Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Won't Hear ACLU Wiretap Case
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The US Supreme Court refused without comment the ACLU's appeal of a lower court ruling that prevented them from suing over the government's warrantless TSP program. The problem was a Catch-22: they lack legal 'standing' to sue over it because they can't prove that they were suspected terrorists, but neither can they find out who was actually suspected, because this is a matter of national security." Update: 02/20 00:17 GMT by KD : Removed an incorrect statement after a reader pointed out that, with the expiration of the Protect America Act this weekend, foreign surveillance will revert to oversight by the FISA court.
If you can sue us, we'll let you know, unless we consider that to be a secret.
Some of these guys are hand-picked by the very same administration, did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them? Don't expect any real change unless there are fundamental changes to the whole administrative.
What's kind of depressing is how much the general public just doesn't care about this at all.
I'll admit up front: I have things to hide. Dirty little secrets that are none of your business, and that the government doesn't need to know. Things that are embarrassing, things that could be used to damage my reputation, nothing particularly dangerous, but stuff that should be between me, myself, and I, and no one else.
I think most people are like that, even the ones who proclaim so loudly that they have nothing to hide. I mean, if you have something to hide, you're a terrorist, right? The government could never use your dirty little secrets in any shape, form, or fashion, right? Because the government never loses our personal information, never has "leaks" that could reveal compromising information, would never do anything seedy for purely political purposes?
All of those who have "nothing to hide" are really starting to piss off those of us who do.
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
Let me get this straight - we will have to rely on a suspected terrorist to sue for this to go forward?
Something about how no charges shall issue except on a warrant or something like that?
Wasn't one of the bits in the declaration of independence criticizing King George III about secret trials?
Bit sad, really, that it's coming to this.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
And an independent media (e.g. James Risen at the New York Times) to publish some lists of people who have been illegally wire-tapped. Or maybe some technician who works for a major communications network can upload the list of names/numbers they've been tasked to set up monitors on.
The Slashdot posters make.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It is interesting to see what the Supreme Court has ruled upon or refused to advise upon from the past... whether the subject was slavery or other free rights... they constantly get it wrong. Example:
."
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . .
props to PBS
This is the same Catch-22...
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
Catch-22: The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption.
Catch-23: Oil and weapons investors Cheney and Bush want the price of oil and weapons to rise, so Iraqis must die.
Cheney and Bush have killed more Americans than the terrorists, and far more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.
As demonstrated by their refusal to use it? The Supreme Court is probably the most easily abused of the three branches, it's true, but you've got to remember that there are still checks and balances. The president can refuse to execute a ruling (technically it's illegal, but it's been done), Congress can rewrite the law in a way that gets around the ruling, and they can even start the process of amending the constitution.
Looking from a purely constitutional perspective, the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least imho. Congress routinely enacts laws that are only constitutional if justified by the "general welfare" clause of the preamble, not any part of the actual constitution. The president can send troops anywhere to fight that he wants without a declaration of war, and this president has outright ignored several parts of the constitution.
So, while I am a strong believer that the supreme court has had its share of overreaching rulings that weren't strictly constitutional, I think that pales in comparison to the abuses that the other branches have managed to pull off.
Recommended reading: Kafka's Before The Law Between this and secret laws for security checkpoints at airports, Kafka's absurd vignette is looking looking unsettlingly normal.
When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions. In such a case, if (or, should I say, when) the government's wiretapping is found to be illegal, the evidence would be suppressed, and if the government's case was otherwise weak, the charges could be dismissed. If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue.
Of course, it's still 95% onerous, because there are still people reviewing the wiretap data (recordings, records, etc.) and those people are privy to otherwise private conversations.
Well?
Well what?
You're listening to my phone calls and it's not a secret.
I told you, you're not allowed to sue me unless you know my secret.
But I do!
No you don't.
I DO!
No you don't.
Look, I don't want you spying on me.
Well, that's a secret.
Aha. If it's a secret, I must be a terrorist, so it's not a secret anymore! I got you!
No you haven't.
Yes I have. If it's an official government secret that you're spying on me, I must be a terrorist.
Not necessarily. I could be listening to your phone calls in my spare time.
The fact that the government is let off the hook because the victims can't legally show harm - that is, they are prevented from actually knowing if their privacy is invaded - is quite disturbing. A child pornographer could use the same argument; that because his children (err, victims...) aren't old enough to understand the harm done to them, that they have no grounds for objecting to their pictures being taken.
I think, though, that there's a double standard when it comes to government. Unlike "terrorists" - which are presumed guilty except when there exists incontrovertible exculpatory evidece - the government is presumed innocent, and its evidence and intentions beyond reproach, except when the accused manage, by some legal loophole, to show otherwise.
Justice at the federal level has completely changed:
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Indeed, all patriotic Americans need to ask themselves this question of the government, particularly the executive branch. If indeed, they aren't doing anything wrong, why must they keep everything so secret - even from Congress and the Courts? Isn't it more likely that they are using the secrecy to cover up activities that most Americans would consider wrong?
Most worrisome is the fact that we have gone from an open society which feared nothing ("The only thing we have to fear is fear itself...") to a society where everyone is suspect and fear of what one might do is sufficient to deny anyone and everyone their rights under the law. The justice system has been transformed from an open and transparent process which followed the principles of fairness to a capricious and arbitrary exercise of power.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
We need a Congressional hearing plain and simple. The US Congress doesn't have to worry about standing, it's their job to be concerned about the business of the gov't. Too bad they're so lazy.
> the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least
Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).
Technically speaking... the scope of power SCOTUS has is in of itself unconstitutional... problem is that as things have evolved... in order to change things back... we'd either need a SCOTUS ruling (of them giving up their power) or a constitutional amendment... which could still in theory be ignored by them (see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
What, you want the U.S. Supreme Court to be forced into taking cases that don't meet legal criteria for bringing a lawsuit? That doesn't make sense. Any court in the U.S. has that power, by the way, not just the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer, then, that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case and start issues subpoenas for classified information on behalf of the ACLU? That makes even less sense, as then the SC would be exercising far too much power.
If there is any digging to be done, the ACLU is not the one to do it, nor is the Supreme Court. That power is granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution. Congress must investigate, hold hearings, and can even produce a report detailing "injured" parties. It is at this point that those injured parties could sue, or join a class action suit brought by the ACLU.
By refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court is correctly interpreting the law and the Constitution with regard to what powers it holds. In other words, the refusal was just right.
...is over in the US. One basic principle of it is that the law applies to everyone equally, that nobody is "above the law". There can be exceptions and special priviledges as long as they are written into the laws. So in most countries MPs are exempt from prosecution, for good reasons, and that's ok because it's part of the process.
In the US, the rule of law has been abandoned. You are back to the rule of power: Everyone does whatever he can get away with. Your so-called president leading the way.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In Free Lunch, David Cay Johnston notes a trend in limiting access to the courts. In this way, If someone somewhere doesn't want a case to be heard, they just have to buy a little influence and can claim a legitimate victory. Note the reason the courts dismissed ACLU's earlier efforts in this line: only persons under surveillance have standing to sue, and the nature of the program is such that you're not allowed to know that you're under surveillance. That is, if you can prove that you have standing, you can be imprisoned. If you can prove that someone else has standing, you can be imprisoned.
In the book, Johnston details one case of a couple who owned an auto repair business in a spot where (I think) Jeep wanted green space for its factory complex. You can guess whose complaint was thrown out. These days it seems like there are only checks and balances when they're backed up by personal relationships or bullying. Note the number of subpoenas the white house has simply ignored.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
This was the quote at the bottom of the page as I read this article:
"paranoia, n.: A healthy understanding of the way the universe works."
--AC
...did you expect these shrewd men and women to bite the very hand that feeds them?
The whole point of the lifetime appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is that they wouldn't have to be beholden to whichever powers appointed them. Scalia, Alito, and Thomas could have a change of heart and become flag-burning, dope-smoking, abortion-promoting hippies, and there's really nothing that could be done to punish them. I think they can be impeached by Congress, but that isn't really common.
No, this is 100% Fed-Certified Grade-A bullshit. Why? Because this is a green light for the crooks in power to continue doing this kind of thing. And what kind of trial do you think you will get with the evidence collected?
Guess what, you won't be tried. Ever. You will be held so that they can illegally solicit more evidence from you through nefarius means such extradition out-of-country, or just a secret location somewhere in Washington. Did I mention that the illegal solicitation of further evidence means you will be chained up in a dungeon for 10-15 years with no legal recourse whatsoever being exposed to God-knows-what kinds of "interrogation techniques?"
Let's get those skeletons out of the closet. I'll start. I masturbate. I have soiled myself on occasion. And I frequently inhaled in the presence of pot. I drank before I was 21, and I often exceed the speed limit. I regularly roll through a stop sign near my house. And I am greedy when it comes to sweets. Now they've got nothing on me. See how good it makes you..... Wait a minute, someone's at the door, brb.
Supreme Court writes: "We don't believe in imaginary problems."
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
Oh, wait...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Oh wait, it's not? Darn.
Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).
How you figure? The Constitution itself states that the Judicial branch shall have jurisdiction over all cases arising under the Law of the U.S. and the Constitution. Marbury v Madison was just a case where a Law passed by Congress conflicted with the Constitution -- and again, it is clear from the Constitution that in such a case, the Constitution wins. That case may have formalized the notion of "Judicial Review", but the principle itself is quite Constitutional.
Oh and by the way, the statute which the Court ruled in Marbury v Madison to be Unconstitutional was one which increased the Court's power. It's kind of hard to call this a power grab when the executed their Constitutional power to judge a case under the law in order to reject an Unconstitutional increase in power.
see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment
True enough, everyone pretty much ignores the 9th and 10th. But it's worth pointing out that they ignore this ammendment by not finding a law passed by Congress to be in conflict with the 10th, and thus Unconstitutional. How exactly would they do this if not via Judicial Review as established via Marbury v Madison?
In other words this is a case of the Judicial Branch abusing their powers by under-utilizing them, resulting in an increase in power of the other two branches.
The enemies of Democracy are
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Perhaps it is right according to the letter of the law, but it's still troubling. As it stands, the government can seemingly declare any potentially unconstitutional act as "top secret" and they get no oversight. We can't even get the courts to take a look at it, because we don't know the details of the act. It's really quite disturbing.
The only problem with the submission?
TSP no longer exists, and hasn't since 17 January 2007.
ALL surveillance was happening under the guise of the Protect America Act, which was designed exclusively to allow foreign intelligence collection without a warrant when the traffic travelled through the United States, whether incidentally or by design. Foreign intelligence collection is always allowed without court oversight; the changes explicitly allowed such collection on US soil as long as the target was reasonably believed to be a non-US person physically outside of the United States, regardless of the other end of the conversation. The change was absolutely done to make such surveillance easy.
Now the Protect America Act has expired with its automatic sunset, and ALL surveillance must again happen only via FISA.
There is no TSP or any warrantless surveillance program. What a horrible summary.
Of course, I'm sure a bunch of people will respond, "Oh, sure, there is no warrantless surveillance...THAT WE KNOW OF." Oh, how convenient: arguing about something that we can't prove one way or another? Please, let's keep the discussion in the realm of known facts, namely, that TSP no longer exists. The article even says as much. Did the submitter not even RTFA?
Note, of course, that the "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit unrestrained growth of government services for whatever vaguely-collective reason Congresspeople might concoct in the service's defense. The "general welfare" clause was not intended to permit galloping socialism.
At least, that's true according to James Madison in Federalist 41. Alexander Hamilton, OTOH, took the broader view that Congress may spend as it sees fit, so long as it doesn't favor a particular party.
Of course, even according to Hamilton's relatively-leftist, pro-government position, expenses to pay for, say, private military contractors, farm subsidies (which mostly go to the largest 20% of farms, often owned by e.g. Tyson Foods), welfare checks for the poor, (benefiting a subset of the population is not necessarily a benefit to the whole population. This doesn't make welfare a bad idea (though its implementations thus-far have ranged from moderately-useful at best (e.g. the EITC), and idiotic at worst) - merely, it conflicts with the way the U.S. Constitution both stands and as was intended by its authors), etc. would, I suspect, be invalid reasons for government spending.
Luckily for American Congresspeople, the majority of the American public has neither read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, nor has been asked to think hard about those documents -- we can thank the public education that the Dept. of Education tries to manage -- and the 20% or so who might have given them more than a passing thought tend neither to abide by those documents nor care about their intent. Combined with incentives to ignore the meaning of the highest law of the land, Congresspeople thus trample the documents they are supposed to uphold...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Federal judges are appointed for life. A president cannot remove them after appointment; only Congress may do so through impeachment proceedings, and a rash of such proceedings would look like a raw power grab of the judiciary by the Democrats and hurt them in the next elections.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The Terrorist Surveillance Program has not existed for over a year, since 17 January 2007. All foreign intelligence collection in the meantime has occurred under the guise of FISA and the temporary and recently-sunset FISA modifications provided by the Protect America Act. With the expiry of the Protect America Act, ALL foreign SIGINT collection reverts to the 30-year old FISA rules.
If someone could point out the warrantless surveillance program that is known to exist today, I'd appreciate it. And yes, the burden of proof is on you, as simply asserting that one must exist doesn't quite cut it. Remember how TSP came to light: leaks to the New York Times. The government simply cannot keep such controversial programs secret. There is no evidence of any current, ongoing "warrantless" surveillance.
The other important thing to remember is that foreign intelligence collection never requires a warrant or court oversight of any kind; the FISA modifications were designed to enable easy foreign intelligence collection via assets on US soil or traffic that may travel physically through the United States. It does not matter in the least if the other end of the conversation is a US person on US soil, as long as they are not the target of such collection.
Such collection is always legal and allowable without a warrant if the collection occurs outside of the United States and the US person is not the target of such surveillance. Special and very extensive measures are undertaken to conceal the identity of US persons in such collection.
The main difference with what became known as TSP, and refined in the Protect America Act, was the provision to enable such collection via means to which we have easy and routine access; namely, the massive amounts of communication traffic flowing through equipment under US control. Whether or not you may agree with that is a different issue entirely. The purpose was never to target US citizens without a warrant. The purpose was to collect foreign intelligence via US assets. Currently (after PAA expiration), if traffic travels through the United States, even if BOTH ends are non-US persons physically outside of the United States, the Intelligence Community is prohibited from collection without a warrant. That's the "Intel Gap" we wanted to close.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
There's a pretty simple way out of the catch, although it would be hard to do and potentially open pandora's box: have Congress pass a law which allows legal challenges to the Constitutionality of laws and actions without having to show actual damages. The only reason it's a problem now is because of the technicalities of the laws, which could easily be remedied.
On the other hand, good luck in getting Congress to do something as blatantly beneficial for the country as that...
What enemy? Some terrorists who landed a single (note, for the record, ONE) blow to the US that shook the whole country in its foundations? Are you kidding? Talk to anyone from Israel or Northern Ireland and they will point and laugh at you. That's your enemy? I'm more scared of kids with ink in their water pistols.
What way of life? Fear- and scaremongering? You want to protect that? Because that's what the US are about today. The US used to be the epitome of freedom. Of liberty. The place to be on this planet if you are a freedom loving person who wants the sky only as his limit. This changed a lot, I can tell you. The US changed from that good Uncle Sam that protects us from the dreaded communists, the good guy we support and hold in high esteem, who we would fight and die for if need be, because we know that he would do the same for us, into some old bastard that would sell us our own blood if we let him, and if we don't, he'll just come and squeeze us 'til we hand it over for free.
The only thing that is worth living is freedom. Freedom, though, requires trust into your government, and a government that does not trust its people does not deserve the trust of the people. Because the only right to exist for a government is to serve the people that carry it. If it does not do this, it is obsolete and needs to be replaced by one that does.
IIRC, that's what your founding fathers did. Maybe this needs to be repeated from time to time, so people don't get fat and lazy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. When I first figured that out in high school civics, I thought it completely unfair, but think about it...it's the Supreme Court. If you think a law is unconstitutional, you have to break the law, get arrested, then have your day(s) in court. Basically, nothing gets changed unless you are willing to take a stand.
While it kinda sucks for the activist, I guess it's one way to keep from having to hear cases from every stupid schmuck who wants to challenge a law that doesn't personally affect him/her from wasting the court's time with trivial lawsuits.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I eagerly await the outcome of Congress' investigation into this secret program.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
"So why again does Bush and Cheney want the price of oil to rise?"
See these stories, for example:
Cheney's Halliburton Options Up 3,281% Last Year
Cheney: "I cut all ties to Halliburton years ago." Congressional Research Service: "Cheney made $8,000,000 from Haliburton while in office."
Quote from one of the comments in that story: "The Congressional Research Service has concluded that holding stock options while in elective office DOES constitute a "financial interest" whether or not the holder of the options donates the proceeds to charities, and deferred compensation is also a financial interest." [My emphasis]
Also, in general Cheney and Bush have shown that they don't believe any rules apply to them. So, there may be hidden bank accounts in Dubai, for example, which is where the head office of Halliburton is located now.
By rejecting the law, the Court appointed itself ultimate arbitor of Constitutionality which is not an expressly enumerated power.
Yes, it is: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"
What do you think a judge does, if not arbitrate? This is the fundamental meaning of "judging", to interpret the meaning of the law, and when multiple laws conflict, to decide which applies and which must fold. And in the case of a law passed by Congress and the Constitution, the laws of Congress must always fold.
Or more to the point, what do you think should happen when a case comes before the Supreme Court, and a law passed by Congress is in conflict with the Constitution?
No it decreased the power of the other two branches, because they can only act with the approval of the Judicial Branch - not striking down a law is a tacit approval. To play devil's advocate - why can't the President serve as an arbitor of Constitutionality by rejecting the execution of a law?
The other two branches have always been subject to decisions made by the Courts in cases that came before it. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the other two branches are in fact above the law and cannot be brought to justice for violating the law. That may be a popular theory these days, at least for the Executive branch, but it has zero Constitutional basis.
As to your "devil's advocate" question: Because the Judicial power isn't granted to the President. The Executive branch can in fact decline to enforce a law, this is what the DoJ does all the time by choosing who to prosecute and who not to. But that decision does not in any way constitute a legal decision, because matters of law are decided by a Judge. And if a certain law requires action of the Executive branch, then in a case brought before the courts, the Judicial branch has the power to render judgement against them and a proscribe appropriate penalties.
The enemies of Democracy are
The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, as Thos. Jefferson told us.
This tree looks distinctly drought-stricken.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Marbury v. Madison established that the judicial power the Court was granted was sufficient to establish that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void". It was the first decision to defer to a "founders' intent" argument to read non-textual power into the Constitution -- that of removing invalid laws from the books.
The founders didn't write in the Constitution that illegal laws were to be voided by the judiciary, relying instead on inferior courts being bound by the Supreme Court precedent if the matter again reached their desk at a later point.
And the founders certainly didn't write that interpretation should be based on their perceived intent, rather than on the text of the Constitution they painstakingly crafted. Even in the case that they had, most certainly no intent other than unanimous intent would be an acceptable basis for further argument, considering their wildly differing opinions on many aspects of the Constitution.
Wouldn't you think they carefully considered the impact of each word when crafting the text? Why do we allow our partisan modern judiciary to second-guess them, second-guess our reading skills, and tell us what they think the Constitution 'really means'?
Well, we know why. Supreme Court justices can only be removed from office pursuant to a conviction for violating their oath of office, and yet they have convinced us that they can tell us what the very document that binds their oath of office 'really means'. And we are to respect that utterance as the highest decree in the land. Talk about job security!
Marbury started us down a long, painful road of judicial tyranny. It's not that the judiciary grabs power for itself, as you point out. They already have what they sought, because they are in the position of being the most Godlike political figures on earth.
The tyranny comes when the judiciary, over the past 150 years, has utterly failed to constrain the enumerated powers of the federal government in any meaningful way, has utterly failed to protect the natural rights of the individual to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and has even had the audacity to roll back Constitutionally enumerated rights in the name of the Drug War, in the name of the Global War On Terror, in the name of Progressivism, in the name of Public Safety, and in general whatever any federal social-engineering effort or boogeyman required. And because of its stature, its passive endorsement of the growth of government is taken as the highest endorsement.
It's long past time we held justices accountable to their oath of office, and stopped allowing them to rewrite their own terms of employment through "interpretation".
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web