Supreme Court Disallows FISA Challenges

New submitter ThatsNotPudding writes "The U.S. Supreme court has rejected pleas to allow any challenges to the FISA wiretapping law unless someone can prove they've been harmed by it. 'The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was originally designed to allow spying on the communications of foreign powers. But after the September 11 attacks, FISA courts were authorized to target a wide array of international communications, including communications between Americans and foreigners. ... In this case, the plaintiffs' groups said their communications were likely being scooped up by the government's expanded spying powers in violation of their constitutional rights. Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case. In an opinion (PDF) by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that these groups don't have the right to sue at all, because they can't prove they were being spied on.'" Further coverage at SCOTUSblog.

Comments

FOIA, anyone?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Voting is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner in case you ain't figured that out yet. the ONLY ones you will be allowed to vote for, be it in a primary or general election, are the pre-bought. hell you might as well have only one checkbox that says "support the system" because that is ALL voting does. Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism) watch this video for a better explanation of why voting is just a waste of time.

Oh and you might want to look up "Jon Stweart Ron Paul" to see how badly the primaries are rigged, he got footage that doesn't even try to hide how badly its rigged. It even shows that at places where Paul might have had a snowball's chance in hell the MSM treated him as "he who shall not be named" with talking heads practically tap dancing around their sentences so they would NOT ever speak his name, with it going so far as one naming the first, second, and FOURTH place finishers without even saying the words third place much less the fact that Paul took it. Its so bad that at the end of the video one of the reporters actually calls the anchor out on it, saying "Here we are talking about Palin and Christie, who aren't even running, and not speaking anything about Paul who is looking good in the polls here" and the anchor looks right at the camera, gets a douchebag smirk and says "If you get footage of Palin or Christie send it in, you can keep the Paul stuff". Hell he might as well have said "fuck the peasants, thinking they get a choice" while he was at it, because that douchebag smirk said it all.

So all you can do is grab as much as you possibly can and be ready for the collapse which is inevitable now. Over 430% of our GDP is now in the stock market, including the retirement funds of a good portion of your fellow citizens, when the 29 bubble burst it was less than 125% GDP and that took nearly 40 years to climb out of, what do you think will happen when a bubble 3 times as large blows? there is nothing you can do to change it, nothing you can do to stop it, you can wave your little banner in the free speech zone all you want, the die is cast and the collapse simply can't be stopped. We shall see the system get more and more fascist as the collapse nears as they try to "maintain order" but it won't do any good, when the money is worthless and it takes a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy an egg nobody is gonna listen to big bro anymore, the whole thing will come tumbling down. But things will get a LOT worse before that happens, so be ready for it but don't think that walking into a booth with a piece of paper is gonna do shit, that paper isn't worth wiping your behind with anymore.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[anagama]

One more point, not directed at you -- everything you said was right -- but at the jury nullification [fantasy] crowd.

This case never got to the trial phase. The case the SC decided was on a pre-trial procedural issue, i.e., do the parties who brought the suit have standing such that they are harmed parties who have the right to sue the government. The SC decided they do not have standing because they don't conclusively know they were spied upon, and that as a result: there will NOT be a trial. If there is no trial, there is no jury, and thus no chance for jury nullification.

At this point, the only way these abuses will ever be addressed, is if we get a whistleblower. Then harmed individuals would have standing at least, but before those conclusively harmed parties get to a jury, there's the State Secrets Doctrine (rooted in Air Force coverup of negligence) to get through, and the Federal Courts fall all over themselves trying to suck the DOJ's dick on that issue. Assuming the extraordinarily unlikely event that one is a conclusively harmed party, finds out about it, AND the State Secrets Doctrine isn't abused to trump your right to trial -- after that, maybe you'd get to present a case to a jury. More probable however, is that the Feds would just retroactively immunize whoever, like they did with AT&T.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[pyro_peter_911]

Just a couple of weeks ago during my round as a potential juror the judge plainly stated that he would tell the jury what the relevant law is and how it should be applied. The jury was only to determine the facts of the case and if those facts ran afoul of the relevant law as described by the judge. He asked if any of us had any questions about that.

I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.

Short answer: No.

(and this is where this becomes a rant...) So, this is the point where I get punted. The Fucking Crack Whore sitting next to me in the jury box made it deeper into the jury selection process than I. I was one of the few people in the room who appeared even remotely interested in the proceedings. Now I understand why so many fucking cases get plea bargained. I wouldn't want to put my fate in the hands a few semi-literate rednecks and a half dozen WWII vets. The first round of juror culling eliminated just about everyone that I would have wanted on a jury for me.

So, what am I supposed to do? Not answer questions like that even when asked?

Peter

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[MaskedSlacker]

I asked if a not guilty verdict could be reached on the basis that the relevant law was immoral, unconstitutional, or would otherwise result in an unjust verdict.

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: If they said no, they lied to you (which, incidentally IS legal for them to do). There are no requirements placed on the jury that govern the validity of a verdict. The jurors can rule not guilty because the sky is blue, if they are so inclined. The jury can use any basis they want to reach a verdict. They cannot be subject to penalty, and a not guilty verdict pretty much cannot be overturned (depending on how the jursidiction in question defines double jeopardy).

Of course, if you point out the real state of the actual law you get punted yes. There's some logic to it besides pure state fascism (cops, relatives of cops, people associated w/ the legal profession etc. all get booted pretty much right off too), but it is a fucked up system.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[0111 1110]

You do realize that the founders of this country were 100% Libertarians themselves and that the All Men are Created Equal thing was one of their Libertarian slogans, right? Based to a great degree on the philosophy of John Locke. If you care about rights, human rights, individual rights, natural rights, whatever you want to call it then you are speaking the language of Libertarians. That's what Libertarians are all about: positing that all humans have certain inalienable rights that a government can neither give nor take away. That just exist as a natural consequence of being human.

The whole point of Libertarianism is that people should not be treated as if one is superior to the other. Creating a level playing field without aristocrats was the whole point. That's what human rights are all about. The reason why humans are considered to have rights, equal rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was because some people realized that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do, to force them to act against their will. That no man has the right to make another man his slave no matter how righteous he may think his goals are. Whether the noble goal is to "kill all the jews, gypsies and undesirables and create a pure race" or "soak the rich" or "Only corporations are full citizens."

That all humans must be treated as equals is the whole point of Libertarianism. Not to make everyone equal, but to not favor one man over another. Not ever. If you are under the illusion that Libertarians are close allies with Republicans, either of the new 'compromise is everything' variety or the old fashioned Tea Party ones you couldn't be more wrong. If anything I would say we are more like the old style Democrats, the ones who founded the ACLU in the first place.

When it comes to class warfare we just don't care. It's irrelevant to our way of thinking. A classless society is every bit as much an ideal for Libertarians as it is for Communists or Socialists and Democrats and Republicans don't really even have goals like that. Talking about philosophy at all isn't really speaking their langauge. Pragmatism is the only language they speak.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Rakarra]

The thing that no libertarian has been able to answer for me convinced me it would be nothing but some sort of neo-feudalism which is thus: If I have money, and no law to stop me, WTF is gonna keep me from just hiring my own goon squad and helping myself to your land, your women, or any other damned thing I want?

Not a libertarian, but I can answer that easily enough -- your situation is anarchy, not libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a strong police force and legal system to enforce private property rights and punish violence. It's one of the very few things a libertarian thinks government is necessary for.

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Penn Jillette made the same point to me when we were going back and forth on Twitter (always a productive medium). But it's a clumsy paradigm -- there are lots of ways to oppress and subjugate people that a police force and a legal system can't protect against. Protecting my body against foreign invaders or a guy with a knife isn't much good if I'm dying from pollution in the water or being thrown out of my house by a bank that doesn't actually own my property. And "private property rights"? Do we redistribute all wealth equally before we begin the libertarian experiment? Or do we turn to the billionaire standing next to the homeless mother and say to them both, "Congratulations, this is now a libertarian country. You're free to do whatever you want with your property, with no government to get in your way. Have fun!"?

Re:FOIA, anyone?

[fustakrakich]

So, as the saying goes, a libertarian is merely an anarchist who wants the police/army to protect them from their slaves?

The case was badly constructed

[Karmashock]

Rather then trying to sue the government they should have raised a constitutional objection to the law itself citing that it violated our right to due process as regards searches and seizure.

Had they done that, the courts likely would have sided with them.

It's important to remember that the courts are VERY concerned with protocol. Everything has to be worded and argued in a specific way or it will be dismissed like a syntax error into a compiler. Wrong wording or angle and they'll just say "wrong next case".

Make it a forth amendment challenge however and you've got a different story.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[amRadioHed]

You can't just sue over the constitutionality of a law, you still need to have standing which based on the result of this case the majority believes they lack.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[amorsen]

Oh, if only they had read your comment before sending their lawyers to the Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that they picked lawyers who didn't know anything about proper protocol. Victory would have been assured if they had picked a couple of Slashdotters at random instead.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

Problem is, the FISA courts are supposed to be all about national security. No way they'd come out and tell you that you're under investigation until you get blackbagged off to sunny Camp X-Ray. That'd defeat the purpose of the investigation, and whoever leaked that info would be violating several federal laws.

Big Brother has a long memory. And if you come to its attention, they might not find anything on you now, but that doesn't mean they won't find something to qualify you for a never ending vacation at Gitmo sometime in the future. Recently, the government came out with the revelation that the largest threat to national security is (wait for it!!!)...

Veterans.

Think about it a moment. Who else has the training and experience in toppling a government by force of arms? Who else, especially the older veterans, would tend to view the current government situation with alarm?

Re:The case was badly constructed

[jamstar7]

But to prove your rights were violated by a FISA investigation is impossible under the grounds of national security. Catch 22 writ large enough for anyone to see.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Repubmocrat Tyranny

"Today's decision, a 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the nation's highest court, definitively ends their case."

"In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito ... The majority opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts ... [Breyer] is joined in a dissent by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan."

False equivalence is false.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[flaming error]

Toppling a nominally civilized government by force of arms is stupid. Who should we shoot? Our local congressman? Our neighborhood cop?

A smarter way is for us to unite in disobedience to clearly unconsitutional laws, and drum up media sympathy.

The last time we threw out a government (our independence from Britain), was a bloody drawn-out affair in which our people were fighting Britain and each other, neither the loyalists nor insurrectionists had an objectively clear moral high ground, and were it not for some fortuitous flukes of happenstance, England's victory was assured.

India's independence was a bloody drawn-out affair in which one side was the clear aggressor, the people didn't kill each other, and England's ouster was inevitable - just a matter of time.

Gandhi's way is foolproof against any government that wants to be seen as civilized. The way of the gun is a crapshoot, where we kill our brothers while the government runs the casino.

Re:The case was badly constructed

[hairyfeet]

As much as I think Ayn Rand was a total hypocrite and a whackjob this is the ONE thing she got right, there are so many laws on the books now that frankly we are ALL criminals and at any time, for any slight, they can throw you in prison for as many years as they like simply because the laws are such a minefield now that just by breathing you are probably violating a dozen statutes.

I mean for the love of God we have no less than 2 people in prison even as we speak for thoughtcrimes folks, how much more proof do you need that Orwell got the time a little off but otherwise was right on the money? You have the guy who wrote the "pro pedo" book, he wasn't charged with actually DOING anything, just putting his thoughts on the subject in book form, and the second was a guy that was told by his therapist to write his fantasies about sleeping with underage girls down so they could discuss them in therapy. Again he didn't actually DO anything, he just put his thoughts on paper.

This is why I have always tried to support the ACLU and speak up, just as my grandfather taught me when he spoke up in support of the right of the Illinois Nazis to march even though Nazis dropped a wall on him and his squad at the end of WWII and he spent 2 years in a full body cast, its because you HAVE to support those with the unpopular cases because THOSE are how they get these bad laws rammed down our throats. Pedos, terrorists, racists, they use these as bogeymen precisely because they know how few will speak up for fear of looking like they support their views. Here is a perfect example, a law they ran through after the tragedy of 9/11 under the guise of "We must make sure it never happens again!" but government NEVER gets smaller or weaker, only bigger and more powerful, so now we are seeing these laws used as a blank check to spy on anybody that looks at them funny.

But its NOT the weapons training that makes the fascists fear the vet, its the fact that those who have suffered for their freedoms are the ones who covet it most dearly. As I said if anybody had a reason to hate Nazis it was my grandfather, the stories of what he went through, of having the PAK 88 used upon them, of seeing bodies blown to bits, yet he was the first to step up and tell all those around him "They deserve the right to speak, no matter what we feel about their speech they have the right to be heard" and THAT is what scares the fascist, the fact that the vets won't kowtow and will stand up and point out their lies.

Recap

[MetalliQaZ]

Gov: We spy on Americans in secret.
Me: Stop spying on me
Gov: You can't prove that we did
Me: *middle finger*

Does that about cover it?

Re:Recap

[amorsen]

I am afraid you got the last line wrong.

Gov: We spy on Americans in secret.
Me: Stop spying on me
Gov: You can't prove that we did
Gov: *middle finger*

Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

If you must be harmed by it to complain, then the only test cases would come from terrorists, thus the "people" would either have to root for draconian government or terrorists. That will let the judges officially allow it against those with standing to sue, not enough will be annoyed to end the tyranny of the government. Note, it allows for people to sue, they just must have proof they were harmed, and only someone arrested after government spying will have a case. Any other attempts (FOIA and such) will be met with "national security" defense, which is still iron clad.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

Ever wonder why every speech case is from pornographers and such? The government picks edge cases to get a general ruling against a right. Like pornographers, terrorists make convenient targets. When they came for the pornographers, I didn't speak up, for I didn't want my wife to know. When they came for the terrorists, I didn't speak up for I wasn't a murdering nutcase. When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up.

The names are changing, but the plan hasn't. and it isn't party related. The Dems are Reps both follow the plan together. Nothing can stop it now, the people seem happy with the plan and the results.

Re:Sets up the first test case nicely

[AK Marc]

When both sides who pretend publicly to hate each other agree on 99% of everything, what am I suppose do think? Just focus on abortion and gay marriage like they want me to? Oh yes, there are a handful of "moral" issues they have all sorts of press about to focus on the differences, rather than the similarities, but they are more similar than dissimilar. In most other countries, they'd be so close together that they'd be the coalition government. From an outside perspective, where you don't hear political talk radio or which Republican anti-gay activist slept with his male page today, you end up seeing them as essentially the same.

Dissenters were all progressives

[hugg]

Hopefully the President will still get the chance to appoint more progressives to the Supreme Court to protect us from his policies.

Re:any libertarians left on the GOP ship?

[cusco]

Are you of the opinion that the Democratic party is not conservative? Obama is far to the right of even Richard Nixon, there aren't more than a handful of congresscritters who would qualify as 'liberal'.

Re:When the chips are down...

[Anonymous Coward]

In america is it. And perhaps sweden now.

Not so for the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD. Note america is slipping from civilized to simply a bunch of backwaters with hi tech.

Stop. Think.

Wait a little longer.

OK. Explain in small words for me what's so special about where you live vs. the US that makes it impossible to happen there.

Is it your Constitution or other founding document or your principles of rule of law?

Is it because your people have a history of defending liberty and justice?

Is it because your country is the exception to the rule? It can't happen here?

Because we had that stuff in the US. And it happened here.

Do you want to know the secret to letting it happen to you? I'll tell you. Just go on spouting off about how special you are and how dumb someone else is and how it'll never happen to you because you wouldn't let that happen there like that other stupid country with those stupid, arrogant people did.

Because, ya. We had all that, too.

But don't worry. Maybe everything will be fine. I didn't mean to alarm you.

Tresspassing is legal

[hottoh]

What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.

Example. A neighbor sneaks in to Judge Alito's unlocked home. Judge cannot prosecute the neighbor's trespass, because Judge Alito cannot prove the neighbor had trespassed because it is legal to trespass secretly. Even though the neighbor has records to each and every trespassing, the records seem to be off limits as well.

That is effed up.

Re:another step towards tyrany

[Zontar The Mindless]

Dude.

America has no "Left".