah, the classic "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't have to worry about it" argument.
a -surveillance-why-sho_b_16763.html
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
Well, I guess I am about to be modded into oblivion by the anti-Bush crowd, but I don't see anything wrong with this ruling.
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.
I don't reply to ACs
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.
Congress won't enforce the law. The Executive branch won't police itself. The Judicial branch rules citizens can't sue because the details are classified by the Executive branch. It's a perfect, closed system. No one in the government is accountable to us anymore.
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?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
they were captured on the battlefield
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."
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.
The president should be using warrants. Thats the whole point. Without warrants, there is no solid record of who or why someone had their phone tapped. There should be some level of oversight. Failure to include a warrant should be illegal, that's why there is the Foreign Intelligence Service court. All the president has to do is file who and why he wants to wiretap someone with them, they sign the okay, the paper document gets filed. Nothing to it, but the Pres wants to do everything his way, with no oversight. Why? What possible reason could he have to not want to record which terrorist loving citizens are being tapped?
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.
Just because you can, does not mean you should.
1. This 1-1-1 decision (pdf) is just on technical grounds -- plaintiffs' lack of standing.
2. In view of the concurring and dissenting opinions, and the importance of the subject matter, it is likely to receive Supreme Court review.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful