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

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

[davydagger]

I've been saying this for years, the REAL issues aren't brought up in the debates.

They are queitly mumbled under the breath of canidates, and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.

so, basically they are saying...

[wierd_w]

So essentially, they have openly stated that because the practice is useful to the government ut should not be subjected to judiciary review, despite clear concerns from privacy advocates, and seemingly legitimate legal challenges to the validity of the practice?

Since when did the judiciary stop doing its job and become rubber stampers?

Re:so, basically they are saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Denying a petition doesn't mean the SCOTUS agrees with the lower decision just that the Court won't hear the case for whatever reason. It doesn't have to say why. Here, likely, the Court thought the issue would be settled in the other case it did take and that the two cases weren't close enough to combine. Basically, decide the NSA case. If NSA can't authorize then AT&T can't comply. It's a waterfall decision so there is no reason to hear both.

Re:so, basically they are saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Spanish Inquisition was also useful in preventing the spread of heretical doctrines. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.

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

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

... and dissenters are put on "lists", and harrassed.

Or worse.

James Madison said it best.

[SirAstral]

If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
          Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
          The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
â" James Madison (father of the US Constitution)

Re:James Madison said it best.

[fustakrakich]

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

There is nothing new in this world.

SCOTUS

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."

Wonderful little police state you got there.

Re:SCOTUS

[sumdumass]

I think it's bad when either break the law. However, I consider it a lot more egregious when the government breaks the law because they are the ones who made the law and enforce it. I'm not fond of a do as I say not as I do mentality.

Re:SCOTUS

[Anonymous Coward]

And therein lies the problem. The US government derives its power from its people. Well, it's supposed to anyway. To quote the film entitled "V For Vendetta":

People should not be afraid of their governments.

Governments should be afraid of their people.

While a radical viewpoint, it is in essence what the "founding fathers" intended in writing the Constitution of the United States of America: the government exists solely for its people, but it would not exist without their consent. The government is supposed to be limited by its people. Sadly, this has not been the case. Laws are passed that grant power to the government with too few of its people ever knowing about it until it is already done. And as long as it isn't unconstitutional, the Supreme Court technically does not need to say that it should not be passed. In other words, it works to the benefit of the government, not the benefit of its people. I love this police state...erm...country (NOT).

Re:SCOTUS

[Genda]

You sir are mistaken. You're correct in your statement that the purpose of the government is to serve "The People". Your mistake is presuming you are one of "Those People". "The People" in question have the wealth and power to pay for this government which protects their interests with incredible force and velocity. You may have at one time been one of "The People", but that time has pretty much passed and the only way I can see fit now to drag this festering dung heap back to something even vaguely resembling the intent of the founding fathers, would be to;

1. Eliminate both offending parties and their minions.
2. Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank.
3. Tell the monied interests of England and its hegemony to eat feces and die.
4. Separate Corporation and State.
5. Reenact Glass-Steagall.
6. Enforce the separation of Church and State.
7. Reconstitute government checks and balances.
8. Prune the Executive Branch right back to the President's eyebrows.
9. Take the profit motive out of government, and teach our children why its important that they do a hitch as a representative.
10. Bury the military industrial complex, it is a dead end and threatens the integrity of the future of the human race.
11. Pay whistle blowers and celebrate them as heroes.

Sorry if I missed anything, I realize this is at best a pipe dream, but a person can dream. We are quick running out of time to take back what is rightfully ours. I'm certain y'all have your own to-do lists. I don't see this as a conservative/liberal problem. I see this as a problem between a vanishingly small plutocracy and the rest of humanity. These are not wise people and they are making knee-jerk decisions that start with culling the herd. I'm not volunteering for a species wide down sizing thanks. /p

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

[bjwest]

Why would it come up in the debates when both parties feel they have the right to warrantless wiretapping. Kinda hard to debate something when there's no difference in viewpoint.

Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this

[Mitreya]

If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.

How would that be a good sign?
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.

With Romney, I KNOW he won't hold to that promise even if he makes it.

Re:Obama's kind of been a dick about this

[Bigby]

First, a vote for 3rd party is not a vote for the incumbent.
Second, even along that line of thought, it is only a half vote for the one opposite who you would have voted for.
Third, it is not a wasted vote when voting against the ruining of the country.

A vote for Obama or Mitt is VERY VERY BAD for this country. Like 50 years from now people will be looking in their history books studying why people were so stupid.

Re:They're real to us.

[scot4875]

Maher is a comedian. Kind of like Jon Stewart, except with less rigorous fact-checking. Their audiences know this.

Limbaugh is also a comedian. The difference is, neither he nor his audience know it.

--Jeremy

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.