US Supreme Court Says Wiretapping Immunity Will Stand

wiredmikey writes "The U.S. Supreme Court said this week it will let stand an immunity law on wiretapping viewed by government as a useful anti-terror tool but criticized by privacy advocates. The top U.S. court declined to review a December 2011 appeals court decision that rejected a lawsuit against AT&T for helping the NSA monitor its customers' phone calls and Internet traffic. Plaintiffs argue that the law allows the executive branch to conduct 'warrantless and suspicionless domestic surveillance' without fear of review by the courts and at the sole discretion of the attorney general. The Obama administration has argued to keep the immunity law in place, saying it would imperil national security to end such cooperation between the intelligence agencies and telecom companies. The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate case later this month in which civil liberties' group are suing NSA officials for authorizing unconstitutional wiretapping."

Comments

...interesting. Hope it becomes an election issue.

[Penguinisto]

Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.

Too bad there isn't a moderator with sufficient testicular fortitude to hold their feet to that particular fire...

Obama's kind of been a dick about this

[HeckRuler]

As much as I like the guy, this would be the thing that would get me to vote against him. If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.

Re:SCOTUS

[trout007]

The supreme court is like having the referees of a game be an employee of one team. Most trials that go to the supreme court are individuals vs the government. And which side do you think the court sides with?

I think we need a rule change. Make it like a criminal trial. In order for the government to win they need to get all 9 votes. One no and the government loses.

Re:...interesting. Hope it becomes an election iss

[Githaron]

We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.